National Study of Child Protective Services Systems and Reform Efforts: Literature Review

Prepared by:
Walter R. McDonald & Associates, Inc.

Prepared for:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Children and Families, Childrens Bureau and
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

"

Introduction

In 2000, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in cooperation with the Children's Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, began a study of State and county child protective services (CPS) systems and reform efforts. The objective of the study is to inform the Federal Government about the current structure and landscape of CPS systems in the United States and the improvement efforts that are underway. A full description of the overall study appears in appendix A.

This literature review has been completed as a part of the larger study. The objective of this review is to summarize the literature that discusses CPS change objectives and initiatives. The review has focused largely on materials that have been published over the past 5 years. The recent literature provides one conceptual framework from which to understand issues facing CPS systems and reform efforts. It also helps to identify demonstrations and initiatives that are being implemented in order to address such issues. The literature does not, however, provide a comprehensive picture of the commonalities and variations in CPS agency policy and practice throughout the country. The other components of the national study will address this gap in knowledge.

The literature review is organized into two main sections: Proposals for Change and Demonstrations of New Approaches. The first section reviews those features of the CPS system that are deemed to need change. The second section describes initiatives currently underway in States and counties around the country. These descriptions demonstrate the range of change initiatives that are being designed and implemented. The bibliography for this review can be found in appendix B. A more complete list of selected readings can be found in appendix C.

Proposals for Change

Ever since the establishment more than 100 years ago of agencies that address the issue of child protection, there has been an ongoing goal of improving the service to children who have been maltreated. Private non-profit agencies as well as governmental agencies, communities, and advocates have sought to find the best means of assisting such children. Although there has been general agreement on this goal (see Kadushin, 1974), the appropriate response toward those who maltreat their children has been debated. Should parents who maltreat their children be helped with services that relieve the factors that contribute to their poor parenting; should they be ordered to accept services; or should they be prosecuted as offenders? Should all families receive the same response or should different families receive different responses? These issues seem to underlie many of the proposals for change found in the literature. Before examining these proposals, it is helpful to review the critiques being made in the literature of the "traditional" system.

The following components or activities are generally included as part of a "traditional" CPS system:

• The local CPS agency receives a report of alleged child abuse and/or neglect.
• The report is screened-in, or assigned, if it meets State policy criteria for defining a potential incidence of maltreatment.
• The screened-in report is investigated.
• The investigation determines whether the alleged maltreatment event occurred.
• The name of the perpetrator of a substantiated incident of maltreatment is placed on a central registry.
• Families may receive remediating services, and/or a child may be removed from his or her home.

This series of activities is questioned by a number of authors who suggest that it may not be appropriate for two reasons. First, over time, changing standards about what constitutes child maltreatment have made the range of family circumstances reported to CPS agencies too broad for a standardized approach. Second, it is hard for a standardized approach to accomplish two potentially contradictory objectives sanctioning perpetrators of maltreatment or providing services to families to remediate the problem.

For example, Waldfogel (1998b) argues that one result of such practices is that some families are inappropriately subjected to invasive CPS investigations. Orr (1999) supports this argument by noting that the percentage of substantiated investigations has dropped from a high of 61 percent of all investigations in 1973 to 31 percent in 1996.

Waldfogel (1998b) also argues that some families do not get access to needed services because the investigation finds that their children are at low-risk of maltreatment. Such families may be referred later with more serious problems. If the system of response does not include adequate assessment techniques, some children may even be at greater risk of having inadequate protection with tragic consequences.

One suggestion for addressing this problem is that the CPS agency should increase its flexibility in responding to families with different needs. For example, agencies could implement a differential response system in which only families with the most serious cases or those at the highest risk are subject to a mandatory CPS investigation, while other families with less serious cases or at low risk would receive a voluntary family assessment and service-oriented response. The American Public Human Services Association [APHSA] presents a more complex differential response schema in its model CPS system guidelines (1999, p.18). This schema has been reproduced in Exhibit 1 below.

While general agreement existed among authors that families should not all be responded to in the same way, differences emerged in what families and in what responses the authors' change proposals focused on. Different authors tended to focus on either narrowing the range of children and families who would receive an investigation or broadening the range of children and families who might receive voluntary services.

Suggestions for narrowing the response of the CPS agency have focused on improving the screening of child maltreatment reports with more precise and restrictive definitions of child maltreatment (Besharov, 1998; Orr, 1999; Pelton, 1998). Some models also suggest authorizing different agencies to be responsible for different types of cases. For example, Orr (1999) suggests that allegations of severe child maltreatment should be investigated by law enforcement agencies, and that perpetrators of these abuses should be sanctioned by the criminal justice system. The CPS agency would focus primarily on assisting families-in-need to find appropriate services on a voluntary basis.To the extent possible, distinct paths of involvement with government agencies would be more clearly differentiated for the responsible agencies and the families and children.

Suggestions for broadening the response of the CPS agency have emphasized the need to provide individually tailored remediating services to a wider range of at-risk families (Farrow, 1997; Larner, Stevenson, & Behrman, 1998; Shirk, 1998; U.S. GAO, 1997; Waldfogel, 1998a, 1998b, 2000). Advocates of such changes suggest that community indicators of child safety would improve if families at all levels of risk had better support systems. These models would improve service delivery by collecting more comprehensive information about families and by involving a wider range of informal and formal potential supports in service planning and delivery.

One suggestion for collecting more information and increasing participation is through the introduction of family assessments instead of, or in addition to, investigations. Historically, CPS agencies have considered both investigation and assessment activities as part of the same function. Within this broad framework, State or local agencies tended to emphasize one aspect of the role over the other in the formulation of CPS philosophy, policy, and practice at the local level. An emerging concept is that CPS investigation and assessment functions can be structurally distinct.

In particular, the following authors suggest that service planning should be based on information gathered through family assessments rather than through investigations. In order to draw a distinction between these two approaches, these authors have emphasized that family assessments tend to examine a broader range of topics, focusing on family strengths in addition to or instead of family problems. For example, an assessment would intentionally assess interactional dynamics within the family, the family's patterns of functioning over time, and family strengths. An investigation would primarily focus on the situation that led to the abuse or neglect report, covering some of the same topics as assessments, but from a different perspective (APHSA,1999; Combs-Orme & Thomas, 1997; Day, Robinson, & Sheikh, 1998; The National Child Welfare Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice [NCWRCFCP], 2000a).

Assessments not only increase the types of information that social workers have available to use in making services plans, they can also be useful in identifying familial or community-support systems. Expanding the range of participants in service planing and provision is the second goal of a broadly responding CPS system.

According to Farrow, broadening the response of CPS does not necessarily mean that CPS provides more services. Rather he describes the shift in emphasis as involving new participants in child protection systems. He writes:

The CPS agency must shift from viewing itself as the provider of all child protective services, and instead begin to catalyze, organize, and, in a variety of ways, provide leadership to the development of community partnerships for child protection and neighborhood-based systems of service delivery that achieve the result of child safety (1997, p.6).

Some of ways new participants are being included in child protection are as follows:

• CPS workers are stationed in neighborhoods with other service providers such as health and employment department staff (AHA, 1997; Shirk, 1998).
• CPS workers partner with nontraditional service providers such as domestic violence centers, local day care centers, churches, and "natural helpers," individuals in the neighborhood who are already helping families (Apple, et al., 1997).
• Community members play a prominent role in decision-making (Farrow, 1997; Shirk, 1998; NCWRCFCP, 2000b). This decision-making role can be at the community level in the form of community boards that define service needs or citizens review boards that monitor CPS practice, or at the family level in the form of family-group decision-making (FGDM). FGDM emphasizes that families should have the responsibility of making decisions about how to safeguard their children (American Humane Association [AHA], 1997).

In sum, various proposals for change were found in the literature. These proposals suggest that each of the responses of  helping parents who maltreat their children find services to improve their parenting skills, mandating that parents participate in services, and prosecuting offenders of child maltreatment  are appropriate. They are not, however, all appropriate for all families. In addition, different authors focused their proposals on different sets of family/response combinations.

While this section reviewed theoretical proposals for change, the next section reviews actual change initiatives described in the current literature.

Demonstrations of New Approaches

The reviewed literature reveals that there is at least some aspect of CPS practice or policy undergoing change in almost all of the States. These changes are being undertaken at different levels. In some States, changes are occurring Statewide; in others, changes are limited to a specific locality; in still others changes are occurring at a number of demonstration sites. The literature clearly shows that change in the CPS system is being implemented throughout the Nation.

Some types of initiatives are found in several localities. These include:

• Introduction of family assessment or differential response systems;
• Creation or support of community-centered service delivery systems;
• Clearer delineation of the relationship between CPS and law enforcement;
• Increased collaboration between CPS agencies and alcohol and other drug (AOD) agencies; and,
• Development of collaboration between CPS agencies and domestic violence (DV) agencies.

Exhibit 2 presents an overview of the current status of demonstrations and initiatives among the States. Notes explaining the criteria used to include a State in this Exhibit are found in appendix D. (This list may be incomplete due to lags in publication or other types of documentation. The Final Report of the national study of CPS systems and reform efforts will include an updated summary.)

Introduction of Family Assessment/Differential Response Systems

One of the most widely discussed reform initiatives in the literature is the introduction of family assessment procedures in place of, or in addition to, other investigation procedures (AHA, 1996; Christian, 1997; English, Wingard, Marshall, Orme, & Orme, 2000).

The descriptions of the models being implemented indicate that there are many different approaches under this rubric. For example, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia, and Washington are piloting models in which the family receives either an investigation or a family assessment. In Florida, localities are conducting assessments of all families with reported incidents of maltreatment. Additional investigation activities are being performed on only those cases involving criminal proceedings. In Iowa, family assessments and investigations are being conducted on all cases. In contrast, North Dakota is conducting only family assessments.

States differ in the implications of a family receiving a family assessment. In Missouri and Virginia, children in families on the family assessment track cannot be found to be a victims of child maltreatment, and parents cannot be found to be a perpetrators. Furthermore, information on the parent is not placed in a central registry. North Dakota no longer establishes findings of substantiation, but maintains a registry. All cases are entered into the registry if there has been a determination that services are required.

In addition to describing their differential response initiatives, some States have published evaluations of their initiatives. Evaluations in Florida, Iowa, Missouri, and Virginia found the initiatives to be generally successful. The criteria for success have included a decrease in number of families receiving CPS investigations, an increase in the level of services for families, and no increase in the number of children kept safe (Center for the Study of Social Policy [CSSP], n.d., 1996a, 1996b, 1997; Hernandez & Barrett, 1996; Siegel & Loman, 1998; Virginia Department of Social Services, 1999; Wakeling, 1995, 1996). Some of the findings are highlighted below:

• The number of families investigated with resulting identifications on central registries decreased. In Missouri's and Virginia's pilot counties, only a minority of reports that would formerly have been investigated were investigated under their new systems, 33 percent and 27 percent respectively (Siegel & Loman, 1998; Virginia State Department of Social Services, 1999). In Iowa, only 16 percent of all reports in the assessment counties were considered significant and placed on the child abuse registry, compared to 32 percent of reports in the non-pilot counties (CSSP, n.d.).
• The duration of family involvement with CPS also decreased. In Florida, case duration in the pilot counties was 56 days compared to 72 days in other counties, a 22-percent decline, (Hernandez & Barrett, 1996). In Missouri, families experienced a 15-percent decline in the number of days they were involved with the agencies between 1993 and 1997 (Siegel & Loman, 1998).
• The use of community services increased for families in pilot projects. In Florida, the use of community-based services increased by 11 percent (Hernandez & Barrett, 1996). In Missouri, 25 percent of families in pilot counties received community services, as opposed to 20 percent in comparison counties (Siegel & Loman, 1998).
• Child safety was not compromised in the pilot sites. Researchers in Iowa, Virginia, and Missouri all reported positive child safety outcomes. However, only the Missouri evaluation provided any quantitative outcome data. Researchers reported a 2-percent decrease in the frequency of repeated child abuse and neglect reports in the pilot counties compared to the non-pilot counties (CSSP, n.d.; Hernandez & Barrett, 1996; Siegel & Loman, 1998). English et al. (2000) offer a cautionary tale from Washington State. They found that the risk level and severity of some of the referrals to the family assessment track were inappropriately high. They also noted that the rates of re-referral were similar for families who did and did not engage in the assessment process.

While generally reporting positive results from the reform initiatives, the evaluations also qualify the level of benefits accruing from the reform initiatives. Hernandez and Barrett (1996) report that, in Florida, the better outcomes occurred in sites with higher implementation levels. Burrell (1995) suggests that reform efforts in Missouri are hindered by a lack of service resources and staff training in new methods of service delivery.

English et al. (2000) add that good initial risk assessments are crucial in a differential response model where the family's participation in an assessment is voluntary. This voluntary aspect is especially significant because research shows that high-risk families often resist acknowledging problems and, hence, would be less likely to participate in a voluntary family assessment and services delivery system. The authors suggest that the level of cooperation parents show should be a criterion in deciding whether a family is assigned an investigation or family assessment response.

The review of the above initiatives highlights the important realization that States using similar reform vocabularies may have different practices and that differences in vocabulary might actually obscure the similarities in how families are actually served. A common typology for analyzing such efforts would be useful.

Creation or Support of Community-Centered Services

Thirteen States were identified in the literature as having innovative community-centered services initiatives (AHA, 1996; Christian, 1997; Shirk, 1998). Geen and Tumlin (1999) and McCroskey and Meezan (1998) attribute the increase in community collaboration to the Family Preservation and Family Support Act of 1993. This legislation mandated that agencies convene a wide array of partners to help identify community needs for family support and family preservation services.

The implementation of community-centered services initiatives does not take the same form in all sites (AHA, 1996; Christian, 1997; Wakeling, 1995). One approach is to turn services over to non-traditional providers. For example, one district in Florida has turned over the assessments of substance-exposed and drug-dependent newborns to public health nurses. Jacksonville, Florida, has written up community- support agreements in which a community volunteer commits to help a family. When the agreement is signed, the case is closed, but the local agency remains available to the community helper for consultation. In Los Angeles, families are served by community-based networks, which have as their focal point non-child welfare agencies.

A second approach is to co-locate traditional service providers in a community-based site, convenient to clients (AHA 1997; Shirk, 1998; Wakeling, 1996). Iowa's Patch project, Louisville's Neighborhood Places, and Jacksonville's Full Service Schools are three examples of this approach. These programs bring together public agencies, such as CPS, income support, public health, and employment, with private agencies providing recreation programs, parent support groups, preschools, and community-building activities.

Several evaluations of community-centered services initiatives report that building collaboration is difficult (Apple et al., 1997; Burrell,1995; Hernandez & Barrett, 1996). Hernandez and Barrett (1996) found that the problems of community-based collaborations were different for communities that had few resources than for those that had many. In resource-poor communities, the difficulties for creating partnerships involved a lack of resources and a fear of risk. Community partners such as churches were already financially limited in what they could do. Non-traditional partners were also concerned about liability issues, fearing that they would be held responsible if a child died or was hurt. In resource-rich communities, problems were related to the complexity of coordinating the activities of a wide array of partners and developing data systems for sharing information. Apple et al. (1997) and McCroskey and Meezan (1998) also suggest that social workers have difficulty approaching community agencies and community members from a strengths perspective, which leads to communication and collaboration problems.

Based on experiences in a number of communities, the literature presents suggestions for overcoming such barriers:

• Mulroy (1997) studied the Dorchester, Massachusetts, CARES project in which seven nonprofit health and human services organization collaborated to develop a community-based model to prevent child abuse and/or neglect. She found that the crucial elements for developing a dense network of interpersonal and inter-organizational relationship included developing mutual trust through the equal sharing of power over monetary resources; sharing decision-making among all partners; starting small and growing incrementally; sharing a common vision of child protection; and having a separate administrative infrastructure for the community network.
• Farrow (1997) has made the following suggestions: include all of the major partners from the beginning; include parents as informed partners from the beginning; emphasize the mutual benefit of partnerships; define common outcomes; and use the new partnership to define the new approach politically.
• A group of professional and natural helpers called People Helping People report on the challenges and advantages of developing natural helper/professional partnerships (Apple et al., 1997). In an appendix, they suggest concrete activities that natural helpers can conduct in neighborhoods to help build families' skill sets, provide emotional support, and encourage community leadership and networking. They also list detailed and concrete set of tools professionals could use in teaching natural helpers that would assist helpers in their work. These tools range from teaching different conceptual approaches to problem solving such as a systems approach or a cognitive approach, etc., to showing natural helpers what activities they might do with parents to motivate them toward positive change or to maintain changes parents have already made.
• Scott and Bruner (1996) have written a guide to help State and local officials to develop local citizen review panels for CPS and form greater collaborative relationships between CPS, citizens, and consumers. The authors provide checklists for agencies on how to ensure the authority and independence of the review board, enlist citizen volunteers, staff the review, develop a case review process, and incorporate the citizen reviews into policy recommendations. They also provide checklists of activities an agency must conduct in order to incorporate consumer feedback into the CPS process, develop bridges to community institutions, support self-help networks, and broaden avenues for participation in policy making and service design. Scott and Bruner, with Veronika Kot, provide even more detailed citizen review panel guidelines and protocols in a later publication (Kot, Bruner, & Scott, 1998).

This review of the literature on community-centered services reveals a variety of initiatives States and localities are implementing in the name of community-centered services. Despite this variety, a unifying theme is found, which is that there is a need for a common vision and shared decision-making in order to achieve successful child protection community partnerships. What is not addressed clearly in the literature, however, is what changes, if any, these local community initiatives have made on the larger State child protection practices of which they are a part.

Clearer Delineation of the Relationship between CPS and Law Enforcement

The literature identified two types of involvement of the police in child protection issues. The first has been the inclusion of police in multi-disciplinary teams (MDT) and/or Child Advocacy Centers (CAC). These teams and centers, some of which have been in place for more than 10 years, have been formed in order to reduce the trauma to the child due to multiple interviewing and to improve the prosecution of cases, particularly in sexual abuse cases. They are an important example of the reliance that CPS agencies have had on community expertise.

In 1981, 16 States had MDTs, and the States used the teams primarily in a consultative role. However, there has been a significant increase in the use of these teams in the investigation of maltreatment and in the treatment of children. From a survey of State officials, Kolbo and Strong (1997) found that 33 States were using MDTs statewide for investigations and/or treatment planning. Twenty-six of the States included law enforcement as members of the team. In addition, a review of the National Children's Alliance's website showed that forty-four States have a CAC in at least one city in the State.

The second type of involvement has been the development of formal contracts to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the police and CPS in child maltreatment investigations. The main location in which these formal agreements are being attempted is in Florida. Christian (1997, p.20) notes:

It [a recent Florida law] also authorizes DCF to enter into agreements giving law enforcement agencies partial or full responsibility for conducting child protective investigations in cases involving a criminal investigation. These agreements are required to include protocols covering a number of items, including responses to abuse reports, conduct of investigations and performance of risk assessments.

A greater participation of law enforcement in CPS decision-making would clearly have an important impact upon the nature of CPS investigation activities and outcomes for children and families. Bollenbacher (2000) argues that the sharing of responsibility between the police and CPS is best for children. She suggests that either sole police or sole CPS responsibility for specific types of child maltreatment investigations is problematic for children because neither approach can secure a full range of rights for children. She argues that giving CPS sole responsibility over investigations leaves some children unable to secure their legal rights. In particular, it makes it difficult to prosecute abusers, torturers, or child killers in criminal court because the evidence gathered during a CPS investigation may not meet judicial standards. On the other hand, giving police sole responsibility makes it hard for children to secure their social and economic rights. In particular, it may make it hard for them to access needed services.

Increased Collaboration Between CPS and Alcohol and Other Drug Agencies (AOD)

Since 1997, five major reports have been issued on the alcohol and drug treatment needs of parents and children in the child welfare system (Gardner & Young, 1997; U.S. Government Accounting Office [GAO], 1998; National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University [CASA], 1999; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS], 1999; Young, Gardner, & Dennis, 1998). These reports describe innovative programs and explain some of the difficulties involved in creating closer collaboration between CPS and AOD. Several States have been identified as trying to build bridges between CPS and AOD providers.

Some of the variety in approaches is highlighted below (Young & Garner, 2000):

• Sacramento, California, has trained large numbers of social workers in substance abuse issues. It has also changed its screening protocol and information systems to better capture and address substance abuse.
• Delaware, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Ohio have hired substance abuse experts either in joint programs or through subcontracting to perform substance abuse assessments and treatment services. For example, Ohio began a treatment program for pregnant cocaine addicts staffed by teams with equal number of social workers and family advocates (recovering addicts).
• San Diego, California, and Miami, Florida, have created special dependency courts. These courts refer addicted parents to treatment agencies affiliated with the court. These treatment agencies, in turn, agree to prioritize treatment for dependency cases and to provide regular treatment monitoring information to the courts. Special staff has been hired to do liaison work between the courts and the treatment agencies.

Research findings suggest that between one-third and two-thirds of substantiated child abuse and neglect reports involve substance abuse. Research also suggests that 30 percent of female problem-level drug users live with children, and 18 percent of male problem-level drug users live with children (DHHS, 1999). These overlaps in populations suggest the need for coordination and collaboration between CPS and AOD.

A general criticism in the literature is that the standard operating procedures of CPS and AOD agencies are not designed to facilitate collaborative relations between these two agencies. Examples of problems that are being examined include the following:

• Standard AOD practice does not address the special needs of families in which child maltreatment is present.
• AOD practice does not track whether or not its clients are parents. As a result, workers cannot evaluate the appropriateness of treatment programs for parents and non-parents.
• Traditional AOD program design is based on confrontational tactics. This design may not work for women with low self-esteem and little past work experience.
• AOD practice does not incorporate parenting education into its treatment programs.
• AOD practice does not prioritize its limited treatment spaces for parents.
• AOD agencies have traditionally not worried about client retention. If people do not show up, their spot goes to the next person on the waiting list. Child welfare clients, however, are likely to need more help getting started due to the possibly non-voluntary nature a court-ordered treatment plan.
• Standard CPS practice is not oriented toward the special needs of parents and children with AOD addictions.
• Many CPS risk assessment protocols do not screen for AOD, and even when they do, the linkages between substance abuse and actual risk of maltreatment is not well understood and is difficult to assess.
• CPS agencies refer parents to treatment programs without knowing if vacancies exist or if the programs are useful. CPS workers may not know if parents can obtain services or have necessary child care. In other words, CPS referrals may take place when parents might be motivated to change, but not include sufficient follow-through to support the efforts of parents to enter and remain in treatment.

Gardner and Young (1997) suggest that progress in addressing AOD addiction and child maltreatment will not occur without better collaboration between CPS and AOD programs. In a forthcoming report, Young & Gardner (2000) suggest that while the development of pathways between these two agencies is critical to better supporting children and families with multiple challenges, the pathways must also be expanded to include the courts, mental health agencies, agencies that deal with family violence, the juvenile justice system, child development agencies, schools, and others.

Collaboration Between CPS Agencies and Domestic Violence Agencies

In 30 to 60 percent of families in which women are abused, the children are abused as well (National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges [NCJFCJ] 1999). Eight States have piloted innovative programs to improve their ability to deal with families in which both domestic violence and child maltreatment is present (Aron & Olson, 1997; NCJFCJ, 1998). These programs involve increased collaboration between CPS and domestic violence workers.

Several authors suggest that these collaborations are not easy to build, due to differences in mandates/orientations of the two agencies (Aron & Olson,1997; Beeman, Hagemeister, & Edleson,1999; Findlater & Kelly, 1999; Schechter & Edleson, 2000; Whitney & Davis, 1999). Aron and Olson (1997) identify a difficulty in building bridges between CPS and domestic violence workers in that there is a mandate for CPS to preserve families and reunify children with their parents, while domestic violence workers encourage women to leave batterers. Beeman et al. (1999) describe the principle barrier as the difference between CPS workers viewing their work as child-centered and domestic violence workers viewing their work as women-centered.

This tension results in contradictory approaches to similar problems. For example, in putting the safety of the child as the primary concern, CPS protocols may consider a mother accountable in domestic violence situations, even though the spouse or boyfriend is abusing the child (and her). Domestic violence workers, in contrast, argue that in such situations, holding the mother responsible is ineffective and results in blaming the victim. They suggest that if efforts are made to keep the mother safe, the children will also have a safer environment (Beeman et al., 1999).

The recent special issue on the co-occurrence of child abuse and domestic violence in Child Maltreatment (Edleson, 1999) profiles three such initiatives:

• A program just beginning in Miami-Dade County in Florida is the Dependency Court Intervention Program. The goal of this program is to develop, implement, and evaluate a coordinated approach to the handling of child abuse cases in which domestic violence is also present (Lecklitner, Malik, Aaron, & Lederman, 1999).
• In 1990, the Massachusetts Department of Social Services made domestic violence training mandatory for all of its new workers. It also hired battered women's advocates to provide consultation to its multidisciplinary assessment teams. In 1995, Massachusetts incorporated domestic violence protocols into its CPS investigations statewide (Whitney & Davis, 1999).
• Michigan has developed and implemented statewide cross-training between domestic violence workers and family preservation and child protective services staff. One product of this cross-training was a national domestic violence curriculum for family preservation practitioners (Findlater & Kelly, 1999).

Underlying these change efforts are suggestions on ways to improve collaboration between these two domains. Beeman et al. (1999) suggest that collaboration can be improved in the following ways:

• Cross training staff. Given that both types of agencies are concerned with issues of protection, cross training of staff would improve the ability to adopt mutually trusting working relationships. (Cross training manuals have been written by the Colorado Department of Human Services, 1995, Conroy & Magen, 1997, and Ganley & Schechter, 1996.)
• Integrating and coordinating services through the development of specialized units that include both child protection and domestic violence experts. Central to the viability of these units would be the development of information systems that track male perpetrators and include men in service plans.
• Fostering ongoing communication and consultation between child protection workers, domestic violence workers, and the courts to identify a common language around family violence. The authors recognize that the need for coordination of goals, activities, and services also extends beyond service providers to law enforcement agencies that may become involved in both types of cases.

In addition to the above resources, the National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges (1999) has published guidelines and recommendations for communities interested in improving their responses to families experiencing domestic violence and child abuse. The report offers community-level recommendations and describes specific recommendations for the three main partners in the process CPS agencies, domestic violence agencies, and the courts.

Conclusion

The articles reviewed for this paper describe many proposals and initiatives for improving child protection practice. Interestingly, these proposals tend to take a structural approach to improvement. That is, the proposals suggest that CPS agencies may need to more precisely define, divide, and channel interventions into particular philosophical models, rather than leaving intervention decisions to workers.

For most of the past thirty years, agencies providing protective services to children have allied themselves based on law, policy, training, and organizational culture at some mid-range point along the legalistic to helping intervention continuum. Individual case-level intervention decisions by workers, supervisors, and other community collaborators have encompassed a range of responses depending on the case circumstances and the organization's context. Perhaps the increasing scrutiny to which agencies are exposed has generated this new interest, found in the literature, in structural solutions.

The review also suggest some of the general directions that change in CPS practice might take in the next few years, e.g. offering alternative responses to child maltreatment reports, increasing the involvement of police in child maltreatment cases, and expanding the network of service providers in a coordinated fashion. The literature does not, however, provide a clear or comprehensive picture of how CPS work is currently being done.

The national study of CPS systems and reform efforts, of which this literature review is a part, will address this need. The study will examine the complexities of current CPS work processes from the knowledge gained through interviews of State administrators, surveys of county CPS agency staff, and site visits to innovative localities. The final report will be completed in Fall 2002.

Overview of the National Study of Child Protective Services Systems and Reform Efforts

I. INTRODUCTION

This appendix provides a conceptual overview of the major areas of research to be addressed by the National Study of Child Protective Services Systems and Reform Efforts, and the role of the five data collection methods that will be used in the study. The goal of the study is to describe the overall status of child protective services systems nationally, and any reform efforts underway. Given the state of change that currently exists within the field of CPS, and the dynamic nature of the relationship between policy and practice, the study will investigate CPS systems from the perspective of three main areas. The three main areas are the State policies that define CPS functions and specify how these functions are carried out; local CPS agency organization and the practices that implement CPS functions; and innovative reform efforts that seek to restructure, redefine, or reformulate the purposes and functions of CPS. These areas are discussed in more detail in the next section.

II. RESEARCH AREAS AND QUESTIONS

Three research areas will be pursued in this study. These are:

• State and local CPS mandates and policies;
• CPS agency functions and practices that are conducted in order to meet the mandates and policies; and
• Innovative reform efforts that are being introduced and their impact upon agency functions and practices.

Each of these areas involves addressing a number of more specific questions.

Mandates and Policies

The overarching responsibility of the CPS agency (most commonly a division or unit within a child welfare department) is to provide the first response to the needs of children who may have been abused or neglected. As terminology in some states indicates, the primary role of the CPS agency is to conduct "an emergency response." This mandate is also described as ensuring the safety of children from abuse or neglect, because it undertakes to investigate whether children are safe or not. However, other activities of child welfare agencies that serve to ensure safety, such as placing children in foster care or terminating the rights of abusive parents, are not usually considered to be part of the CPS function.

Given the mandate to conduct the first response to potential critical emergencies, much of CPS policy focuses on what conditions require a response and what types of response are required. Thus, the following key questions related to CPS mandates and policies will be addressed:

• What points of receipt of allegations from reporters are established?
• Who are the mandated reporters?
• What are the criteria for accepting an allegation of child abuse or neglect?
• What are the definitions of maltreatment?
• What are the criteria for screening-out allegations?
• What types of responses and time frames are required?
• What standard of evidence is used in determining the occurrence of maltreatment?
• Who is responsible for conducting these responses?
• What are the outcomes of these responses?
• What information is maintained on the responses to the allegations?
• What legal protections are provided to reporters, victims, perpetrators, and investigators?
• What are the requirements for interfacing with other child welfare units?
• What are the requirements for collaboration or coordination with other agencies?

While philosophical and service orientations have their roots in early turn-of-the-century settlement-house programs, State mandates and policies were developed in response to the first Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) in the 1960's, which recognized the prerogatives of States and localities to establish policies within the broad framework established by CAPTA. As a result, State policies, and to a certain degree county policies where they exist separately, have variations on each of the above question areas.

In order to address these variations in State policies, State documentation is being reviewed on the main areas of inquiry and will be confirmed by State administrators. County policies will also need to be reviewed in county-administered localities. These procedures are discussed in the section on methods.

Functions and Practices

The second research area examines the functions and operational practices, which are conducted in order to meet the mandates and policy requirements of the agencies. Primary functions of CPS agencies include screening, investigation and, in many places, providing an alternative response to investigation that assesses the needs of the family or child without making a specific determination related to child abuse or neglect. CPS agencies also provide short term services and make referrals to community service agencies. In addition, a multiplicity of activities underlies the main functions of the agency. Each of these activities can be further broken down into such components as who, what, where, and how. For example, in terms of screening, the following questions are some of the relevant topics.

• Who makes the referral?
• Who receives the referral?
• How are referrals handled after regular office hours?
• What information is collected on the referral?
• What are the criteria for screening-in or screening-out a referral?
• What computer checks on reporters, children, or alleged perpetrators are made?
• What information is recorded on the referral and how is it recorded?
• How many workers conduct this activity at the State level?
• How many workers conduct this activity at the local level?
• How many calls are handled daily?
• What qualifications do the workers have?
• What training do the workers receive?
• What are the supervisory roles related to this activity?
• What qualifications do supervisors have?
• What training do supervisors receive?

Innovative Reform Efforts

The third research area will examine innovative approaches being implemented in local agencies to address the mandates and policies of CPS and the degree to which policy is changing to include these new reform efforts.

One of the basic research quandaries is to identify what is innovative. Many of the tensions within the CPS system have been evident for the last 100 years, e.g., the tension between social support, social rehabilitation, and punishment; the opposing themes of child needs verses family needs; the concerns for privacy versus accountability, etc. As State and local CPS systems have evolved, they have tended to tilt in one direction or another. They have not all, however, tilted in the same direction at the same time.

In identifying innovative reform efforts, local definitions of innovation will be examined. Once a range of innovative programs and approaches has been identified, criteria by which programs can be assessed more objectively as being innovative will be determined. Some of the criteria that may be considered are: scope of the innovation, length of time that it has been in place, whether policy and practice have both changed, and extent to which impact of the innovation has been measured or evaluated. A number of programs that meet these criteria will be researched in more depth through the site visits component of the study.

The site visit staff will use a site-visit subject protocol guide, rather than a survey instrument, in order to take into consideration the uniqueness of each program. Some questions under consideration for the site-visit subject protocol include:

• What problems does the reform effort seek to address?
• What events or factors gave rise to the reform initiatives?
• What are the critical features of the reform effort? What functions are being modified?
• How widely is the reform effort implemented?
• How long has the reform effort been in place?
• What documentation exists in terms of policy and practice changes?
• What difficulties have been identified in implementing the reform effort?
• How well has the reform effort been integrated into the agency?
• What evaluation will be conducted of the reform effort?

The site visits will allow for the most in-depth exploration of the functional features of the innovative practices being implemented.

III. STUDY METHODS

In this section the major study methods that will be used to address the three research areas are described.

Literature Review

The purpose of the literature review is to provide a summary of existing information on reform proposals or initiatives that alter integral components of the mission, functions, and operational practices of CPS agencies across the nation. The first section of the paper describes the critiques of CPS practices that are being discussed in the literature. These critiques are reviewed in terms of their implications for the description of critical CPS functions. The second section of the paper identifies innovative programs and practices that are being implemented by States or local communities.

Policy Analysis

The purpose of the policy analysis is to systematically characterize the written State mandates and policies that dictate the organization, functions, and procedures for the CPS agency and its partners. The results of the policy analysis will be (1) the development of State policy profiles and (2) a report that provides an analysis of commonalties and differences in State mandates and policy. The State profiles will lay the groundwork for the State confirmation interviews described in the next section.

State Confirmation Interviews

The purpose of the State confirmation interviews is to verify the accuracy and completeness of the information on each State's CPS policy. The respondents will be asked to correct or clarify the information in a State Policy Summary Profile, that will be sent to them in advance, and to provide further elaboration when appropriate. They will be asked about current waivers from State or Federal policy that are being implemented in the State and any policy changes that are pending or in draft form. The results of the State interviews will be entered into the database on State policy and presented in updated State Policy Summary Profiles. These profiles will be made available to the field. In addition, the State interviews will provide an opportunity for State agencies to identify any reform efforts or innovative approaches that are underway in the State or in local CPS agencies.

Local Agency Survey

The purpose of the Local Agency Survey is to identify the operational procedures employed in carrying out CPS functions by local CPS agencies across the Nation. While the State policy analysis and State confirmation interviews components of the study will focus on policies that provide definitions and dictate specific procedures and classifications, the agency survey will focus on actual practices at the local level. The targeted sample size is all local CPS agencies that serve 150 county PSUs. The sample will be stratified by urbanicity and by type of CPS administration (state or county administered). In addition, a limited number of counties with particularly innovative CPS strategies will be selected with certainty.

The results of the local agency survey will be (1) a database consisting of quantitative data elements summarizing the operational practices for carrying out key CPS functions at the local level and (2) a Findings Report that will discuss commonalties and differences in how CPS work is carried out and national estimates of the number of local agencies that employ different operational approaches, thereby providing a comprehensive picture of the CPS system nationwide.

Local Agency Site Visits

The objective of the site visits is to observe, first-hand and in-depth, the innovative practices being integrated into CPS agencies on a local level. The site visits will provide the opportunity to ask more qualitative questions about new programs and the relationship of such programs and practices to former policy and practice than the other data collection efforts. The site visits will target 9 to 12 programs with innovative approaches to carrying out the CPS functions. The sites will be selected using a set of criteria that will ensure that a wide range of reform efforts and jurisdictions are included. The on-site data collection will include both key informant interviews and focus groups. The key informant interviews will be conducted with several primary respondents in each site, including the CPS agency director, program manager for the reform effort, and any other agency personnel who play a key role in the reform effort.

The products of the local agency visits will be a series of case studies, prepared in a standard format to facilitate across site comparisons. The format will include such items as the purpose of the site visit, identification of interviewees and roles, CPS reform efforts and factors driving efforts, results to date, a list of persons interviewed, and a list of documents reviewed. The case studies will delineate the operation of CPS functions, especially as related to innovative practices and programs from a systems perspective. The unique elements of each program will be highlighted, with an observations as to the strengths and weaknesses of the strategies being employed to carry out the agency functions.

Study results will be available in 2002.

Bibliography

American Humane Association. (1996). International survey of innovative programs with CPS linkages. Englewood, CO: Author.

American Humane Association. (1997). Innovations for children's services for the 21^st century: Family group decision making and PATCH. Englewood, CO: Author.

American Public Human Services Association. (1999). Guidelines for a model system of protective services for abused and neglected children and their families. Washington, DC: Author.

Apple, K., Berstein, S., Fogg, K., Fogg, L., Haapala, D., Johnson, E., Johnson, R., Kinney, J., Natoli, J., Price, D., Robert, K., Robinson, K., Steele, T., Trent, E., Trent, M., Trent, V., Smith, R., & Vignec, R. (1997). Walking the talk in the neighborhoods: Building professional/natural helper partnerships. Social Policy, 27 (4), 54-61.

Aron, L. Y., & Olson, K. K. (1997). Efforts by child welfare agencies to address domestic violence: The experiences of five communities. Available: <http://www.urban.org/welfare/aron3.htm>.

Beeman, S. K., Hagemeister, A. K., & Edleson, J. L. (1999). Child protection and battered women's services from conflict to collaboration. Child Maltreatment, 4 (2), 116-126.

Besharov, D. J. (1998). Four commentaries: How we can better protect children from abuse and neglect (Commentary 1). The Future of Children, 8 (1), 120-132.

Bollenbacher, V. (2000, September). The effect of the state child protection model on securing children's rights: Debunking the myth models and constructing legal rights. Paper presented at the meeting of the 13^th International Congress on Child Abuse and Neglect, Durbin, South Africa.

Burrell, K. (1995). Missouri's child protective services system and current differential response demonstration project. Paper prepared for the Executive Session on New Paradigms for Child Protective Services, Cambridge, MA.

Center for the Study of Social Policy. (n.d.) Report to the governor and the general assembly on the child abuse assessment pilot projects: Executive summary. Washington, DC: Author.

Center for the Study of Social Policy. (1996). A review of the impact of Iowa's assessment legislation. Washington, DC: Author.

Center for the Study of Social Policy. (1996). The central registry in Iowa: Issues and future directions. Washington, DC: Author.

Center for the Study of Social Policy. (1997). Strategies to keep children safe: Why community partnerships will make a difference. Washington, DC: Author.

Christian, S. M. (1997). New directions for child protective services: Supporting children, families, and communities through legislative reform. Denver, Colorado: National Conference of State Legislatures.

Colorado Department of Human Services. (1995). Crossing the bridge: A cross-training curriculum for domestic violence/child protection workers. Denver, CO: Author.

Combs-Orme, T., & Thomas, K. H. (1997). Assessment of troubled families. Social Work Research, 21 (4), 261-269.

Conroy, K., &. Magen, R.H. (1997). Training child welfare workers on domestic violence: Trainer's manual. New York: Columbia University School of Social Work.

Day, P., Robinson, S., & Sheikh, L. (1998). Ours to keep: A guide for building a community assessment strategy for child protection. Washington, DC: CWLA Press.

Edleson, J. (Ed.) (1999). Interventions and issues in the co-occurrence of child abuse and domestic violence. Child Maltreatment 4(3).

English, D. J., Wingard, T., Marshall, D., Orme, M., &. Orme, A. (2000). Alternative responses to child protective services: Emerging issues and concerns. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24 (3), 375-388.

Farrow, F. (1997). Child protection: Building community partnerships. Cambridge, MA: The President and Fellows of Harvard University.

Findlater, J. E., & Kelly, S. (1999). Reframing child safety in Michigan: Building collaboration among domestic violence, family preservation, and child protective services. Child Maltreatment, 4(2), 167-174.

Ganley, A. & Schechter, S. (1996). Domestic violence: A national curriculum for children's protective services. San Francisco, CA: Family Violence Prevention Fund.

Gardner, S., & Young, N. K. (1997). The implications of alcohol and other drug-related problems for community partnerships for child protection. Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government.

Geen, R., & Tumlin, K. C. (1999). State efforts to remake child welfare: Responses to new challenges and increased scrutiny. Assessing the New Federalism, Occasional Paper 29, Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Hernandez, M., & Barrett, B. (1996). Evaluation of Florida's family services response system. Tampa, FL: Florida Mental Health Institute.

Kadushin, A. (1974). Child welfare services. NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.

Kolbo, J. R. & B, E. (1997). Multidisciplinary team approaches to the investigation and resolution of child abuse and neglect: a national survey. Child Maltreatment, 2(1), 61-72.

Kot, V., Bruner, C., & Scott, S. (1998). Citizen review panels for the child protective services system: Guidelines and protocols. Chicago: The National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse.

Larner, M.B., Stevenson, C.S., & Behrman, R.E. (1998). Protecting children from abuse and neglect: Analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children, 8 (1), 4-22.

Lecklitner, G.L., Malik, N.M., Aaron, S.M., & Lederman, C.S. (1999). Promoting safety for abused children and battered mothers: Miami-Dade county's model dependency court intervention program. Child Maltreatment, 4 (2),175-182.

McCroskey, J., & Meezan, W. (1998). Family-centered services: Approaches and effectiveness. The Future of Children, 8(1), 54-71.

Mulroy, E. A. (1997). Building neighborhood networks: Interorganizational collaboration to prevent child abuse and neglect. Social Work, 42(3), 255-265.

National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.(CASA). (1999). No safe haven: Children of substance-abusing parents. New York: Author.

National Child Welfare Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice. (2000a). Can we put clothes on this emperor? Best Practice Next Practice, 1(1), 7-11.

National Child Welfare Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice. (2000b). Community collaborations: A growing promise in child welfare. Best Practice Next Practice, 1 (2), 1-3.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (1998). Family Violence: Emerging programs for battered mothers and their children. Washington, DC: Author.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.(1999). Effective intervention in domestic violence & child maltreatment cases: Guidelines for policy and practice. Reno, NV: Author.

Orr, S. (1999). Child protection at the crossroads: Child abuse, child protection, and recommendations for reform. Policy Study No. 262. Los Angeles: Reason Public Policy Institute.

Pelton, L.H. (1998). Four commentaries: How we can better protect children from abuse and neglect (Commentary 3). The Future of Children, 8 (1), 120-132.

Schechter, S., & Edleson., J. L. (2000). Domestic violence & children: Creating a public response. New York: Open Society Institute.

Scott, S. & Bruner, C. (1996). Supporting effective citizen involvement in child protective services: A guide for state and local officials. Des Moines, IA: Child and Family Policy Center.

Siegel, G. L., & Loman, L. A. (1998). Child protection services family assessment and response demonstration impact evaluation: Digest of findings and conclusions. St. Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research.

Shirk, M. (1998). We are in this together: Community child protection in America. New York: The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997). Child protective services: Complex challenges require new strategies. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1998). Foster care: Agencies face challenges securing stable homes for children of substance abusers. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1999). Blending perspectives and building common ground:  A report to Congress on substance abuse and child protection. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Virginia State Department of Social Services. (1999). Final report on the multiple response system for child protective services in Virginia. Richmond, VA: Author.

Wakeling, S. (1995). Child protective services reform in Florida. Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government.

Wakeling, S. (1996). Child protection services reform in Florida: A brief update. Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government.

Waldfogel, J. (1998a). The future of child protection: How to break the cycle of abuse and neglect. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Waldfogel, J. (1998b). Rethinking the paradigm for child protection. Future of Children, 8 (1), 104-119.

Waldfogel, J. (2000, Jan/Feb). Reforming child protective services. Child Welfare, 79 (1), 43-58.

Whitney, P., & Davis, L. (1999). Child abuse and domestic violence: Can practice be integrated in a public child welfare setting? Child Maltreatment, 4(2),158-166.

Young, N.K. & Gardner, S. (2000). Navigating the networks: Lessons and promising practices in linking alcohol and other drug treatment with child welfare services. Unpublished manuscript.

Young, N.K., Gardner, S., & Dennis, K. (1998). Responding to alcohol and other drug problems in child welfare: Weaving together practice and policy. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.

Selected References

MODEL SYSTEMS

American Public Human Services Association. (1999). Guidelines for a model system of protective services for abused and neglected children and their families. Washington, DC: Author.

Child Welfare League of America. (1997). Standards of excellence. Washington, DC: Author.

Council on Accreditation. (1996). Council on Accreditation 1997 standards for behavioral health care services and community support and education services. New York: Author.

CHILD WELFARE OVERVIEW

Briar-Lawson, K., & Drews, J. (2000). Child and family welfare policies and services: Current issues and historical antecedents. In J. Midgley, M. B. Tracy, & M. Livermore (Eds.), The handbook of social policy (pp.157-174). Thousand Acres, CA: Sage Press.

Geen, R., & Tumlin, K. C. (1999). State efforts to remake child welfare: Responses to new challenges and increased scrutiny. Assessing the New Federalism, Occasional Paper 29, Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Kadushin, A. (1974). Child welfare services. NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families. (2000). Child maltreatment 1998: Reports from the states to the national child abuse and neglect data system. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Weil, M. (2000). Services for families and children: The changing context and new challenges. In R. J. Patti (Ed.), The handbook of social welfare management (pp. 481-510). Thousand Acres, CA: Sage Press.

REFORM MODELS

Adams, P., & Nelson, K. (Eds.). (1995). Reinventing human services: Community-and family-centered practice. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

American Humane Association. (1996). International survey of innovative programs with CPS linkages. Englewood, CO: Author.

American Humane Association. (1997). Innovations for children's services for the 21^st century: Family group decision making and PATCH. Englewood, CO: Author.

Beeman, S. K. (1997). Reconceputalizing social support and its relationship to child neglect. Social Service Review, 71 (3), 421-440.

Besharov, D. J., Robinson Lowry, M., Pelton, L. H., & Weber, M. W. (1998). Four commentaries: How we can better protect children from abuse and neglect. The Future of Children, 8 (1), 120-132.

Chadwick, D. L. (Ed.) (1999). Convening a national call to action: Working toward the elimination of child maltreatment. Child Abuse and Neglect [Special Issue], 23, 10.

Center for the Study of Social Policy. (1997). Strategies to keep children safe: Why community partnerships will make a difference. Washington, DC: Author.

Christian, S. M. (1997). New directions for child protective services: Supporting children, families, and communities through legislative reform. Denver, Colorado: National Conference of State Legislatures.

Costin, L. B., Karger, H. J., & Stoesz, D. (1996). The politics of child abuse in America. New York: Oxford University Press.

Farrow, F. (1996). Systems change at the neighborhood level: Creating better futures for children, youth, and families. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Social Policy.

Farrow, F. (1997). Child protection: Building community partnerships. Cambridge, MA: The President and Fellows of Harvard University.

Gelles, R. (1996). The book of David: How preserving families can cost children's lives. New York: Basic Books.

Joint Center for Poverty Research. (2000). JCPR congressional briefing on child maltreatment [on-line]. Available: <http://www.jcpr.org/conferences/childabuse_briefing.html>.

Jones, D. P. H. (2000). Editorial: Refocusing child protection services. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24 (4), 373-374.

Larner, M.B., Stevenson, C.S., & Behrman, R.E. (1998). Protecting Children from Abuse and Neglect: Analysis and Recommendations. The Future of Children, 8 (1), 4-22.

Maluccio, A. (1997). Time for an ideological shift in child welfare? An essay review. Social Service Review, 71(1), 135-143.

Melton, G. B., & Barry, F. D. (1994). Neighbors helping neighbors: The vision of the U.S. advisory board on child abuse and neglect. In G. B. Melton and F. D. Barry (Eds.). Protecting children from abuse and neglect: Foundations for a new national strategy (pp. 1-13). New York: Guilford Press.

National Child Welfare Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice. (2000). Can we put clothes on this emperor? Best Practice Next Practice, 1(1), 7-11.

Orr, S. (1999). Child protection at the crossroads: Child abuse, child protection, and recommendations for reform. Policy Study No. 262. Los Angeles: Reason Public Policy Institute.

Pascual, P. (Fall 1999/Winter 2000). More foster families, fewer children entering care, ADVOCASEY 1(3), 4-11.

Pearson, Y., & Wattenberg, E. (Eds.). (1997). Rethinking child welfare: Can the system be transformed through community partnerships? Minneapolis, MN: Center for Urban and Regional Affairs.

Ribich, K., & Merkel-Holguin, L. (1998). Family group decision making initiatives: results of AHA's survey. Protecting Children, 14(4), 23-30.

Schorr, L. B. (1997). Common purpose: Strengthening families and neighborhoods to rebuild America. New York: Doubleday.

Shirk, M. (1998). We are in this together: Community child protection in America. New York: The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation.

Thompson, R. A. (1995). Preventing child maltreatment through social support: A critical analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

United States General Accounting Office. (1997). Child protective services: Complex challenges require new strategies. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1995). A nation's shame: Fatal child abuse and neglect in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1990). Child abuse and neglect: Critical first steps in response to a national emergency. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1991). Creating caring communities: Blueprint for an effective federal policy on child abuse and neglect. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1993). The continuing child protection emergency: A challenge to the nation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect (1993). Neighbors helping neighbors: A new national strategy for the protection of children. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Waldfogel, J. (1998). The future of child protection: How to break the cycle of abuse and neglect. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Waldfogel, J. (1998). Rethinking the paradigm for child protection. Future of Children, 8 (1), 104-119.

Waldfogel, J. (2000, Jan/Feb). Reforming child protective services. Child Welfare, 79(1), 43-58.

Walter R. McDonald & Associates. (1999). Trends in the growth and use of family group decision making: A ten-year perspective. Report to the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children's Services under a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

EVALUATIONS OF REFORM EFFORTS

Burrell, K. (1995). Missouri's child protective services system and current differential response demonstration project. Paper prepared for the Executive Session on New Paradigms for Child Protective Services, Cambridge, MA.

Center for the Study of Social Policy. (n.d.) Report to the governor and the general assembly on the child abuse assessment pilot projects: Executive summary. Washington, DC: Author.

Center for the Study of Social Policy. (1996). A review of the impact of Iowa's assessment legislation. Washington, DC: Author.

Center for the Study of Social Policy. (1996). The central registry in Iowa: Issues and future directions. Washington, DC: Author.

Coulton, C. J., Korbin, J. E., & Su, M. (1999). Neighborhoods and child maltreatment: A multi-level study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 23(11), 1019-1040.

English, D. J., Wingard, T., Marshall, D., Orme, M., &. Orme, A. (2000). Alternative responses to child protective services: Emerging issues and concerns. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(3), 375-388.

Gilbert, N., & VanVoorhis, R. A. (1998). The structure and performance of child abuse reporting systems, Child and Youth Services Review, 20 (3), 207-222.

Guterman, N. B. (1999). Enrollment strategies in early home visitation to prevent child abuse and neglect and the "universal v. targeted" debate: A meta-analysis of population-based and screening-based programs. Child Abuse and Neglect, 23(9), 863-890.

Hernandez, M., & Barrett, B. (1996). Evaluation of Florida's family services response system. Tampa, FL: Florida Mental Health Institute.

McCroskey, J., & Meezan, W. (1998). Family-centered services: Approaches and effectiveness. The Future of Children, 8(1), 54-71.

Siegel, G. L., & Loman, L. A. (1998). Child protection services family assessment and response demonstration impact evaluation: Digest of findings and conclusions. St. Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research.

State Division of Youth and Family Services. (1998). The final report of the governor's blue ribbon panel on child protection services. Trenton, NJ: Author.

Virginia State Department of Social Services. (1999). Final report on the multiple response system for child protective services in Virginia. Richmond, VA: Author.

Wakeling, S. (1995). Child protective services reform in Florida. Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government.

Wakeling, S. (1996). Child protection services reform in Florida: A brief update. Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government.

DECISION MAKING IN CPS

Baird, S. C. (1997, August). Child abuse and neglect: Improving consistency in decision-making. NCCD FOCUS. San Francisco: The National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Baird, C., Wagner, D., Healy, T., & Johnson, K. (1999). Risk assessment in child protective services: Consensus and actuarial model reliability. Child Welfare, 78(6), 723-748.

Baumann, D., Kern, H., & Fluke, J. (1997). Foundations of the decision-making ecology and overview. In H. Kern (Ed.), Worker improvements to the structured decision and outcome model. Austin, TX: Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services.

Brisett-Chapman, S. (1997). Child protection risk assessment and African American children: Cultural ramifications for families and communities. Child Welfare, 76(1), 45-64.

Cicchinelli, L. F. (1995). Risk assessment: Expectations and realities. In D. DePanfilis, D. Daro, & S. Wells (Eds.), The APSAC Advisor: Vol. 8., No. 4. Special issue on risk assessment, 3-8.

Children's Research Center. (1999). A new approach to child protective services: Structured decision making. Madison, WI: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Combs-Orme, T., & Thomas, K. H. (1997). Assessment of troubled families. Social Work Research, 21(4), 261-269.

Day, P., Robinson, S., & Sheikh, L. (1998). Ours to keep: A guide for building a community assessment strategy for child protection. Washington, DC: CWLA Press.

English, D.J., Marshall, D.B., Brummel, S.C., & Coghlan, L.K. (1998). Decision-making in child protective services: A study of effectiveness. Final report phase 1: Quantitative analysis. Olympia, WA: Department of Social and Health Services (Fed. Grant. # 90-CA-1563).

Hollinshead, D., & Fluke, J. (In Press). What works in safety and risk assessment for child protective services. In What Works in Child Welfare. Washington, DC: CWLA.

Karski, R. L. (1999). Key decisions in child protection services report investigation and court referral. Children & Youth Services Review, 21(8), 643-656.

Lyons, P., Doueck, H. J., & Wodarski, J. S. (1996). Risk assessment for child protective services: A review of the empirical literature on instrument performance. Social Work Research, 20(3), 143-155.

Morton, T. D., & Holder, W. (Eds.). (1998). Decision making in children's protective services: Advancing the state of the art. Atlanta, GA: Child Welfare Institute.

Munro, E. (1999). Common errors of reasoning in child protection work. Child Abuse and Neglect, 23(8), 745-758.

Pecora, P., & English, D. (1993). Multi-cultural guidelines for assessing family strengths and risk factors in child protective services. Seattle, WA: Washington State Office of Children's Administration.

Reder, P., & Duncan, S. (2000). A required mind-set for child protection practice: Comments on Munro (1999). Child Abuse and Neglect, 24(4), 443-446.

Rossi, P., Schuerman, J., & Budde, S. (1996). Understanding child maltreatment decisions and those who make them. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chapin Hall Center for Children.

Tumlin, K. C., & Geen, R. (2000). The decision to investigate: Understanding state child welfare screening policies and practices. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Walton, E. (1997). Enhancing investigative decisions in child welfare: An exploratory use of intensive family preservation services. Child Welfare, 76(3), 447-469.

Wells, S. (1995). Introduction. In D. DePanfilis, D. Daro, & S. Wells (Eds.), The APSAC Advisor: Vol. 8., No. 4. Special issue on risk assessment, 1-2.

Wells, S. J., Fluke, J. D., & Brown, C. H. (1995). The decision to investigate: Child protection practice in 12 local agencies. Children and Youth Services Review, 17 (4), 523-535.

Westat, Inc. (1998). CPS screening policy study. Rockville, MD: Author.

COMMUNITY COLLABORATION

Adams, P., & Nelson, K. (1997). Reclaiming community: An integrative approach to human services. Administration in Social Work, 21(3/4), 67-82.

Annie E. Casey Foundation (n.d.) People helping people. Partnerships between professional and natural helpers. Family to Family Tools for Rebuilding Foster care. Baltimore: Author.

Annie E. Casey Foundation (n.d.) Team decision making. Involving the family and community in child welfare decisions. Family to Family Tools for Rebuilding Foster Care. Baltimore: Author.

Apple, K., Berstein, S., Fogg, K., Fogg, L., Haapapa, D., Johnson, E., Johnson, R., Kinney, J., Natoli, J., Price, D., Robert, K., Robinson, K., Steele, T., Trent, E., Trent, M., Trent, V., Smith, R., & Vignec, R. (1997). Walking the talk in the neighborhoods: Building professional/natural helper partnerships. Social Policy, 27(4), 54-61.

Armstron, K. L. (1997). Launching a family-centered, neighborhood-based human services system: Lessons from working the hallways and street corners. Administration in Social Work, 21(3/4), 1-8.

Corrigan, D. (1996). An educator's view on expanding partnerships. In K. Hooper-Briar & H. A. Lawson (Eds.), Expanding partnerships for vulnerable children, youth and families. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.

Jones, S. J., & Zlotnik J. L. (Eds.). (1998). Preparing helping professionals to meet community needs: generalizing from the rural experience. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.

Kot, V., Bruner, C., & Scott, S. (1998). Citizen review panels for the child protective services system: Guidelines and protocols. Chicago: The National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse.

Mulroy, E. A. (1997). Building neighborhood networks: Interorganizational collaboration to prevent child abuse and neglect. Social Work, 42(3), 255-265.

National Child Welfare Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice. (2000b). Community collaborations: A growing promise in child welfare. Best Practice Next Practice, 1(2), 1-3.

Scott, S., & Bruner, C. (1996). Supporting effective citizen involvement in child protective services: A guide for state and local officials. Des Moines, IA: Child and Family Policy Center.

Weil, M. (1997). Community building: Building community practice. In P. A. Ewalt, E. M. Freeman, & D. L. Poole, (Eds.), Community building: renewal, well-being, and shared responsibility (pp. 95-106). Washington, DC: NASW Press.

DRUGS AND ALCOHOL

Gardner, S., & Young, N. K. (1997). The implications of alcohol and other drug-related problems for community partnerships for child protection. Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government.

National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.(CASA). (1999). No safe haven: Children of substance-abusing parents. New York: Author.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1999). Blending perspectives and building common ground: A report to Congress on substance abuse and child protection. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1998). Foster care: Agencies face challenges securing stable homes for children of substance abusers. Washington, DC: Author.

Young, N.K., Gardner, S., & Dennis, K. (1998). Responding to alcohol and other drug problems in child welfare: Weaving together practice and policy. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.

Young, N.K., & Gardner, S. (2000). Navigating the Networks: Lessons and promising practices in linking alcohol and other drug treatment with child welfare services. Unpublished manuscript.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Aron, L. Y., & Olson, K. K. (1997). Efforts by child welfare agencies to address domestic violence: The experiences of five communities [on-line]. Available: <http://www.urban.org/welfare/aron3.htm&gt;.

Beeman, S. K., Hagemeister, A. K., & Edleson, J. L. (1999). Child protection and battered women's services from conflict to collaboration. Child Maltreatment, 4(2), 116-126.

Colorado Department of Human Services. (1995). Crossing the bridge: A cross-training curriculum for domestic violence/child protection workers. Denver, CO: Author.

Conroy, K., &. Magen, R.H. (1997). Training child welfare workers on domestic violence: Trainer's manual. New York: Columbia University School of Social Work.

Edleson, J. L. (Ed.). (1999). Introduction to special issue. Child Maltreatment, 4(2), 91-92.

Findlater, J. E., & Kelly, S. (1999). Reframing child safety in Michigan: Building collaboration among domestic violence, family preservation, and child protective services. Child Maltreatment, 4(2),167-174.

Ganley, A. & Schechter, S. (1996). Domestic violence: A national curriculum for children's protective services. San Francisco, CA: Family Violence Prevention Fund.

Lecklitner, G.L., Malik, N.M., Aaron, S.M., & Lederman, C.S. (1999). Promoting safety for abused children and battered mothers: Miami-Dade county's model dependency court intervention program. Child Maltreatment, 4(2),175-182.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (1998). Family Violence: Emerging programs for battered mothers and their children. Washington, DC: Author.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.(1999). Effective intervention in domestic violence & child maltreatment cases: Guidelines for policy and practice. Reno, NV: Author.

Schechter, S., & Edleson., J. L. (2000). Domestic violence & children: Creating a public response. New York: Open Society Institute.

Whitney, P., & Davis, L. (1999). Child abuse and domestic violence: Can practice be integrated in a public child welfare setting? Child Maltreatment, 4(2),158-166.

THE POLICE

Bollenbacher, V. (2000, September). The effect of the state child protection model on securing children's rights: Debunking the myth models and constructing legal rights. Paper presented at the meeting of the 13^th International Congress on Child Abuse and Neglect, Durbin, South Africa.

Cage, R., & Pence, D. (1997). Criminal investigation of child sexual abuse. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs.

Child abuse investigations transferred to state police (1998, May/June). Youth Law News.

Kolbo, J. R. & B, E. (1997). Multidisciplinary team approaches to the investigation and resolution of child abuse and neglect: a national survey. Child Maltreatment, 2(1), 61-72.

Pence, D., & Wilson, C. (1994). The team investigation of child sexual abuse: The uneasy alliance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shepherd, J. R. (1997). The role of law enforcement in the investigation of child abuse and neglect. In M. E. Helfer, R. S. Kempe, & R. D. Krugman (Eds.), The battered child. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

CPS AND WELFARE REFORM

Courtney, M. (1998). The costs of child protection in the context of welfare reform. The Future of Children, 8(1), 88-103.

Duerr Berrick, J., Barth, R., & Needell, B. (Eds). (1999). Special issue on welfare reform and child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 21(9/10).

Knitzer, J., & Bernard, S. (1997). The new welfare law and vulnerable families: Implications for child welfare/child protection systems. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty.

FAMILY DECISION MAKING

Adams, R., Alter, C., & Krauth, K. (1995). Strengthening families and neighborhoods: A community-centered approach. Final report on the Iowa Patch Project. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa.

Barsky, A. (1999). Community involvement through child protection mediation. Child Welfare, 78(4), 481-502.

Burford, G., & Pennell, J. (1997). Family group decision making: After the conference--progress in resolving violence and promoting well-being: Outcome report (Vols 1-2). St. Johns, NF: Memorial University Press.

Pennell, J., & Burford, G. (2000): Family group decision making: Protecting children and women. Child Welfare, 79(2), 131-158.

Thoennes, N. (1997). An evaluation of child protection mediation in five California courts. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 35, 184-195.

Notes to Exhibit 2

To be included in Exhibit 2, a State had to have its demonstration or initiative described in a published document or on a web site.

Family Assessment/Differential Response System

States have been noted as initiating such programs if they are piloting programs that respond to children differently based on an initial assessment of risk or if they have introduced new family assessment protocols. Such protocols include attention to and indeed may focus solely on the assessment of family needs, rather than solely on the substantiation of maltreatment. (Sources: AHA, 1996; National Conference of State Legislatures, 1999; Christian, 1997; English et. al., 2000; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000.)

Community-Centered Services

States are included in this category if they have piloted programs at the local community level that have some of the following characteristics: reduce the separation or isolation of CPS from the community, utilize informal community resources, or re-locate CPS staff in the community. (Sources: AHA, 1996; Christian, 1997; Shirk, 1998.)

CPS-Police Relationships

States are included in this category ifthe law enforcement agency is responsible for or has significant responsibilities in the handling of some cases of child maltreatment as defined by State statute. (Sources: Christian, 1997; Bollenbacher, 2000.)

Collaboration Between CPS Agencies and AOD Agencies

States are included in this category if they have built innovative bridges in at least one community among their CPS and AOD treatment agencies. (Source: Gardner & Young, 1997; Young & Gardner, 2000; IV-E Waivers.)

Collaboration Between CPS Agencies and Domestic Violence (DV) Agencies

States are included in this category if they have built innovative bridges among their CPS and DV agencies at the state level (*) or at a community level (X). (Sources: Aron & Olson, 1997; National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1998.)

[ Back to Exhibit 2 ]