How Arizona a Obje jective ives s for or today ay Citizen - - PDF document

7/9/2014 1

How Arizona a Citizen Review w Panels ls Enhance and Impact Child Welfare System

Sandra Lescoe, , MSW Gary Brennan, , FACHE HE, , CHC HC, , BA in Special Education Emilio Gonzales, , MSW

7/9/2014 1

Obje jective ives s for

• r today

ay

Participants will understand and discuss

• Foundation, history and federal mandates implemented by Federal

government to improve child welfare ▪ Background and purpose of Citizen Review Panels (CRP)s ▪ How Arizona CRP’s and community involvement can impact child welfare ▪ Importance of the relationship between child welfare agencies and CRPs ▪ Arizona CRPs work and activities and changes which have resulted from their findings and recommendations

7/9/2014 2

Citizen Revi view Panels (CRPs Ps) can support and play a role in the rede design of the child d welfa fare system.

Is the protection and well-being of children who come to the attention of the child protection agency the sole responsibility of the agency? Does the public understand the role and responsibilities of the child protection agency? Does the political atmosphere support and encourage citizen involvement? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W32Nv8ISiMM

7/9/2014 3

Founda datio tion n of child d prot

• tecti

ction

• n and practi

ctice ce

The history and transition of child protection in America evolved and is divisible into three eras.

• The first era extends from colonial times to 1875 - referred to as the era before
• rganized child protection.
• The second era spans 1875 to 1962 - creation and growth of organized child

protection through nongovernmental child protection societies.

• The third era, 1962 - marks the beginning of the third or modern era, the era of

government-sponsored child protective services.

HeinOnline -- 42 Fam. L.Q. 449 2008-2009 7/9/2014 4

7/9/2014 2

First t key Federal Legislati tion

• n addressing

ng abuse and neglect ct

1974 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) which:

• Provided Federal funding to States in support of prevention, assessment,

investigation, prosecution, and treatment activities

• Provided grants to public agencies and non profit organizations for

demonstration programs and projects.

• Identified the Federal role in supporting research, evaluation, technical

assistance, and data collection activities; establishes the Office on Child Abuse and Neglect; and mandates the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. CAPTA also sets forth a minimum definition of child abuse and neglect

7/9/2014 5

Nation

• nal clima

mate moved from focusing on Reunifi fication

• n

to to Safety

The pendulum swings according to what the political and/or national child welfare climate is at a given time. During this period there was: ▪ Concern over child fatalities in open cases, children “languishing” in foster care, children returned to unsafe home environments ▪ Increasing public concern called for more accountability in the child protection system ▪ Concerns that family rights were being intruded upon and family’s were being ripped apart

7/9/2014 6

Amendm ndment nts s made to CAPTA TA CAPTA Reauthorization of 1996

• Required states to establish citizen review panels
• The panels provided a forum for citizens to help determine whether

state and local agencies are effectively discharging their child protection responsibilities.

7/9/2014 7

Federal requi uirement nts

▪ Each state was to establish 3 panels (some only need one) by July 1999 ▪ Each panel has the responsibility to review compliance of state and local child welfare agencies with respect to:

• state CAPTA plan
• other criteria the panel considers important, which may include

coordination with foster care and adoption programs and review of child fatalities and near fatalities

7/9/2014 8

7/9/2014 3

Requirements continued

▪ Panels are to be composed of volunteer members who:

• are broadl

dly representative ve of the community in which they are operating (private or professional citizens), and

• include individuals with expertise in the preve

vention and treatment of child d abuse and negl glect ▪ Meet at least quarterly ▪ Maintain confi fide dentiality

7/9/2014 9

Addi ditio tiona nal amendm dment nts implemente ted d to enhance nce child d welfare

CAPTA Reauthorization of 2003 requires panels to:

▪ Review and evaluate PRACTICE as well as policy and procedure ▪ Develop a means for public comment and prepare and present an annual report which details their activi vities and recommenda dations ▪ Child welfare agency is to respond in writing to the annual report within six months

CAPTA Reauthorization of 2010

▪ Required a study and report to Congress on the effectiveness of citizen review panels ▪ Panels may include adults who are former victims of child abuse and neglect

7/9/2014 10

The CRPs can review, evaluate and exami mine any of the follow

• wing parts of the child welfa

fare re system

▪ Intake and initial screening ▪ Investigation or assessment ▪ Case determination ▪ Service planning, implementation, and monitoring ▪ Utilization of technology to determine outcomes ▪ Case closure ▪ Crisis intervention; Emergency placement; Family stabilization ▪ Coordination of services ▪ Staff qualifications, training and workload ▪ Review hard copies of case information

7/9/2014 11

CRP reco comme menda ndatio tions

▪ Can address elements of policy

• r practice that was not followed
• r unclear

▪ Suggest modifying a policy which was followed but was identified as a concern or produced a bad outcome ▪ Address issues not addressed in policy ▪ Systemic issues ▪ Should be focused and specific ▪ Should deal with something that is within the agency’s control ▪ Be factual to address policy, procedure or practice (avoid changes to Federal policy) ▪ Be derived from the panel’s work during the year. ▪ Have support from the entire panel

7/9/2014 12

7/9/2014 4

Why citiz tizen n participatio tion? n?

Federal mandate noted the following: ▪ “By allowing the Panels to have complete access to child protection cases, by requiring Panels to publicize their findings, and by requiring states to respond to criticisms and recommendations of the Panels, the Committee intends to subject states to public criticism and political repercussion if they fail to protect children” House report 104-081, p. 1

• The language set a precedent for a contentious relationship between

the panels’ role and responsibilities with the child protection agency

• Are we all speaking the same language?

7/9/2014 13

Collaboration

7/9/2014 14

Collabor borati tion

• n

What t impacts cts good

• d and bad collabor

boratio tion? n?

Competing priorities Distrust Mindset Child Welfare Priorities Prevention service needs How safety, permanency, and well-being of children is defined or understood

7/9/2014 15

Competing ting prioriti

• rities

s and communi nica cati tion

• n

Child welfare administrators

• ften speak the language of:
• Budget stress
• Politics
• “We know best”
• Incremental change
• Workload

Citizen groups often speak the language of:

• Personal passion
• Personal experience
• “We want change NOW!”
• “Coalitions are best”
• Ready to use public shame

if necessary

7/9/2014 16

7/9/2014 5

Distr trus ust

7/9/2014 17

Mind ndset t

Public Mindset et

▪ Child welfare shroud of secrecy which they claim is to protect the family’s privacy, but which is used by child welfare to ditch their responsibilities and accountability. ▪ Adhering to misguided and secretive policies that place confidentiality above the welfare of children and prevent public scrutiny and transparency

7/9/2014 18

Public c minds dset t conti tinu nued

Citizens have trouble understanding the complexities and bureaucracy of state agencies. ▪ There is civic apathy ▪ Public is under informed or misinformed ▪ Their perspective is shaped by what they read in the paper or what they think is the reality ▪ The government is constantly asking for more money

7/9/2014 19

Mindse dset t continue tinued

Child Welfare mindset

▪ The public does not understand our job

• r our workload

▪ Public is out to get us ▪ “ Those people (Citizen Review Panel members) rs) need to get a clue. They don’t know the first thing about what we do, but they want to judge ge us. They should just mind their own business!” ~ Child Welfare re Admini nistr trato tor r

7/9/2014 20

7/9/2014 6

7/9/2014 21

Why is citizen participation and support important to Public Child Welfare?

These are the reason’s why

▪ It prevents the child welfare agency from becoming a “system unto itself” ▪ It moves us toward “community based” protection of children versus the child protection system having sole responsibility ▪ Citizens can be advocates for the agency ▪ Educates citizens about what is really happening with child abuse and neglect ▪ It’s democracy in action

7/9/2014 22

The benefits ts of state agenci ncies s developing ng a a good

• d

relati tionship

• nship with

th your CRPs

▪ Citizens can ADVOCATE for you (i.e., testify before state legislators) ▪ Citizens see things that your agency does not ▪ You spend less energy being reactive and more time being proactive ▪ Others are watching (feds, other states) ▪ It’s the law……..their voice matters

7/9/2014 23

Other advanta tages s of collecti ctive ve citiz tizen n advoc

• cacy

cy

▪ Greater impact achieved by bringing many groups/constituencies together around a coordinated message ▪ Power in numbers ▪ Reduce competing messages delivered to policy makers about a particular issue; demonstrates consensus ▪ Unbiased citizen input

7/9/2014 24

7/9/2014 7

Utilizi zing ng opport

• rtuniti

unities

• Many state child welfare agencies are acknowledging that public

agencies cannot single-handedly combat child abuse and neglect

• Citizens and communities are in the best position to help protect

children and support families during times of need.

• By engaging these communities more effectively and recognizing

their essential, if informal, role in service delivery, and by using data to measure success, it is believed child welfare agencies can improve safety.

7/9/2014 25

CRP members role and relati tion

• nship-bui

buildi ding ng with h the child d welfare agenc ncy

Arizona CRP’s have been supportive of the child welfare agency while also maintaining their roles and duties by being: ▪ Non judgmental ▪ Cooperative ▪ Responsive ▪ Collaborative ▪ Flexible ▪ Taking ownership of projects

7/9/2014 26

Myths s about ut citiz tizen invol

• lve

vement nt

▪ One person can’t make a difference ▪ You have to be a real expert and policy guru ▪ Only full-time lobbyists have an impact ▪ Somebody else will do it ▪ You have to be rich or well-known

7/9/2014 27

What t the research ch tells s us

CRPs are more effe fecti tive when n there re are these elements nts in place: ▪ A clear r focus us and strate tegi gic c plan ▪ A trusti ting g relati tions nship with the child welfare system ▪ Ability to view the “big picture” of incremental change within large bureaucracies ▪ Coordination of meetings and materials are provided (ex: ASU) ▪ Ability to engage in ongoing dialogue (they develop persona nal relati tions nshi hips) ▪ Ability to connect with other child advocates in the state ▪ Meetings which are productive and move the group toward a common goal

7/9/2014 28

7/9/2014 8

What t the research ch tells s us us

CRPs are also more effective when they are: ▪ Given access to information (CAVEAT: CRPs should ask only for the information that is needed to complete their strategic plan) ▪ Consulted EARLY in the policy development process ▪ Given FEEDBACK about their recommendations ▪ Are part of a thoughtful, well-defined process rather than a “feel good” exercise

7/9/2014 29

CRP’s and community members can focus on improvi ving g the safe fety and quality of servi vices to childr dren and families

We can all make a difference in changing the landscape of child welfare moving forward by:

• Not blaming and name calling

▪ Supporting those who are on the front line doing the hard work ▪ Getting more people involved in gathering and disseminating information about the real issues and what needs to be done to protect and serve children and families. ▪ Supporting positive change by speaking up and being honest ▪ Using positive approaches to educate the public and community providers about child welfare issues ▪ Seizing the moment - there is so much work to be done!

7/9/2014 30

Advoc vocacy cy Strategies

▪ Calling ▪ Letter writing ▪ Visiting ▪ Testifying before committees ▪ Developing personal relationships ▪ Contributing time and/or money ▪ Doing good work

7/9/2014 31

Lobbying ng inf nform

• rmatio

tion

▪ Which legislator do you want to speak with? ▪ What committee is the legislator

• n?

▪ What bill number is your focus? ▪ Where to find contact information for a legislator ▪ When does the committee meet?

7/9/2014 32

7/9/2014 9

Arizona Citizen Review Panel Program

7/9/2014 33

Arizona zona Citize zen n Review Program

The Arizona Citizen Review Panels were established d in 1999 ▪ There are three established panels as required by the federal mandate. ▪ Citizen review panel members meet quarterly for approximately three hours. ▪ The Northern Panel convenes in Flagstaff, the Central Panel convenes in Phoenix, and the Southern Panel convenes in Tucson.

7/9/2014 34

Arizona CRP structure and activities

▪ The Department’s Practice Improvement Specialists and other Department representatives attend the CRP meetings and use the information gained to improve practice in their area ▪ Liaison ▪ Attend National Conference ▪ Policy Clarification ▪ Educate the panels on current practice and trends ▪ Training is provided to the panels

7/9/2014 35

Citi tizen n Review Panel proje ject ct coordi dina nati tion

• n

▪ In 2008, the Center for Applied Behavioral Health Policy (CABHP) was awarded the contract for facilitation of the Arizona Citizen Review Panel (ACRP). A new approach was developed for the coordination and support of the Panels based on interviews with key stakeholders, review of panel member surveys, past reports, observation of Panel meetings, consultation from representatives from the National Citizen Review Panel Program at the University of Kentucky, and examination of the national guidelines and Protocols created for Arizona Citizen Review Panels. ▪ The center serves as the coordinator for the ACRPP and is responsible for working in conjunction with the Department of Child Safety (DCS) to meet all federal requirements identified in CAPTA regarding the Citizen Review Panels [Section 106(c)].

7/9/2014 36

7/9/2014 10

CRP invol volve vement nt from

• m the agency

ncy perspective spective

Changes or areas of focus which resulted from CRP recommendations.

• Copy of recommendations and responses to the

recommendations can be found on the cabhp.asu.edu website

• Some of the changes include…..

7/9/2014 37

Prevention

• n, Prevention, Prevention
• n! “It’s easier to build

strong children than repair broken men” Frederick Douglas

7/9/2014 38

We are looking to add to our CRP RP volunteers. . For more informa mation on the Arizona Citizen Review Panel Program, m, visit https:/ ://cabhp.a .asu.e .educ or contact: Sandra Lescoe CRP Project Coordinator ASU School of Social Work, Center for Applied Behavioral Health Policy Email: Sandra.Lescoe@asu.edu Phone: 602-496-1487 Emilio Gonzales Home Recruitment Assistant Manager, Department of Child Safety EmilioGonzales@azdes.gov 602-771-9008, Direct Gary Brennan, MS, FACHE, CHC Chief Executive Officer Quality Care Network Gary.Brennan@QCNAZ.com 602-773-4849, Direct 602-478-9845, Cell “Never doubt that a small, , dedicated group of citizens can make a difference. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has…” ~ Margaret Mead

7/9/2014 39

References

▪ Bryan, V., Collins-Camargo, C., & Jones, B. (2011). Reflections on citizen-state child welfare partnerships: Listening to citizen review panel volunteers and agency

• liaisons. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 1, 986-

1010. ▪ Bryan, V., Jones, B.L. & Lawson. (2010). Key features of effective citizen–state child welfare partnerships: Findings from a national study of citizen review panels. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 4, 595-603. ▪ Collins-Camargo, C., Jones, B.L, & Krusich, S. (2009). The “Spinach” of Citizen Participation in Public Child Welfare: Strategies for Involving Citizens in Public Child Welfare. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 3, 287-304. ▪ Jones, B.L. & Royse, D. (2008) Citizen review panels: The connection between training and perceived

• effectiveness. Child Abuse & Neglect: The International

Journal) 32, 1-2. ▪ Bryan, V., Jones, B.L., Allen, E. & Collins-Camargo, C. (2007) Child and Youth Services Review Civic Engagement

• r Token Participation? Perceived Impact of the Citizen

Review Panel Initiative in Kentucky. 29, 1286–1300 ▪ Jones, B.L. & Royse, D. (2008) Citizen review panels for child protective services: A national profile. Child Welfare, (87), 3, 143-162. ▪ Jones, B. L. (2004) Variables Impacting the Effectiveness

• f Citizens Review Panels For Child Protective Services:

A Multi-state Study. Children and Youth Services Review, (26) 12, 1117-1127. ▪ Jones, B.L., Litzelfelner, P. & Ford, J.P. (2003) Making a Change or Making a Report: Change Perceptions of Citizens Review Panel Members and Child Protective

• Workers. Child Abuse & Neglect: The International

Journal., (27) 699-704. ▪ Litzelfelner, P., Collins-Camargo, C. & Jones, B. L. (2003) Models for Involving Citizens in the Child Welfare System in Kentucky: An Overview. Kentucky Children’s Rights Journal., Spring, 2003.

• Child welfare Information Gateway. (2011. About

CAPTA: A legislative history. Washington, DC: U>S> Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau

7/9/2014 40

7/9/2014 11

Reference nces

▪ Lessons Learned from our Thirteen Years as a Program coordinator, Researcher and CRP Chair Blake L. Jones, MSW, LCSW, Ph.D.University of KentuckyCrystal Collins-Camargo, MSW, Ph.D. University of Louisville ▪ The Dangerous and Promising Path: Using Citizen Panels to Enhance Outcomes for Behavioral Health Agencies Blake Jones, Ph.D., MSW, LCSW University of Kentucky College of Social Work; Program Coordinator, Citizen Review Panels of Kentucky ▪ http://www.uky.edu/SocialWork/crp/ ▪ http://cabhp.asu.edu/files/news/2013-arizona- citizen-review-panel-annual-report ▪ University of Kentucky is the organizing “hub” for Citizen Review Panels ▪ National Citizen Review Panel Virtual Community (www.uky.edu/socialwork/crp) Annual Reports, Training Materials, Sign up for Listserv, Information from Annual Reports , Articles, Tip Sheets ▪ National CRP Conference to be held May18-20, 2014 in Atlanta, Georgia http://www.gacrp.com/content/page.cfm/53/ ▪ Report to Congress on Effective veness of Citizen Revi view Panels http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/crp_rptcon gress.pdf

7/9/2014 41