blake l. jones, msw, ph.d. university of kentucky college of social work
DESCRIPTION
“Child Welfare Agencies and Citizen Review Panel Collaboration: The Difficult--but Necessary--Dance”. Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work ACF Region 4 CWCI Meeting August 17, 2011 Atlanta, Georgia. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070400/56813062550346895d96328f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
“Child Welfare Agencies and Citizen Review Panel
Collaboration: The Difficult--but Necessary--
Dance” Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D.
University of Kentucky College of Social Work
ACF Region 4 CWCI Meeting
August 17, 2011
Atlanta, Georgia
![Page 2: Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070400/56813062550346895d96328f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
WHAT IS YOUR VISION FOR YOUR STATE’S CITIZEN REVIEW
PANELS?
![Page 3: Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070400/56813062550346895d96328f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Arnstein’s “Ladder of Participation”
![Page 4: Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070400/56813062550346895d96328f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Citizen Participation in Other Fields
Public Administration (Box, 1998; Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000; King, Feltey, & Susel, 1998, Thomas, 1995)
> Shift from “informing” citizens of government projects to “involving” them (i.e., maximum feasible participation)
> Mixed results (Big question for administrators to answer: WHY are citizens being used?)
![Page 5: Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070400/56813062550346895d96328f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Environmental Issues (Peelle, et al., 1996)
“successful” citizen participation requires….
Agency clarity on goals and stakeholder roles in public participation
Top management commitment to the public participation process
Manager/leader goes beyond legal minimum
Agency responsiveness to stakeholders
Two-way communication and education
Adequate resources
Development of provisional trust between agency and public
Giving priority to trust building actions
Openness of the agency
![Page 6: Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070400/56813062550346895d96328f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Why is Citizen Participation in Public Child Welfare Important?
It prevents the child welfare agency from becoming a “system unto itself”
It moves us toward “community based” protection of children (the BEST way!)
Citizen can be advocates for the agency
It educates citizens about what is really happening with child abuse and neglect
It’s democracy in action….
![Page 7: Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070400/56813062550346895d96328f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
An Auspicious Beginning?
“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
![Page 8: Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070400/56813062550346895d96328f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
History of CRPsCitizen Review Panels were formed through a 1996 amendment to the Child Abuse and Prevention Treatment Act (CAPTA)
3 panels per state by July, 1999 (some only needed one)
Each panel has the responsibility to review compliance of state and local CPS agencies with respect to:
state CAPTA plan (basically ANY child protective services)
Other criteria the panel considers important, which may include coordination with foster care and adoption programs and review of child fatalities and near fatalities
![Page 9: Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070400/56813062550346895d96328f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Requirements for Citizen Review Panels
Composed of volunteer members thatare broadly representative of the community in which they are operatinginclude individuals with expertise in the prevention and treatment of child abuse and neglect
Meet at least quarterly
Examine policies and procedures and, where appropriate, specific cases of both state and local agencies
Maintain confidentiality
Prepare an annual report with activities and recommendations
![Page 10: Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070400/56813062550346895d96328f/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Requirements from 2003 CAPTA Reauthorization
Evaluate PRACTICES as well as policy and procedure
Develop a means for public comment
Child welfare agency is to respond in writing to annual report within six months
![Page 11: Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070400/56813062550346895d96328f/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
NEW from CAPTA 2010 Re-Authorization
CRPs “may include adult former victims of child abuse or neglect”
Directs Secretary of HHS to conduct a study on the effectiveness of CRPs by 2012
![Page 12: Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070400/56813062550346895d96328f/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Common Themes
CRP coordinated by someone from state child welfare agency
Struggle with “diverse” membership and involving “non-professionals”
Trouble in defining the “mission” and outcomes of CRP (“watchdog” vs. “advocate”)
Retention of members is difficult
Turnover in state agency (i.e., new administrations)
Difficulty in connecting with Child and Family Services Review
![Page 13: Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070400/56813062550346895d96328f/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
A Selection of CRP Successes Nationally
Minnesota CRPs have done research projects around the issue of father involvement in case planning
Maine hosted a large statewide child welfare conference in 2010, involving over 300 participants
South Carolina made the commitment to work with their child welfare agency and hosted the 2011 national conference
Wyoming has formed a CRP on the Wind River Indian Reservation
![Page 14: Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070400/56813062550346895d96328f/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Examples of Recommendations Made Nationally
Child welfare agency should implement an online mandated reporter training (GA)
Develop a brochure to be given to families who are chosen as “kinship care” (SC)
The Child Welfare Agency and the Department of Education should develop a joint training on child abuse to be given to teachers and other school personnel (NJ)
CPS caseworkers should receive additional training on identifying child and family needs related to mental health disorders, developmental disabilities, and substance abuse disorders (NV)
Use a “risk simulator” similar to the ones used by police to train social workers (KY)
![Page 15: Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070400/56813062550346895d96328f/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Challenges to Collaboration
Citizens have trouble understanding complexities of state agencies (“Feel like we’re treading water”)
Difficulty in choosing evaluative topics of any substance and value
CRPs get lost in the sea of “citizen groups” who are charged with evaluating CPS
![Page 16: Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070400/56813062550346895d96328f/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
More obstacles…
Distrust from frontline workers
Overwhelming nature of NCANS, PIP, CFSR, etc.
Time lag between when new initiatives are launched and CRPs are informed (“we had to read it in the paper…”)
Some members see Panels as a way to “stick it to” the child protection system
![Page 17: Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070400/56813062550346895d96328f/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Research tells us that Citizen Review Panels generally do better when they are…
Given access to information
Consulted EARLY in the policy development process
Given FEEDBACK about their recommendations
Provided staff and other logistical support
Are part of a thoughtful, well-defined process rather than a “feel good” exercise
![Page 18: Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070400/56813062550346895d96328f/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
What Makes a “Bad” CRP?
Unclear or conflicting goals
Poor leadership from chairperson
No follow through on commitments
“axe grinders”
Lack of communication from child welfare agency
“Policy overload”
Membership turnover (always “starting from scratch”)
![Page 19: Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070400/56813062550346895d96328f/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
The Elements of Successful Citizen Review Panels
A clear focus and strategic plan
A trusting relationship with the child welfare system
Ability to view the “big picture” of incremental change within large bureaucracies
Staff and other logistical support
Ability to engage in ongoing dialogue (this is more than “trading reports”)
Ability to connect with other child advocates in the state
Meetings which are productive and move the group toward a common goal
![Page 20: Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070400/56813062550346895d96328f/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
What have we learned?
Clearly define roles of responsibilities of CRPs and child welfare agency (this should be spelled out in a Memo Of Agreement)
Give feedback to Panels about what happens to their recommendations. If they are not feasible, say so, and explain why
Create consistent “point persons” within the agency to answer critical questions.
Have a way for members to cycle on and off the Panel
![Page 21: Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070400/56813062550346895d96328f/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
What have we learned?
Work on team development (use cohesion scale to assess)
Work with Chairperson to develop her or his leadership abilities
Provide at least a part-time paid staff person (be CREATIVE, sub-contract with a University to coordinate CRPs)
Celebrate successes and improvements
Value citizenship
![Page 22: Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070400/56813062550346895d96328f/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
An Example of a Successful CRP Topic
TOPIC: How frontline Kentucky child welfare workers are trained to respond to “meth” cases
KY CRP reviewed policy, talked with frontline workers and supervisors, law enforcement, first responders
RESULT: Changes in policy which made workers and children safer
![Page 23: Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070400/56813062550346895d96328f/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Selected ReferencesBryan, 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 or 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 of 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.
![Page 24: Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070400/56813062550346895d96328f/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Practical AdviceDo…..
Focus on building a trusting, honest relationship with your child welfare agency
Become an integral part of the Program Improvement Plan!!!!
Do a “project” during the year (i.e., host a conference, do a community service project, do something for frontline workers)
Develop a mechanism whereby you follow your recommendations over the years
Get a practicum student
Try to find a project that aligns with the PIP!
Don’t….Choose a work project that is
large and unmanageable
Spend your time in meetings “chasing rabbits”
Neglect the health of your group
Be afraid to ask for what you need, but….
Don’t get overly defensive if the answer is “no”
![Page 25: Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070400/56813062550346895d96328f/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
SMART Indicators for CRP Topics
Specific
Measurable
Achievable
Realistic
Time Limited
![Page 26: Blake L. Jones, MSW, Ph.D. University of Kentucky College of Social Work](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070400/56813062550346895d96328f/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
The national scene…
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 will be held in Washington, DC on April 15-17, 2012