7/9/2014

1

How Arizona Citizen Review Panels Enhance and Impact Child Welfare System

Sandra Lescoe, MSWGary Brennan, FACHE, CHC, BA in Special EducationEmilio Gonzales, MSW

7/9/2014 1

Objectives for todayParticipants 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 Review Panels (CRPs) can support and play a role in the redesign of the child welfare 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

Foundation of child protection and practice

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

organized 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 key Federal Legislation addressing abuse and neglect

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

National climate moved from focusing on Reunification to SafetyThe 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

Amendments made to CAPTACAPTA 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 requirements▪ 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 planother 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 broadly representative of the community in which they

are operating (private or professional citizens), andinclude individuals with expertise in the prevention and

treatment of child abuse and neglect▪ Meet at least quarterly▪ Maintain confidentiality

7/9/2014 9

Additional amendments implemented to enhance child welfareCAPTA 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 activities and recommendations

▪ 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 examine any of the following parts of the child welfare 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 recommendations▪ Can address elements of policy

or practice that was not followed or 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 citizen participation?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

CollaborationWhat impacts good and bad collaboration?Competing prioritiesDistrustMindsetChild Welfare PrioritiesPrevention service needsHow safety, permanency, and well-being of children is defined or understood

7/9/2014 15

Competing priorities and communicationChild welfare administrators often 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

Distrust

7/9/2014 17

Mindset Public Mindset

▪ 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 mindset continuedCitizens 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

Mindset continuedChild Welfare mindset▪ The public does not understand our job

or our workload

▪ Public is out to get us

▪ “ Those people (Citizen Review Panel members) need to get a clue. They don’t know the first thing about what we do, but they want to judge us. They should just mind their own business!” ~ Child Welfare Administrator

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 of state agencies developing a good relationship with 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 advantages of collective citizen advocacy▪ 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

Utilizing opportunities 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 relationship-building with the child welfare agencyArizona 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 about citizen involvement▪ 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 the research tells usCRPs are more effective when there are these elements in place:

▪ 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

▪ Coordination of meetings and materials are provided (ex: ASU)

▪ Ability to engage in ongoing dialogue (they develop personal relationships)▪ 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 the research tells usCRPs 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 improving the safety and quality of services to children and familiesWe 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

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

7/9/2014 31

Lobbying information▪ Which legislator do you want to

speak with?▪ What committee is the legislator

on?▪ 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 Citizen Review ProgramThe Arizona Citizen Review Panels were established 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

Citizen Review Panel project coordination▪ 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 involvement from the agency perspectiveChanges 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, Prevention, Prevention! “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 volunteers. For more information on the Arizona Citizen Review Panel Program, visit https://cabhp.asu.educ or contact:

Sandra LescoeCRP Project CoordinatorASU School of Social Work, Center for Applied Behavioral Health PolicyEmail: Sandra.Lescoe@asu.eduPhone: 602-496-1487

Emilio GonzalesHome Recruitment Assistant Manager,Department of Child SafetyEmilioGonzales@azdes.gov602-771-9008, Direct

Gary Brennan, MS, FACHE, CHCChief Executive OfficerQuality Care NetworkGary.Brennan@QCNAZ.com602-773-4849, Direct602-478-9845, Cell

“Never doubt that a small, dedicated group of citizens canmake 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 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.

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

References▪ Lessons Learned from our Thirteen Years as a Program

coordinator, Researcher and CRP ChairBlake 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 Effectiveness of Citizen Review Panelshttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/crp_rptcongress.pdf

7/9/2014 41