Citizen Participation in Public Child Welfare: A Multi-State Study of Citizens Review Panel Members’ Perceptions of Effectiveness Blake L. Jones, MSW,
Post on 31-Dec-2015
215 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Citizen Participation in Public Child Welfare:A Multi-State Study of Citizens Review Panel Members’ Perceptions of Effectiveness
Blake L. Jones, MSW, LCSW, ABD
University of Kentucky
College of Social Work
National Citizens Review Panel Conference
Lexington, Kentucky
May 28, 2004
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed it is the only
thing that ever has."
Margaret Meade
“Service is the rent we pay forliving. It is the very purpose of lifeand not something you do in your spare time."
~ Marian Wright Edelman
“We’re not really helping kids. All we’re doing is just generating another report that CPS won’t use!”
~Survey Respondent
Objectives of this Presentation Brief Background on CRPs
Review of literature
Theoretical and Conceptual foundations of the study
Methodology
Results
News You Can Use
Citizen Review Panels
• Created through a 1996 amendment to CAPTA
3 panels per state (some only need one) by 7/99
Each panel has the responsibility to review compliance of state and local CPS agencies with respect to:– state CAPTA plan– Federal child protection standards– Other criteria the panel considers important, which may
include coordination with foster care and adoption programs and review of child fatalities and near fatalities
Requirements for Citizen Review Panels
Composed of volunteer members that– are broadly representative of the community in which they are
operating– include individuals with expertise in the prevention and treatment of
CA/N– Include CPS liaison
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
New Requirements from 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
ACYF to do an evaluation of CRPs
CPS Standards Subject to Review Reporting procedures Screening and
investigation Child safety steps Immunity for good faith
reporting Confidentiality of
records Public disclosure in
fatalities and near fatalities
Expedited TPR
Cooperation of law enforcement, courts and state CPS agencies
Expungement of records available to public
Appointment of guardians ad litem
Appeal of findings Provisions not requiring
reunification in certain cases
Panel Should Establish Protocols and Procedures to Review Each of the Following Parts of the CPS
System
Intake and initial screening
Investigation or assessment
Case determination Service planing,
implementation, and monitoring
Case closure Crisis intervention;
emergency placement; family stabilization
Coordination of Services
Staff qualifications, training and workload
Examples of Approaches and Sources of Information
In-depth review of a small number of cases
Broader review of cases
Analysis of statewide data systems
Review of agency policy and procedures
Surveys
Quality Assurance Reviews
Focus groups or interviews of staff, consumers, service providers, mandated reporters, foster parents, others
Previous Research on What Increases Perceptions of Effectiveness in Citizen Panels
Access to information
Clear goals and objectives (should be congruent with other entity)
Training
Cohesion among members
“Authentic” communication between agency and panel
Opportunities to build trust
Previous Research on CRPs
Jones, Litzelfelner, & Ford (2003)
> Significant difference between CRP members and CPS workers
regarding whether or not citizen involvement was important
> Found a need for increased communication between the two as well as more education about each other’s roles
Theoretical Underpinnings
Webler & Tuler (2000)
> Theory of Discourse (based on Hambermas’ “rational
communication”)
> Says the process should be “fair” and “competent”
States in the Study
Alabama Minnesota North Carolina West Virginia Arkansas New Hampshire Ohio Wisconsin WashingtonFlorida New Mexico South Carolina Wyoming Georgia New York Tennessee Idaho Maryland Nevada Michigan
VariablesIndependent Dependent
Communication Flow Education Months on Panel Group Cohesion Bylaws Budget Chairperson Paid Staff Person
Perceived Effectiveness
Placement on Ladder of Citizen Participation
Instrumentation
Created “Citizen Review Panel Perceived Effectiveness Survey” composed of:**
> “Perceived Effectiveness” Scale
> “Communications Scale”
> Group Cohesion Scale-Revised
**Good internal consistency on all scales (Cronbach’s alpha .82-.90)
Methodology
664 anonymous surveys distributed by mail or through key contacts
SASE envelope enclosed (real stamps)
332 Returned (50% return rate)
Used SPSS to analyze
Results
75% Female, 25% Male
Mean Age: 52 years
Mean Education: 17.24 years
39% social workers (others: medical field, retired, educators, attorneys)
What variables have an effect on “Perceived Effectiveness”?
Communication Flow**
Months on Panel*
Group Cohesion*
Paid Staff Support*
* p. <05 ** p.<001
What has an effect on where respondents placed themselves on the Ladder?
Communication Flow**
Group Cohesion*
Paid Staff Support*
* p. <05 ** p.<001
Barriers to Collaboration Lack of Funding/Resources for
CRP
Defensiveness of child protective services agency (manifested through hidden agendas, for example)
Inconsistent meeting attendance by Panel membership
Lack of communication/feedback (i.e., no “official” response to the annual report )
Suggestions for Working Together
Better communication between CPS and CRPs (i.e., through memos of agreement)
Clearer goals and objectives for the Panel
CRPs need to be more educated about the roles of CPS
A more diverse membership on the panel (including parents, non-professionals, and ethnic minorities
Increased funding (including staff support) for CRPs
Limitations
Only 20 states surveyed (had to sample in some)
Did not measure “effectiveness,” only perceived effectiveness
Did not survey child welfare agency workers
So What? 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.
So What?
Ongoing and meaningful communication is critical (hold joint retreats/strategic planning sessions, potlucks, awards ceremonies)
Think Quality, not Quantity.
Set clear guidelines and goals, check in half way through the year to make sure the group is “on track”
So What? 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
top related