A Study of the Effects of Co-Locating DV Advocates in Child Protective Services Offices: The New York Experience May 1, 2014 Rose Greene and Ellen Unruh
Feb 23, 2016
A Study of the Effects of Co-Locating DV Advocates in Child Protective Services Offices:
The New York Experience
May 1, 2014Rose Greene and Ellen Unruh
Background
Background
Research Methods
Background
Research Methods
Findings in Brief
Background
Research Methods
Findings in Brief
Selected Findings
Background
Research Methods
Findings in Brief
Selected Findings
Implications
Source: Center for Human Services Research, Director of Services Interviews, 2011
Field interviews and focus groups
Surveys of Workers
Case Record Reviews
Qualitative
Quantitative
Improvements
Yet….ongoing challenges
How Did Co-Location Work?
Location, Location, Location
How Did Co-Location Work?
Location, Location, Location
Identification and Referral
How Did Co-Location Work?
Location, Location, Location
Identification and Referral
Worker Practice
Effect on CPS worker practice, knowledge and attitudes
74%
65%
60%
29%
Not Co-Located Co-Located
Consult with DV staff on cases involving DV
Have a positive experience working with DV agencies
CPS Caseworkers
11%
25%
53%
4%
11%
36%
Not Co-located Co-located
Helped DV victims identify DV offender behavior patterns
Discussed with DV victims the DV of-fender’s impact on the children
Spoke with DV offenders about DV and taking responsibility for their actions
DV Advocates more likely to:
35%
63%
63%
15%
21%
9%
Not Co-located Co-located
Attend CPS home visits
Be invited to case conferences
Be invited to family team meet-ings
DV Advocates
98%
88%
92%
84%
71%
70%
Not Co-Located Co-Located
Agree that they have a good understanding of what CPS can/cannot do
Talk with their clients about how to keep their children safe
Know enough about the CPS process to help clients through it
What effect did this have on families?
Case notes less likely to include victim-blaming language
Co-LocatedNot Co-Located
29%
46%
Client Engagement
Clients are open to DV advocate since she does not carry the threat of child removal
DV advocates help translate CPS process to clients
CPS can act as a buffer for receiving DV services
Cite DV as the ONLY reason for substantiation of DV victims
9%
23%
Not Co-located Co-located123 cases 107 cases
Challenges
Information Sharing
Challenges
Information Sharing
Perpetrator Programs
Challenges
Information Sharing
Perpetrator Programs
Target Population
Recommendations
• Expand and replicate the co-location program
Recommendations
• Expand and replicate the co-location program
• Support continuous quality improvement of the co-location model
Recommendations
• Expand and replicate the co-location program
• Support continuous quality improvement of the co-location model
• Pursue strategies to address unmet community needs for victims and perpetrators
For More Information
Center for Human Services Research-For links to CPS/DV evaluation reports:http://www.albany.edu/chsr/csp-dv.shtml
New York State Office for Children and Family Services-For NY child welfare/DV practice guidancehttp://ocfs.ny.gov/main/dv/child_welfare.asp