Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1
Nevada Common Core Curriculum
History of Child Welfare in the United States and Nevada1
Nevada Partnership for Training
1
Reprinted with Permission
1
Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1
Nevada Common Core Curriculum
History of Child Welfare in the United States and Nevada
By
Nevada Partnership for Training
Sponsored by the Division of Child and Family Services
Acknowledgement
This history of child welfare in the United States and Nevada was prepared by the University of
Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) and the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), members of the Nevada
Partnership for Training (NPT). Patty Neely, Gina Jackson and Mahasin Saleh of UNR compiled
the sections on child welfare in the United States, Washoe County and the Rural Region and Jennifer
Nutton of UNLV organized the history on Clark County and the Pahrump section of the Rural
Region. We would like to thank the many state and county officials for their contributions to this
history of child welfare for the Nevada child welfare training system.
CHILD WELFARE IN THE UNITED STATES
Overview
Current child welfare services including child protection and out-of-home placement have been
strongly regulated by federal and state laws since the twentieth century, but they have their roots
from earlier practices. Before the late nineteenth century, parents had the right to discipline and train
their children through beatings and confinement and child labor was an acceptable practice. Abuse,
as currently understood, was not a focus of child welfare efforts. Abandonment and neglect were the
earliest issues in child welfare.
Philosophically, there has always been a fine line between helping to rescue children from neglectful
and abusive families and respect for the privacy of families. The exceptions to family privacy
considerations were usually for poor families.
English Poor Laws
England’s Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601 provided the legal basis in the U.S. during colonial times
for the local governments to intervene in the parent-child relationship to enforce parental duty or to
supply substitute care for children who were orphaned, abandoned, or unsupervised. These
interventions were justified on moral grounds and directed only toward the “undeserving poor”
(indigent persons who were not prevented from working through physical disability) and later
toward families of immigrants who were often poor and considered “deviant” in their customs or
familial arrangements.
Children’s Aid Society
In the U.S., increased urbanization, industrialization, and immigration in the nineteenth century
resulted in many unsupervised and vagrant children roaming the streets, which led to the formation
2
Nevada Common Core Curriculum
Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1
of the Children’s Aid Society in New York City in 1853. In the 75 years that followed, the
Children’s Aid Society sent more than 150,000 orphans to live in Christian homes in rural areas.
First Legal Intervention Against Child Abuse
In 1874, the first legal intervention against child abuse was initiated, the famous case of Mary Ellen
Wilson who was severely abused by her guardians. Because there were no legal sanctions for
prosecuting of child maltreatment, the case was brought under the auspices of the Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
In 1875, the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was formed and in 1877
New York State passed a law to protect children and punish those who mistreated them.
By the early twentieth century, there were private agencies supported by public and private funds,
which investigated reports of child abuse and neglect, and assisted the courts in the prosecution of
the cases. The philosophies of these agencies in different states varied from the punitive emphasis
on prosecution for maltreatment to that of family “rehabilitation” and community reform. The latter
focus of addressing environmental factors such as poor housing, lack of food and child care, and
dangerous neighborhoods was part of the progressive social action movement that developed in the
late nineteenth century. This movement was implemented in part by the establishment of community
settlement houses such as Hull House, founded by Jane Addams in Chicago in 1889.
White House Conference on Children
In the early twentieth century, a progressive agenda of social reform continued and assistance to
parents to care for their children began to be emphasized. In 1909, the first White House Conference
on Children was held and endorsed the policy that a child should not be removed from home unless
it was impossible to improve family conditions to make the home safe for the child.
Child Welfare League of America
In 1920, the Child Welfare League of America was established and worked with the American
Humane Association and other agencies to develop child welfare programs that encouraged
temporary out-of-home placement and preservation of the family whenever possible.
Federal Laws and Policies
1935: Social Security Act
The federal government first became involved in child welfare with the passage of the Social
Security Act of 1935. That provision of the New Deal under President Roosevelt established the Aid
to Dependent Children (ADC) program to assist poor, single mothers to care for their children and
also offered some federal funding for states to develop preventive and protective services for
children.
1974: Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
In the following decades and through the 1960s a growing public awareness of the existence and
effects of child maltreatment emerged, resulting in the passage of federal legislation in 1974, the
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), providing funds to prevent, identify, report,
3
Nevada Common Core Curriculum
Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1
and treat child maltreatment and creating the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect which
developed standards for collecting and responding to these reports.
1978: Indian Child Welfare Act
As federal policies towards Indian people evolved from “extermination” to “assimilation,” removing
Indian children from their homes and families was a way of helping them assimilate into white
society and giving them a chance to succeed in that society. There are several eras which led up to
the enacting of this law to protect Indian children. In the early 1900s Indian children were forcibly
removed from their homes and taken to boarding schools to educate and assimilate them. These early
boarding schools were modeled after military prisons.
In the mid-1900s, a collaborative project between the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Child
Welfare League of America (CWLA) established a clearinghouse for the interstate placement of
Indian children with non-Indian families. The CWLA philosophy “was that the ‘forgotten child, left
unloved and uncared for on the reservation, without a home or parents he can call his own’ could be
adopted ‘where there was less prejudice against Indians’ ” and “Non-western states were believed to
be less prejudiced against Indians.” This project was considered a success by CWLA standards and
25% to 35% of all Indian children were separated from their families.
To protect Indian children from these removal practices, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), was
passed in 1978 by Congress after federal investigation, establishing minimum federal standards that
must be applied in state child custody proceedings involving Indian children. It grants tribes the right
to intervene in child custody proceedings. It implements the federal government’s trust responsibility
to tribes by protecting and preserving the bond between Indian children and their tribe and culture.
(P. L. 95 -608, 25 U. S. C. A. 1901-1963)
1980: Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (Public Law 96-272)
Throughout the 1970s public awareness of child maltreatment grew, as did the reporting and
investigation. There was increased public concern for the safety of children and the large number of
children being placed in foster care, the great length of time they remained in care, the numerous
“temporary” placements that often lasted for years, the number of children who had no plan in place
for a permanent home and became “lost” in the system, all of which came to be referred to as “foster
care drift.” This, along with the mounting evidence of the harmful effects of such impermanence on
child development, led to the family preservation and permanency planning movements, legally
embodied in the 1980 federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (Public Law 96-272),
which required states to make “reasonable efforts” to prevent out-of-home placement and to work
for family reunification or find permanent adoptive homes for children who were removed from their
families.
Under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-272), Title IV-E and
entitlement funding was created. States may use this funding to train staff in public child welfare
settings or those preparing for employment (Zlotnick, 2003).
1985: The Child Abuse Prevention Act was enacted, establishing:

Standards, training, and qualification for persons responsible for the care of children,
4
Nevada Common Core Curriculum



Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1
Access to certain records of the State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment;
Procedures for establishing relationships between law enforcement officials and child
protective agencies;
Daycare facility inspections, and the investigation, prevention, and treatment of child abuse
and maltreatment in residential care.
1993: Family Preservation and Support Initiative (P.L.103-66)
Congress acted in 1993 with passage of the Family Preservation and Support Initiative (P.L.103-66),
providing states with funding for family preservation and family support services. The purpose was
to provide intensive services to families to prevent child abuse and neglect from occurring and/or,
after it had occurred, to provide services that would enable parents to develop a safe environment for
their children to return to. Because of the low level of funding for the intensive family preservation
services, combined with the ever-increasing number of children coming into care, larger caseloads
for caseworkers, and the more serious problems of some of the children and their families, among
other factors, it had become difficult for the families to get the intensive services they needed.
1997: Adoption and Safe Families Act
Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA, P.L. 105-89) in 1997. ASFA
reauthorized the Family Preservation and Family Support program (1993), renaming it the
Promoting Safe and Stable Families program. ASFA reaffirms the policy and philosophical
principles first embodied in the major child welfare and child protection legislation of 1980 in P.L.
96-272, namely the principles of “permanency planning” and “family preservation.” That 1980 law
required “reasonable efforts” to prevent out-of-home placements and to effect reunification, where
possible, following placements, while at the same time providing funds for adoption services when
that was the only feasible goal for permanence.
2000: Child and Family Services Review
Authorized by the 1994 Amendments to the Social Security Act, the Child and Family Services
Review (CFSR) became a mechanism for monitoring how state child welfare systems measure up to
national standards for child protection, family support, foster care, adoption, and other services
funded by Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. The reviews evaluate states on six
national standards and seven outcomes in safety, permanency and well-being.
CHILD WELFARE IN NEVADA
Overview
Current child welfare services have been regulated by federal laws in the United States since the
early 1900s. Nevada actually began its child welfare services in 1864 when it became a state.
Father Patrick Manogue and the Sisters of Charity founded an orphanage in Virginia City using a
local mission called the Nevada Orphanage Asylum.
Chronology
5
Nevada Common Core Curriculum
Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1

1864: The Nevada Orphan Asylum (Virginia City Mission) was founded in Virginia City by Fr.
Patrick Manogue and the Sisters of Charity.

1867: The state provided statutory basis for a state orphan’s home.

1871: The first state orphanage was completed. This structure burned down in 1899 and was
replaced by a stone building in 1902. The stone building was built in Carson City and later
became known as the Northern Nevada Children's Home.

1910: Reno's Florence Crittenden Mission was established for unwed or abandoned mothers and
their children. The state paid a small amount to this nonsectarian private organization, but most
of the funds came from private sources. The state's contribution was eliminated when
controversy arose again regarding the use of public monies on private institutions.

1937: A state welfare department was created and operated under the Board of Relief, Work
Planning and Pension Control. The original welfare department was only concerned with child
welfare services and old-age assistance. The unpaid secretary of the board served as executive
officer and two divisions were established—the Division of Old Age Assistance and the Division
of Child Welfare Services. Both heads of the divisions reported directly to the full board.

1943: The Nevada State Orphans’ Home was placed under the jurisdiction of the welfare
department. Although there is nothing in state statute, the state orphanage became known as the
Sunny Acres Children's Home when a sign was erected in the 1940s. A trust fund currently
established with the Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) and benefiting children of
the division makes reference to the "children from Sunny Acres Children's Home." In 1951, the
Nevada Legislature changed the name from the "Nevada State Orphans’ Home" to "Nevada State
Children's Home."

1960: The Nevada State Legislature adopted Chapter 432, Public Services for Children. This
legislation directed the Nevada State Welfare Department to establish and administer a program
of child welfare services and empowered the department "…to provide maintenance and special
services…" to unmarried mothers and children, handicapped children, and children placed by
court order in the custody of the department (Reilly, 1999). Prior to this, welfare workers were
required to go before the respective county commissions to request payment for foster or group
home expenses.

1967: The Nevada Legislature approved an allocation for building the Southern Nevada
Children's Home. An administration building and a few cottages were built in Boulder City by
late 1969, and in 1971 additional monies were allocated to build more cottages.

1973: Legislation passed allowing for reports of abuse and neglect to be made directly to the
welfare division, any county agency authorized by the Juvenile Court, or to any law enforcement
agency. Previously, abuse and neglect complaints had to go through a law enforcement agency
before a referral could be made to the welfare division. This new legislation allowed for
complaints to go to either law enforcement or "an authorized agency." This also opened the door
for juvenile probation departments (authorized by the local Juvenile Court) in various counties to
receive reports and investigate abuse and neglect complaints. The practice of using local juvenile
probation offices ceased in 1988.

1975: The Nevada Legislature enacted laws governing the reporting and investigation of child
abuse and neglect and the establishment of a Central Registry. This was a result of the passage of
the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974 that expanded the spectrum of reportable
6
Nevada Common Core Curriculum
Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1
abuse and neglect and provided grants to states for child abuse and neglect prevention and
treatment programs.

1985: The Children's Code (known as the Child Protection Act) - NRS 432B passed the Nevada
Legislature. The Code required the welfare division to: Administer federal money, plan and
coordinate protective services, provide directly or arrange for other governmental organizations
to provide for protective services, coordinate its activities with the courts and law enforcement,
involve communities, evaluate protective services throughout the state, and evaluate reasonable
efforts plans.

1985: Chapter 432 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) was amended to create a Children’s Trust
Account. State revenues for the Children’s Trust Account are derived from a $3.00 fee on
Nevada birth and death certificates. A yearly Federal grant from the Community Based Child
Abuse and Prevention (CBCAP) fund, funded under Title II of the Federal Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act, is added to the Children’s Trust Account. The funds in the
Children’s Trust Account must be used to fund programs and services designed to prevent abuse
and neglect of children in Nevada.

1985: Nevada adopted the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC). The
purpose and policy of ICPC is to ensure that each child requiring placement in another state will
be placed in a suitable environment and with persons or institutions having the qualifications and
facilities to provide for the care of the child.

1987: State Legislation passed that required counties whose population is 100,000 or more to
“provide protective services for children in that county and pay for the cost of those services"
(Reilly, 1999). The State Welfare Division placed workers within Clark County Juvenile Court
Services to assist with the investigation of ADC neglect case in anticipation of the transfer of
child abuse functions.

1990: A cooperative agreement was reached among the State Welfare Division, Clark County
Juvenile Court and Washoe County Social Services defining how transfer of cases would
proceed. The agreement outlined prerequisites for transfers of cases from the county to the state,
such as documentation that "reasonable efforts" were made and "suggested" that cases be
transferred only after the parents have been engaged in a voluntary or court-ordered plan for a
minimum of 90 days.

1991: The Nevada Legislature created the state Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS).

1991: Title IV-E Stipend Program began in Nevada. The public child welfare system in
Nevada, under the authority of the Nevada Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS),
initiated a federally-funded Title IV-E partnership with the Schools of Social Work at UNR and
UNLV in 1991. This federal training grant was awarded through the US Department of Health
and Human Services Administration for Children and Families. The Title IV-E Stipend
Partnerships are still currently active in 2008. BSW and MSW students at both UNLV and UNR
are eligible to apply for the stipends. They are required to sign an agreement to work one year
for a public child welfare agency for every year they receive funding.

1992: First Child Death Review Team established in Clark County. Nevada mandates Child
Death Review teams (CDRT). CDRTs are multidisciplinary teams charged with examining the
circumstances surrounding the death of children with the goal of preventing future child
fatalities. Five regional CDRTs (Clark, Washoe, Elko, Fallon, and Pahrump) review child deaths
7
Nevada Common Core Curriculum
Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1
locally. Child death review laws are under Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 432B sections 403409.

1994: DCFS established the Nevada Children’s Justice Act Task Force established by DCFS to
accomplish the objectives outlined in the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(CAPTA), 42 U.S.C, Sec. 107. The task force formed the Child Death Review Subcommittee to
coordinate the statewide activities of child welfare agencies involved in the review of child
maltreatment related fatalities and to evaluate service delivery systems, policy development,
interagency protocol, data collection, and training. The Statewide Child Death Review
Subcommittee assisted in the development of the five county/regional Child Death Review
Teams: Carson City, Clark County, Elko, Fallon, and Washoe County. These teams review child
deaths throughout the state.

1995: The Rural Child Death Review Teams began. There are three rural regional teams: Carson
City, Elko, and Fallon.

1995: Nevada adopted the federal Indian Child Welfare Act as Nevada state law.

1997: The Adoption and Safe Families Act, Public Law 105-89, reauthorized and increased
funding for the Family Preservation and Support program, changing the name to Promoting Safe
and Stable Families.

1997: DCFS reorganized and moved away from a programmatic structure to a regional structure.
This was a significant shift away from a programmatic organizational structure (i.e., child
welfare, child mental health, and juvenile justice) to a regional structure, in which the three
regional directors of DCFS (north, south, and rural) supervise all programs.

1997: New legislative changes allowed CPS jurisdictions to contract with other agencies to
conduct assessments and provide services in non-serious cases; required immediate response on
reports involving children under age 6; required response within three days on other reports, but
allowed three days to evaluate reports.
1999: New legislative changes implemented the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act:
Allowed DCFS and Washoe County to establish a pilot program to integrate the child welfare
systems, and established an interim committee to make recommendations on how to integrate the
child welfare systems in Washoe and Clark Counties. Historically, child protective and child
welfare service systems in Nevada have functioned in a unique “bifurcated” manner. Washoe
and Clark Counties supervised and administered child protective services while DCFS
supervised and administered statewide foster care and adoption services. DCFS also supervised
and administered both child protective and child welfare services in the 15 rural counties. The
bifurcated system often required the transfer of cases between agencies, resulting in a fragmented
child welfare response and service delivery system.
2001: The Nevada State Legislature began the process of integration of the child welfare system
in order to establish a better continuum of care for children and their families. Assembly Bill 1,
enacted during the 17th Special Session, de-bifurcated the child welfare systems in Nevada in an
effort to create a streamlined system of management and services for child welfare. This
included the transfer of state foster/adoption care services from the state to the counties with
populations exceeding 100,000 (Clark and Washoe).
2002: Nevada reported three child fatalities due to maltreatment to the federal child welfare
oversight agency, the Administration for Children and Families. Several articles on child abuse



8
Nevada Common Core Curriculum




Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1
and neglect and child fatalities appeared in Las Vegas newspapers and on television, and came to
the attention of DCFS as well as Administration for Children and Families.
2003: The transfer of DCFS child welfare staff to the Washoe County Department of Social
Services was completed in January.
2003: Legislature enacted several bills pertaining to child welfare. Assembly Bill 132 made court
proceedings concerning abuse or neglect of children presumptively open to the public in an effort
to engage the community and hold child welfare agencies accountable for their actions.
Assembly Bill 381 made significant changes to the laws concerning the process of reviewing
child fatalities in the state, which focused on improving practices within the child welfare system
to reduce the number of child deaths caused by abuse and neglect.
2003: The Unified Nevada Information Technology for Youth (UNITY) became the Statewide
Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) for Nevada and began being fully
utilized in Nevada. UNITY is used to record foster care, adoption, child protective services,
licensing and other child welfare activities.
2003: The Nevada State Legislature established the Systems Advocate Unit to help the
Department of Health and Human Services and DCFS resolve concerns about the protection of
children who are receiving services from DCFS, and to support progress towards better
outcomes.

2003: The Nevada Training Academy provided pre-service training to new workers in all three
public child welfare agencies in Nevada—DCFS, Clark County Department of Family Services
and Washoe County Department of Social Services.

2004: The transfer of DCFS child welfare staff to the Clark County Department of Family
Services was completed in October.
2004: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Children’s Bureau developed and administered the Child and Family Services Review
(CFSR), which was conducted in Nevada in February 2004. The CFSR was developed to assess
the State’s “performance on seven child welfare outcomes pertaining to children’s safety,
permanency, and well being and on seven systemic factors related to the State’s capacity to
achieve positive outcomes for children and families” (DCFS 2005). The CFSR for Nevada
indicated that the State was not in substantial conformity with any of the 7 child welfare
outcomes which were based on 23 individual indicators.
 The State was found to be in substantial conformity with 4 of the 7 systemic factors (based
on 22 indicators) which included: (a) Statewide Information System – 1 indicator, (b)
Training – 3 indicators, (c) Agency Responsiveness to the Community – 3 indicators; and (d)
Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention – 5 indicators.
 The State was not in substantial conformity with the remaining 3 systemic factors which
included: (a) Case Review System – 5 indicators, (b) Quality Assurance System – 2
indicators, and (c) Service Array – 3 indicators.
2005: Nevada Legislature approved legislation that would penalize persons who allowed a child
to be present where crimes involving controlled substances were committed (AB 465), and
penalize persons who knowingly leave a child unattended in a vehicle under certain
circumstances (SB 287). The Legislature is also consistently making efforts to ensure that state
laws are in compliance with the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)
(SB 296, 2005).
2005: In response to the CFSR, in March 2005, the State of Nevada Division of Child and
Family Services developed the CFSR Program Improvement Plan (PIP). The plan incorporated



9
Nevada Common Core Curriculum






Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1
four priority practice areas to address deficiencies for 29 of the 45 indicators. The priority areas
addressed (1) safety strategies, (2) engagement strategies, (3) case planning and management
strategies, and (4) collaboration strategies. For each indicator, the plan identifies action steps to
be taken, the person accountable, the methods for measuring improvement, benchmarks toward
achieving the goal, and projected dates for achieving the benchmark. The Administration for
Children and Families approved the plan and efforts are currently underway to achieve the goals
established in the state plan.
2006: The Systems Advocate Unit received over 500 inquiries and complaints ranging from
child support, child abuse/neglect, adoption subsidy/foster care payments, child care licensing,
foster care licensing, adoption, custody, ICPC, reunification or termination of parental rights, and
complaints against CPS workers.
2006: The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) contracted with a panel of
national experts to review a select number of child fatalities from 2001 to 2004 in Clark County,
Washoe County, and rural Nevada. This Independent Child Death Review Panel made findings
and recommendations to enhance child safety and the prevention of child fatalities involving the
offices of the county coroner, law enforcement, district attorney office, and child protective
services across the state.
2006: The DHHS met with Family Resource Centers (FRC) representatives to discuss program
expansion to help address rates of child abuse and neglect. Discussions led to the creation of a
Statewide Steering Committee to include the State of Nevada Division of Child and Family
Services (DCFS), Clark County Department of Family Services (CCDFS) and Washoe County
Department of Social Services (WCDSS). A joint plan was developed to implement a
Differential Response (D/R) pilot project to reduce lower risk caseloads through referrals to
FRCs to provide assessment and case management to families who are willing and able to
benefit from community-based services.
2006/2007: The Blue Ribbon Panel for the Review of Child Deaths convened as a
multidisciplinary team of child welfare experts in Nevada to review the child fatality report
prepared by the Independent Child Death Review Panel and to provide oversight to the Action
Plan for the Clark County Child Death Review. The Panel made findings and recommendations
included in the Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel for the Review of Child Deaths.
2007: The Program Improvement Plan (PIP) was completed. DCFS successfully completed over
400 benchmarks related to the plan.
2007: The Nevada Legislature made amendments to child death review laws under Assembly
Bill 2634.
Clark County

1961: Clark County assumed responsibility for Dependency Cases.

1962: Child Haven began, in a room in a home on North 9th Street, as a response to a void of
foster care options for kids removed for their safety into protective custody.

1966: Clark County Juvenile Court Services returned the responsibility of investigations of child
abuse to the state, citing financial liability concerns. The Welfare Division became responsible
for the investigations of child abuse in Clark County.

1966: Child Haven was moved to a bigger location at Veltna Shay Hall, 3401 E. Bonanza.
10
Nevada Common Core Curriculum
Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1

1972/1973: Quickly outgrowing the Shay Hall residence, a Campus location was secured and
built on Pecos Road by Freedom Park. Five Cottages were opened with a stated capacity of 64
children.

1973: An agreement was entered into between the Nevada State Welfare Division and Clark
County Juvenile Court Services in "…an attempt to clarify which agency will have which
responsibility for the various types of cases … the document will concern itself with neglect
cases" (Reilly 1999). This established a trifurcation of responsibilities for abuse and neglect in
Clark County. The agreement required the welfare division to investigate neglect complaints for
all current ADC families. Juvenile Court Services was responsible for the investigation of all
potential ADC families. Once an ADC child was removed from his home and placed in a
Juvenile Court Services facility and a petition was filed, Juvenile Court would have primary
responsibility for providing and coordinating services to the child and family. If the child was
placed in long-term foster care, the case would be transferred back to the welfare division (with a
staffing occurring between the two agencies seven days prior to transfer).

1977: A Purchase of Service Agreement was entered into by the Welfare Division and Clark
County Juvenile Court Services. This agreement allowed for payment for the care of children
placed in the emergency shelter facility (Child Haven) in Las Vegas. Subsequent agreements
were entered into that transferred money from the state to the county for child protective service
investigations.

1984: The Las Vegas Sun ran articles stating that Child Haven is overcrowded (105 children)
and suffers bed and grocery shortages. The article documented frequent disruptions of kids sent
home, inappropriate placements, and a prediction of “it’s going to get worse.”

1986: Howard Cottage on the Child Haven campus was opened for infants with an added
capacity of 16 (total of 80 for the Campus).

1988: The "swap" of responsibility for child protective services (CPS) and involuntary
hospitalization of individuals alleged to be mentally ill occurred between Clark County
(assuming responsibility for all CPS investigations) and the state (assuming responsibility for
mental health services). What became known as the "SWAP" was an attempt by the director of
the Department of Human Resources to consolidate mental health services by having the state
assume responsibility of the involuntary hospitalization of individuals who were mentally ill.
The SWAP also included the transfer of all CPS investigations in rural Nevada (from the local
probation offices) to the State Welfare Division.

1990: SAINT (Sexual Abuse Investigative Team) was opened on the Child Haven campus to
provide a multi-disciplinary and child-friendly approach in investigating sexual abuse. This
special collaborative team provides forensic interviews, medical examinations and therapeutic
services to child victims of sexual abuse and assault. An estimated 500 children and their
families receive services each year through SAINT.

1992: Child Haven formalized programming for the shelter. Kids will be formally and
consistently engaged and enriched while in Child Haven care. The program, CHATTA, is based
on (and taught by) the Boys Town Organization. The Child Haven campus began a growing
treatment cycle that includes assessments, an Early Childhood Education program, field trips,
Head Start programs, mentoring for teen moms, Girl Scouts, “Let’s Chat” group therapy,
recreational and cultural programming, and parent training.
11
Nevada Common Core Curriculum
Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1

1992/1993: Both children's homes ceased operation in Nevada. Concerns for efficiency and the
potential liability of a lawsuit that was filed on behalf of the house parents dominated the reasons
for their closure. The Southern Nevada Children's Home closed in June 1993 and the cottages
were leased to a private entity, the Volunteers of America, to run the homes.

1993/1994: The Nevada Legislature authorized the creation of the Family Courts. Child
Protective Services was separated from the Juvenile Court System in Clark County and placed
under the newly created Department of Family and Youth Services, which became a county
department under the jurisdiction of the Clark County Commission.

1994: Child Haven was given permission to raise funds by the Clark County Commissioners and
a Cottage renovation took place, a gym built, and donations secured toys, clothes, and
recreational equipment for the kids.

1997/1998: The Agassi School for Education opened at Child Haven expanding an educational
program from 3 classrooms to 7. The “Adopt-a-Cottage” fundraiser was initiated to build 2
additional, larger cottages.

2000: Child Haven averages 52 volunteers per month.

2001: 3,023 children admitted to Child Haven with an average daily population of 109.

2001/2002: The Agassi Medically Fragile Cottage and the MGM Cottage opened at Child Haven
due to constant “over-crowding” of the Campus and children needing medical care.

2003: Due to pressures stemming from overcrowding and a changing population, Howard
Cottage closed in preparation for remodeling and the children were moved to Agassi and Beazer
Cottage.

2006: Donors remodeled the Howard Cottage. It re-opened with a doubling of the capacity of 16
children and it was dedicated to siblings and teen moms and their babies.

2006: The State Department of Health and Human Service contracted with the National Center
for Child Death Review to conduct a comprehensive review of 79 child fatalities that occurred in
Clark County from 2001-2004. Through this process, a Blue Ribbon Panel of child welfare
experts met in Las Vegas for five days closely reviewing each of the 79 cases. The Panel’s
report of findings included more than 70 recommendations for improving child welfare services.
These recommendations formed the basis for a State-monitored action plan that included more
than 600 action items.

2006: The Clark County Manager’s Office contracted with Ed Cotton to review a random sample
of permanency cases for children in care 3 years of age and under. This case review was
contracted in response to practice-related concerns and findings documented in the Child Death
Review Blue Ribbon Panel report. Following a preliminary overview of findings, the County
Manager’s Office expanded the scope of this review to include a review of all permanency cases
for children in care 5 years of age and under and a random sample of closed investigative cases
(more than 1,500 cases were reviewed in total). As part of the final reports, Cotton identified
some significant concerns regarding case management/practices and provided 29
recommendations for improvement. These recommendations were then incorporated into the
CCDFS Safe Futures plan. Included in Cotton’s report was an eight-page addendum which
contained 53 cases where the safety of a child under protection may have been jeopardized.
12
Nevada Common Core Curriculum
Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1

2006: CCDFS contracted with John Goad, a child welfare expert in intake and investigations, to
conduct an assessment of the Child Abuse and Neglect Hotline. The review’s primary focus was
on the quality of decision making, or specifically, the consistency with which incoming cases
were screened in and screened out for investigation. In addition, the quality of several other
aspects of the Hotline’s functioning was reviewed and analyzed. As a part of this final report,
John Goad made 12 recommendations for improving hotline functioning and practice. These
recommendations were then incorporated into the Clark County Safe Futures plan.

2006: CCDFS hired its first Quality Assurance Manager and formed a quality assurance unit.

2006: The Quality Assurance and Improvement division of CCDFS conducted a comprehensive
review and analysis of law enforcement removals/admissions of children brought into care and
admitted to Child Haven through the Hotline. The research revealed that 39 percent of all
children admitted to Child Haven are brought in by law enforcement.

2006: County Management and CCDFS began meeting with representatives of the Youth Law
Center (YLC) of San Francisco, California and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of
Nevada regarding improvements to the Department. Discussion focused on changes needed in
the child welfare system to better serve the children and families of Clark County. Many of the
recommendations made by the YLC and ACLU have been incorporated into the Safe Futures
plan.

2006: The Safe Futures plan to overhaul the Clark County child welfare system was unveiled.
Authored by national child welfare expert and CCDFS Director Tom Morton, the plan outlines
strategies to build the capacity for a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary response to maltreatment
reports and threats to child safety; a responsive service array for children and families with
services matched to child and family needs and culture, including safe and developmentally
appropriate placements for children who cannot safely remain with their families; timely
permanency for children; and support for child and adolescent health, mental health, and
educational well-being. CCDFS identified eight infrastructure elements critical to supporting an
effective child welfare system in this plan. These include: staffing, practice approach, training,
management data and quality assurance systems, policies and procedures, management plan,
service array and strategic community alliances.

2006: Following the death of Joshua Sharp, the State convened a review team to report on any
issues surrounding his death. Sharp was in Clark County protective custody and residing at
Child Haven at the time of his death.

2006: The State convened a multidisciplinary team to review the operational practices of Child
Haven and also to evaluate the case management practice for children who reside at the facility.
The review was originally scheduled to last 90 days but has been extended indefinitely.

2006: CCDFS contracted with Charles Wilson, Director of the Chadwick Center for Children
and Families in San Diego, California and nationally recognized expert of children’s advocacy
centers, to conduct a site visit and needs assessment of the Clark County Children’s Advocacy
Center (CAC). CAC is a program which provides a neutral, child-friendly setting for children
where they can be interviewed about reports of child abuse, particularly sexual abuse; have
forensic medical examinations; and receive appropriate therapeutic services. CAC offers a
coordinated, multidisciplinary approach involving police, prosecutors, child protective workers,
and therapist and medical personnel working together as a team. Limited administrative support,
13
Nevada Common Core Curriculum
Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1
lack of community ownership, and shifting community priorities saw the transformation of
CAC’s fundamental mission in providing multidisciplinary intervention and treatment services to
child sexual abuse victims into primarily offering a child-friendly daytime “interview room.”
Through discussions with key child welfare, law enforcement, court officials, and medical
personnel, Mr. Wilson’s report offered nine recommendations primarily focused on revitalizing
Clark County’s CAC operations and expanding its capacity.

2006/2007: As part of the State’s QA/QI review process, an inter-agency case review is
conducted for each jurisdiction every nine months. Subsequent to the review, a report of
findings is drafted and the agency is required to develop and complete an Agency Improvement
Plan (AIP) that addresses issues/findings. Completion of activities and actions are documented
as part of this AIP and are reported and monitored monthly by the State. The federal government
also monitors these reviews and plans. Clark County case reviews occurred in June 2006 and
March 2007.

2006/2007: In October 2006, the Clark County Board of Commissioners approved 119 new
positions for CCDFS. The funding of these positions was phased with 87 to begin January 1,
2007 and 32 to begin April 1, 2007. Of these, 49 were casework positions. The 119 positions
were allocated to a range of functions but primarily toward lowering investigative caseloads,
enabling a 24/7 CPS investigative response (to reduce police removals) and to strengthen foster
home recruitment, training, licensing and retention. In regard to the latter, the County funded 25
positions in anticipation that these positions would be included in the Governor’s budget and
funded by the State. The positions did go forth in the Governor’s budget, but only 15 were
funded by the Legislature.

2007: CCDFS released an RFP (request for proposal) for a complete rewrite of all policies and
procedures for case management. The procedural guidance will begin with intake and track
policies and expectations through case closure and permanency. The new manuals will be webbased.

2007: The Board of County Commissioners approved and adopted a Resolution enunciating a
Statement of Commitment addressing County goals in the provision of services to children
through CCDFS. This was the outcome of meetings between Clark County and the Youth Law
Center and the American Civil Liberties Union.

2007: DCFS conducted a review of the 53 cases in the eight-page addendum in the Cotton
Report. Re-occurring themes among the cases that raised concerns were a lack of regular
contacts between the CCDFS worker and the children, lack of regular contacts between the
CCDFS worker and the parents, and lack of documentation of case activities in the UNITY
system.

2007: Clark County officials announced the creation of a child welfare ombudsman program.
The program will serve as a central point of contact for the public to raise concerns and lodge
complaints about the County’s child welfare system.

2007: The Nevada Legislature made appropriations for an increase in foster and adoption
reimbursement rates and included in the state budget 85 new positions in Clark County,
including 36 caseworkers to reduce high caseloads. Some requested positions affected by
legislation will lead to 11 county-funded positions being reprogrammed to cover budget
14
Nevada Common Core Curriculum
Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1
shortfalls, including positions with the foster care placement team and in the district attorney’s
office.

2007: Progress made in areas outlined in the CCDFS Safe Futures plan included an 18 percent
increase in regular foster homes since November 2006, which translates into a 5.5 percent
increase in beds available for foster placements.

2007: CCDFS created a “Medical Passport” program to ensure that critical medical information
follows children in out-of-home care.

2007: Child Haven hired a full-time physician attending children during the day.

2007: Receiving Team was implemented to reduce the Child Haven population. Placement
Specialists staff a 24-hour function with the direct placement of children into Foster Care. This
single initiative reduced the Child Haven population by as much as 75%.

2007: An Emergency Reception Center was developed on the Child Haven campus. Children
placed in protective custody can remain at this facility for up to 23 hours while waiting for the
identification of an appropriate foster placement. This process limits the number of children
being admitted to the Child Haven Campus.

2007/2008: Through State licensure requirements a reduction in the Child Haven populations
began.

2008: Child Haven became licensed with a stated capacity of 96. On January 1st, 34 children
were on the Campus.

2008: A Family Visitation Center opened on the Child Haven Campus to address the family
needs of children being placed directly into Foster Care. The Family Visitation Center operates
7 days a week, 12 hours a day including holidays and weekends.

2008: Progress was made in areas outlined in the CCDFS Safe Futures plan including the
establishment of a dedicated CPS Hotline call center, Business Center to address understaffing of
support services, and 24/7 Emergency Response units. These centers/units are all staffed and
operational.

2008: The National Association of Counties honored Clark County with a 2008 Achievement
Aware for its innovative Safe Futures plan for overhauling a previously troubled child welfare
system and creating a safer community.
The Rural Regions
Please note: The DCFS Rural Region Child Welfare Services Map and Nevada County Map are
found in Appendices 1 and 2.
DCFS Rural Region Overview
In 1997, DCFS restructured from an organizational focus to a regional structure. The history of the
district offices and their inclusion in the Rural Region is discussed below. Carson City houses both
the DCFS Rural Region Child Welfare Administrative and District 1 Carson City Main Office. The
DCFS Rural Region Manager at the Administrative Office oversees Rural District 1 Elko, District 2
Carson City, District 3 Fallon, and District 4 Pahrump. Each of these main offices also oversees
various field offices as described below. The Rural Region encompasses 15 counties, which is a
15
Nevada Common Core Curriculum
Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1
large geographic portion of the State of Nevada. Thus, a wide variety of diversity is present in the
rural region.
District 1 - North: Elko
Elko is the main office for District 1. This area encompasses six Nevada counties including: Elko,
Eureka, Humboldt, Lander, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties. There are four offices total in this
district, the district office and three field offices. The field offices are located in Winnemucca,
which is in Humboldt County; Battle Mountain, which is in Lander County; and Ely, which is in
White Pine County. Elko has been part of the Rural Region since 1997 when DCFS reorganized to a
regional structure. The Elko district employs social workers, Wraparound in Nevada (WIN) and
Intensive Family Services (IFS) workers. As well, there is a Court Appointed Special Advocates
(CASA) program in Elko and a program under development in White Pine County. There is a
Guardian Ad Litem program in Winnemucca that is operated out of the juvenile court. In Ely and
Winnemucca an attorney is appointed for the child. In District 1, foster homes are licensed for
emergency shelter, since there are no emergency shelters. Distance is a consideration in this district.
The Ely field office is approximately 2.5 hours south of the Elko Main office, while Battle Mountain
is 1 hour away and Winnemucca is 2 hours away. From each office workers may travel up to 2
hours, depending on where the cases are assigned. District 1 has an agreement with UNR School of
Social Work and accepts IV-E Stipend Students. The District often recruits from the University of
Nevada School of Social Work Great Basin College 3 + 1 Program in Elko. (In collaboration with
Great Basin College (GBC), the University of Nevada, Reno School of Social Work developed a 3 +
1 program for students who reside in rural Nevada and who are interested in pursuing a BSW degree.
Through this program, students are able to complete the equivalent of the first three years of
academic study at GBC and their final year as social work majors through UNR). Collaboration
with the community has been the key to success in this district and is a key to any rural program.
L. Robb (personal communication, June 2008)
District 2 - West Central: Carson City
Carson City is the Main office for District 2 of West Central Nevada. The area that this office
covers includes Douglas and Storey Counties, as well as part of Lyon County. Historically, Carson
City was a part of the North Region and then with the advent of de-bifurcation process initiated by
the Nevada Legislature through Assembly Bill 1 in 2001, it fell under the jurisdiction of the Rural
Region. The staffing in the Carson district office includes Social Workers, IFS workers, and WIN
Workers. The Social Service Manager of the District 2 office has dual responsibility to supervise
several region-wide programs. These programs include Foster Care Licensing, the Adoption Unit,
and a new Quality Assurance training unit. Another facet of this district is that it has an in-house
Intensive Family Services and clinic unit that does assessments for all the districts. This district has
two group homes for emergency shelters: Austin House in Douglas County and Volunteers of
America (VOA) in Carson City. There are CASA programs in Carson City and Douglas County.
District 2 accepts interns from the UNR School of Social Work program and also accepts IV-E
Stipend students. One unique aspect of this district is that Carson is the Nevada State Capitol and is
a political environment with less of the rural atmosphere. The close proximity of the DCFS Central
Office and the Governor’s Office has an impact on this district. Carson City also faces the unique
challenge of being close to Washoe County, which offers more competitive salaries. N. Anderson
(personal communication, June 2008)
16
Nevada Common Core Curriculum
Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1
District 3 - East Central: Fallon
Fallon is the Main Office for District 3 of East Central Nevada. Fallon has been part of the Rural
Region since 1997 when DCFS reorganized to a regional structure. District 3 Fallon encompasses
Churchill, Pershing, and Mineral Counties and a portion of Lyon County. There are five offices, one
main office and four field offices. The main office is in Fallon, which is in Churchill County. The
four field offices are the Silver Springs and Yerington Offices, which are in Lyon County; the
Lovelock Office, which is in Pershing County; and the Hawthorne Office, which is in Mineral
County. Currently, the Fallon office has supervisors, social workers, a WIN worker, and an
Independent Family Specialist on staff, while the Silver Springs office has social workers, WIN
workers, and Independent Family Specialists on staff. The Yerington Office has social workers on
staff and the Hawthorne and Lovelock offices have social work positions available. Currently, there
are no CASAs in Fallon, yet the courts in Fallon make sure that both children and parents have an
attorney. Likewise, there is no CASA program in Hawthorne. In Pershing County, Judge Wagner
started a Guardian Ad Litem program. In Lyon County, there is an evolving CASA program. Foster
Care Licensing is done in this district and is overseen by the Carson Office. There are no emergency
shelters in this district, so licensed foster care homes are used instead. In this district, the field
offices are approximately 50 minutes to 1.5 hours away from the Fallon Office. One of the strengths
of this district is that the communities are close knit and the Fallon office and field offices work well
with the community. One issue that this district and the Rural Region faces is that there are multiple
jurisdictions in each district and so each jurisdiction has its own set of rules and regulations that
workers need to be aware of and follow. Fallon has student volunteers and interns from the UNR
School of Social Work program and also accepts IV-E Stipend students. P. Achurra (personal
communication, June 2008)
District 4 - South: Pahrump
District 4 encompasses Esmeralda and Nye counties. A field office is located in Tonopah and the
main office is in Pahrump. Pahrump child protective and child welfare services became part of the
Rural Region in 2004 as a result of the de-bifurcation process initiated by the Nevada Legislature
through Assembly Bill1 in 2001. Prior to this Pahrump was part of Clark County. Under the Rural
Region, Pahrump was first supervised by District 4 Fallon. Thus, the organizational culture
remained the same because case managers continued to handle cases long distance. (Las Vegas is
about an hour from Pahrump and Fallon is about seven hours away.) In September 2005, the first
Social Service Manager was hired for the Pahrump office. At this point the culture and structure of
the Pahrump office changed. All staff—one manager, three social workers, a WIN worker and one
independent family specialist—resided in Pahrump. With the localized support, the Pahrump office
had the capacity to handle their own after hour calls, began to recruit for foster homes and provide
foster parent training. Prior to this, reports of child abuse and neglect in Pahrump were made to
other jurisdiction, namely Clark County or Fallon. The manager of the Pahrump office functioned as
a supervisor to provide staff with on-site assistance (in addition to the duties as manager). The
manager began a process of building relationships with the community. This effort included
attending local meetings—welfare, mental health, schools, and community coalitions—and building
a positive relationship with law enforcement. As part of a recruiting initiative, the manger met with
the School of Social Work at UNLV to become a site for interns, and staff put up recruitment fliers.
The Pahrump office doubled the number of social workers plus the hiring of a supervisor by the time
the manager was transferred to the Carson District Office in December 2006. This supervisor
became the new manager and another supervisor was hired.
17
Nevada Common Core Curriculum
Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1
Pahrump continues to handle their cases with the exception of foster care licensing, which is under
the purview of the Carson District Office. The staff of the Pahrump office does a great job even with
the challenges they face with being part of the rural region, including a strong sense of
individuality—reliance on self to solve problems—among members of rural communities. They
also face the unique challenge of being so close to an urban area that draws their own population to
work there and is able to offer more competitive salaries. Additionally, there is an ideological divide
between those who have recently relocated to Pahrump (from Las Vegas and California) and those
who have always resided there and do not want to be an incorporated county. N. Anderson (personal
communication, June 2008)
Washoe County

1986: Washoe County voters approved a four-cent tax override for children's services.

1991: The Kids Kottages are shelters where children are brought after they are removed from
their families. They are temporary homes that operate 24 hours a day, every day of the year.
Kids Kottage houses up to 28 children. Kids Kottage I opened in April 1996 with a capacity of
up to 34 children. Kids Kottage II was opened in 2004 and can house up to 20 children,
primarily teenagers. All three homes are licensed by the State of Nevada Bureau of Services for
Child Care. C. Imasaki (personal communication, June 2008)

1992/1993: Both children's homes ceased operation in Nevada. Concerns for efficiency and the
potential liability of a lawsuit that was filed on behalf of the house parents dominated the reasons
for their closure. The Northern Nevada Children's Home ceased operation in February 1992 and
the structure was converted into the administrative offices for DCFS.

1994/95: Grand jury investigation of Malin Stafford in Washoe County. The grand jury report
issued on the child death of Malin Stafford was extremely critical of Child Protective Services
and called into question the effectiveness of child protective services in the prevention of child
fatalities. Subsequently, substantial new resources (14 new positions) were given to Washoe
County, and the agency changed its philosophy from "investigating incidents only to including
broader family assessments on reports involving children ages 0-6" (Reilly, 1999).

1997: The Washoe County Board of County Commissioners approved a half-cent property tax for
CPS.
2007: Washoe County Department of Social Services has been initiating steps over the past two
years to place children under the age of six in family foster care versus the congregant care
setting of the Kids Kottage Shelter. The Youth Law Center applauded the county's efforts in
aligning practice with or above federal standards. Prior to that time efforts were made to have all
single children under the age of three placed in foster care from the field. In addition, sibling sets
with children under age six are prioritized for placement out of the Kids Kottage. Steps have
also been taken to expedite placement with safe appropriate relatives when available for children
of all ages. WCDSS is expanding a pilot sibling shelter program started November of 2007. The
goal is to place sibling sets with children under age six in a family shelter home directly from the
field. These homes provide a family type setting and would serve one or two sibling sets at a
time. Programming includes a blend of assessment services with foster or house parents.
Increased family visitation, role modeling, support for the children and their parents, and wrap
services will be incorporated to maintain these children in this setting despite presenting

18
Nevada Common Core Curriculum
Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1
behavioral or mental health issues. B. Lopez (personal communication, June 2008)

2008: The Reno Rodeo Foundation together with its valued community partners dedicated the Kids
Kampus Activity Center, a 12,000 square foot recreation facility constructed at a cost of
approximately $2.6 million. It includes a gymnasium, classrooms for educational programs, and a
computer room for use by the residents of the Kids Kottages, youth served by the McGee Center,
and families receiving services through the Children's Cabinet. For more information about the
collaboration on the Kids Kampus Activity Center, go to www.renorodeofoundation.org.

2008: Paired Teams: WCDSS is currently in program development to restructure their service
delivery model. Approximately 60 staff are voluntarily participating in the workgroups. WCDSS
Paired Teams is being modeled after Department of Human Services Children, Youth and
Family Division in Larimer County (Fort Collins) that is using the Paired Teams model. Larimer
County implemented this new model in response to not performing well on their federal CFSR
outcomes. They have significantly improved all of their outcomes with the implementation of
this model. This model is grounded in a strengths based model. There are two main strategies:
1. Paired Teams: Unified work units, which means no longer having separate units of assessment
(aka CPS investigators) and permanency (on-going) workers. Paired teams are formed by
putting two assessment workers with 4 permanency workers in one unit with one supervisor.
This model helps to:



Eliminate problems with case transfers
Improves peer support and accountability for each other
Improves accessibility and timeliness of services
2. Family Options: Incorporates family in the decision-making process from the beginning in
planning for the well-being of their children. Different forums are used to ensure involvement
from the beginning and throughout the life of the case.



A Family Safety Resource Team (FSRT) is used within 72 hours of agency involvement.
Families are encouraged to bring extended family and other informal supports. The meetings
are conducted by facilitators, currently, Katherine Kennington and Sarah Fries, who are
Social Workers. The purpose of the meeting is to develop a plan to address the safety,
permanency, and well-being of the children with the family.
Child and Family Collaborative Case Plan meetings are conducted within 45 days to develop
a formal case plan for children who enter foster care.
Child and Family Team Meetings are conducted through out the life of the case to monitor
progress and adjust goals and objectives as needed. T. Anderson & D. Nason (personal
communication, June 2008)
19
Nevada Common Core Curriculum
Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1
Note:
The main sources for this document include “History of Child Welfare in Nevada” by T. Reilly
(1999), the Nevada DCFS website and Clark County and Washoe County websites.
Please address questions regarding this document to Jennifer Nutton at jennifer.nutton@unlv.edu or
Mahasin Saleh at msaleh@unr.edu.
20
Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1
Nevada Common Core Curriculum
Bibliography
American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, Congress Passes Major New
Adoption/Foster Care Reform Law, Retrieved June 30, 1999, from
http://www.abanet.org/child/adofost.html
Barbell, K. and Wright, L. (1999). Introduction: Family foster care in the next century. Child
Welfare, 78, 3-14.
Clark County, News Release (2007, February 22). Clark County Completes Re-Review, Finds Every
Child Accounted for & Safe.
Clark County, News Release (2007, March 22). County Adopts Statement of Commitment for Family
Services.
Clark County, News Release (2007, July 3). County Launches Ombudsman Program: Progress
Reported Across Child Welfare System.
Clark County, News Release (2008, June 13). Clark County’s “Safe Futures” Plan Receives
National Recognition retrieved June 22, 2008 from http://dcfs.state.nv.us/
Clark County Division of Family Services (June 2008). Message from the Director’s Office: DFS
Safe Futures, Safe Futures Initiatives and Implementation Timeframes.
Division of Child and Family Services: http://dcfs.state.nv.us/;
http://www.dcfs.state.nv.us/Nevada_CFSR_Program_Improvement_Plan.pdf 2003-2004
Biennial Report, March 2005, Child Abuse and Neglect Statistics, 2002, Program
Improvement Plan, March 2005.
21
Nevada Common Core Curriculum
Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1
Division of Child and Family Services, 2005-2006 Biennial Report. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from
http://dcfs.state.nv.us/Reports/DCFS2005-2006BiennialReportMaster.pdf
Division of Child and Family Services, Blue Ribbon Panel Action Plan. (Updated 12/11/2006).
Action Plan for the Clark County Child Death Review Recommendations. Retrieved June 5,
2007, from http://www.dcfs.state.nv.us/ActionPlanGRID.pdf.
Division of Child and Family Services, (March 2005). Child and Family Services Review: Program
Improvement Plan.
Division of Child and Family Services, Clark County’s “Safe Futures” Plan Receives National
Recognition, News Release. Retrieved June 21, 2008, from http://dcfs.state.nv.us/
Filip, J., McDaniel, N., & Schene, P. (1992). Helping in child protective services: A competencybased casework handbook. Englewood, CO: American Humane Association.
Greenblatt, S. B. (1998). The adoption and safe families act of 1997: A quick look and implications
for practice. NRCPP’s Permanency Planning Today, Summer, 2-3.
Independent Child Death Review Panel for Clark County, Nevada. Report of Findings and
Recommendations, Child Deaths 2001-200. Retrieved June 5, 2007, from
http://www.dcfs.state.nv.us/ChildFatalities/BlueRibbon/Attachment04a.pdf.
Indian Child Welfare Resource Guide, State of Nevada Division of Child and Family Services,
Nevada Children’s Justice Taskforce, 2006.
Larner, M. B., Stevenson, C. S., & Behrman, R. E. (1998). Protecting children from abuse and
neglect: Analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children, 8(1), 4-22.
Lyons, D.R., Nutton, J. (2007). Recommendations for the Clark County Child Death Review: To
Address the Recommendation by the Independent Child Death Review Panel and in the Blue
Ribbon Action Plan.
22
Nevada Common Core Curriculum
Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1
Morton, T. (2007). Report to U.S. Representative Shelley Berkley on the State of Clark County
Department of Family Services.
Nevada Division of Child and Family Services, Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel for the Review of
Child Deaths. Retrieved June 21, 2008, from
http://www.dcfs.state.nv.us/DCFS_ChildFatalities_BlueRibbon.htm
NRS 432B.068, “Indian Child Welfare Act” defined. Retrieved March 10, 2008, from
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-432b.html
Reilly, T., (1999). History of child welfare in Nevada. University of Nevada, Las Vegas; College of
Urban Affairs. Retrieved March 6, 2008, from:
http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/depts/family_services/Pages/history.aspx
Reilly, T., & Petersen, N. (1997). Nevada’s University-State Partnership: A comprehensive alliance
for improved services to children and families. Public Welfare 55(2), 21-29.
Rycus, J.S., & Hughes, R.C. (1998). Field guide to child welfare: Vol. 1 Foundations of Child
Protective Services. Washington, DC: CWLA Press.
Schene, P. A. (1998). Past, present, and future roles of child protective services. The Future of
Children, 8(1), 23-38.
State of Nevada Division of Child and Family Services, Children’s Justice Task Force, the Child
Death Review Subcommittee: A Report on Child Death for the Years 1999 through 2001.
Swanson, T., Zipoy, J. & Tanata Ashby, D. (2007). Clark County Child Death Review, Clark
County, Nevada: 2006 Annual Report.
Zlotnik, J. L. (2003). The use of Title IV-E training funds for social work education: An
historical perspective. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 7(1/2) 5-20.
23
Nevada Common Core Curriculum
Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1
Web Based Resources
Resources on Child Welfare in Nevada
Nevada Revised Statute, 432B, www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-432B.html
Department of Health and Human Services, www.dhhs.nv.gov
Division of Child & Family Services, www.dcfs.state.nv.us
Clark County Department of Family Services,
http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/depts/family_services/Pages/home.aspx
Resources on Child Welfare in the United States
Child Welfare Information Gateway, www.childwelfare.gov
The National Center on Child Fatality Review, www.ican-ncfr.org
The National MCH Center for Child Death Review, www.childdeathreview.org
24
Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1
Nevada Common Core Curriculum
Acronyms
ADC
Aid to Dependent Children
AIP
Agency Improvement Plan
ASFA
Adoption and Safe Families Act
ACLU
American Civil Liberties Union
CAPTA
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
CDR
Child Death Review
CFSR
Child and Family Services Review
CWLA
Child Welfare League of America
CCDFS
Clark County Department of Family Service
DHHS
Department of Health and Human Services
DCFS
Division of Child and Family Services
ICWA
Indian Child Welfare Act
ICPC
Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children
NRS
Nevada Revised Statute
PIP
Program Improvement Plan
QA
Quality Assurance
QI
Quality Improvement
SACWIS
State Automated Child Welfare Information System
TPR
Termination of Parent Rights
UNLV
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
UNR
University of Nevada, Reno
UNITY
Unified Nevada Information Technology for Youth
25
Nevada Common Core Curriculum
WCDSS
Washoe County Department of Social Service
YLC
Youth Law Center
Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1
26
Nevada Common Core Curriculum
Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1
27
Nevada Common Core Curriculum
Pre- classroom Reading │ Module 1
28