Are You Ready for Alternative
Response?
Ohio’s Alternative Response Symposium
May 13, 2010
Caren Kaplan
American Humane Association
Steve Hanson
Supreme Court of Ohio
Kristin Gilbert, Jennifer Justice, Leslie McGee, Cheryl Wolfe
and Roger Ward
Ohio Department of Job and Family Services
Purposes of Alternative
Response and Child Protection


CPS was established to respond to all
reports of suspected child maltreatment numbers overwhelm available resources
Currently either screen out or do not open
for services more than half of the reports yet many children are vulnerable
Purposes of Alternative
Response and Child Protection


Investigatory practice is often adversarial
and alienates parents
AR = way to serve more screened-in reports
at earlier stage by engaging families in a
non-adversarial process of linking them to
needed services
What is Alternative Response?



Alternative to child protection investigative
response and one of several responses
within a differential response system
Sets aside fault finding and substantiation
decision
Usually applied to reports that do not
allege serious and imminent harm
What is Alternative Response?



Focuses less on investigative fact finding
and more on assessing and ensuring child
safety
Seeks safety through family engagement
and collaborative partnerships
Allows and encourages agencies to
provide services without formal
determination of abuse or neglect
Core AR Elements
1.
2.
3.
4.
Use of two or more discrete response tracks for cases
that are screened in and accepted
Establishment of discrete response tracks is codified in
statute, policy, or protocols
Track assignment depends on an array of factors (e.g.,
presence of imminent danger, level of risk, the number
of previous reports, the source of the report, and/or
presenting case characteristics such as type of alleged
maltreatment and age of the alleged victim)
Original track assignment can change based on new
information that alters risk level or safety concerns
Core AR Elements
5.
6.
7.
Services are voluntary on a non-investigative track
– families can choose to receive investigation response
– families can accept or refuse offered services if there
are no safety concerns
No substantiation of alleged maltreatment for families
served in a non-investigative track; services are offered
without a formal determination of child maltreatment
Alternative use of central registry depending on track,
meaning name of alleged perpetrator is not entered into
central registry for those individuals who are served
through a non-investigative track
National Portrait of Alternative Response
Why Implement Alternative
Response?



Many parents, reporters, and social workers
become frustrated with limited responses
available to children and families
CPS “investigation” is perceived as overly
accusatory and adversarial as initial
response for many reports
Focus on substantiation and identifying
perpetrator does not contribute to family’s
readiness to engage in services
Why Implement
Alternative Response?



Majority of traditional CPS responses do
not result in any services being provided
Overwhelming majority of cases are not
served through court orders; evidence
collection is not always needed
Alternative Response allows system to
move more quickly to address safety needs
Why Implement
Alternative Response?



Alternative response can support families
by applying available resources to
services rather than investigations
Alternative response is often
accompanied by greater efforts to
identify, build, and coordinate formal and
non-formal services and supports
Children are safer sooner
 Serve screened in
reports earlier
 Engage families in
assessment
 Link families to
needed services
12
Commonalities between Alternative
and Investigation Response Pathways





Focus on child safety
Promote permanency within the
family whenever possible
Value community services
Recognize authority of CPS to make
decisions of placement and court
involvement
Respond to changing family
circumstances
[Schene, 2005]
Child Welfare Pathways
AR
• No Disposition
•No ACV/AP Labels
•AR Specific Rules
•Some Modified
Tools
•Safety Focus
•Assessment
IR
•Strengths Based
• Disposition
•Family
• ACV/AP Labels
Focused
 Disposition
•Engagement
•Forensic Response
•Linkage with  ACV/AP Labels
•IR Specific Rules
Services
 Forensic Approach
•SACWIS
•Statute/Laws  TR Specific Rules
TR
Case Process Flow Chart
simplified
Report of Alleged Child Maltreatment
Screened Out CPS
Refer to Community
Services or Community
Response
Screened in CPS
Determine eligibility for
appropriate
track/response
Investigation Response
Safe
Refer for Services
Unsafe/Substantiated
Court & Safety Plan
CPS Case Open
Alternative Response
Safe
Refer for Services
Unsafe
Safety Plan
CPS Case Open
Opportunity to Change
Pathways
Pathway
Change
Accepted
Reports
Track
Assignme
nt
Investigation
CPS
Response
Pathway
Change:
AR-I and I-AR
Alternative
CPS Response
Principles and Assumptions
of Alternative Response



Circumstances and needs of families differ
and so should the response
Majority of reports do not need an
adversarial approach or court-ordered
interventions
Absent an investigation:
– child safety will not be jeopardized
– services can be in place more quickly
– families will be more motivated to use
services
Assumptions continued...




Effective assessment tools can be put in place to
assure safety and an informed response
Frontline staff in CPS and agencies are trained in
strength based and collaborative interventions
Only cases of greater severity need to be on the
state central registry
Cases are monitored sufficiently to change
course/paths when situation requires
Practice Shift

Focus on securing child safety through family
engagement

Move from agency expert driven compliance
approach to safety focused partnership with
families and communities

Recognize and apply family and community
strengths and resources; honor family wisdom
about their circumstances, strengths and needs
Workforce Issues







Assessment is the key
Engagement of and partnership with family
Clinical judgment and discretion
One worker/one team - one family
Warm hand off to community providers
Broker and networker
Quality Social Casework Practice
Prerequisites for Success





Skilled Workforce
Alternative Assessment
Manageable Workloads
Expansion of Service Array
Early Intervention
Prerequisites for Success




Flexibility in thinking and approach
Leverage flexible $$ wherever/whenever
possible
Formal meaningful partnerships with
AOD, MH, DV housing, and economic
security (TANF) providers
Cooperative relationship between the
family and the agency—foundation for
the effective delivery of services
 Clear definition, policies and protocols to
guide implementation
 Clear roles and responsibilities for CPS,
judges, families and communities
 Interconnectedness with data systems
–Track progress/outcomes
–Track assignment
24
 Educating mandated
reporters
 Partnering with community
agencies
 Training staff and
community partners
 Working with courts and law
enforcement
25
Prospective Benefits





More children are better protected over time by
engaging more parents in the process of making
sustainable changes
Rate of subsequent, repeat reports to CPS has
been demonstrated to decrease
Both families and agency child protection workers
are more satisfied with the outcomes
Involvement of larger systems of support
Approach is cost neutral or saves money over time
Lessons Learned



There is intrinsic value of family voice – as
partners, guiding service planning and
decision making
Community partnerships are most
effective ways to protect children
There is a need to involve families and
community stakeholders early in process
Lessons Learned



Communication among/across stakeholders
& jurisdictions is essential – establish
vehicles for regular contact
Assessment is ongoing and cumulative as
trust builds - need to respond
Evaluation matters – bring evaluators in
early and make the investment to do it well
Resources

American Humane
– http://www.americanhumane.org/protecting
-children/programs/differential-response/

Quality Improvement Center on
Alternative Response
– http://www.differentialresponseqic.org/

Caren Kaplan
– carenk@americanhumane.org
With Gratitude
OHIO ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE
PILOT PROJECT
Establishing Alternative Response
as an option for Ohio’s Families
How Did We End Up Here?
The Sequence of Events

Two reports were critical of inconsistencies in Ohio’s
application of statutory definitions for child abuse,
neglect and dependency
– ABA Report
– CFSR

Subcommittee on Responding to Child, Abuse, Neglect
& Dependency (2004)

Final Report (January 2006) Advisory Committee on
Children Families & the Court
2006 Recommendations

Change to Child In Need of Protective
Services (CHIPS) legislative structure

Look into alternative/differential
response as an option for handling some
accepted reports of child maltreatment
2007 - Established Framework




Received statutory authority to initiate a pilot
study
Launched a nation-wide search for an experienced
consultants
Selected American Humane, Institute for Applied
Research & Minnesota Partners - AIM
Conducted Regional Forums on Alternative
Response to assist communities in selfidentifying an interest in serving as a pilot site
Selected Pilot Counties
Blue = Population as reported by census data
Red = 2006 substantiated &
indicated child abuse reports
Expanded Partnerships
Ohio’s Alternative Response Plan


Created a Design Team
Two representatives per site were
appointed to a workgroup of the
Supreme Court of Ohio’s Subcommittee
on Responding to Child Abuse, Neglect and
Dependency
Created a Model
The Design Team established:
 The “alternative pathway” as complementary to
(does not replace) Ohio’s existing child protective
service response system.
 Guiding Principles
 Assignment criteria
 Timeframes for decision-making
 Standard labels and their definitions
 Case Processing and flow
 Mechanisms for moving reports from one track
to another
Prepared for Implementation

Establishing training for staff and
community

Evaluating local services

Developing a statewide message and
educational materials
2008
Offered Families a New Option for
Keeping Children Safe



Alternative Response became an option for
families in pilots sites in July 2008.
Random assignment of families for evaluation
purposes continued through September 2009.
By conclusion of data collection, 4,822 families
had been assigned to the study:
– 2,482 (51.5%) assigned to experimental track (AR)
– 2,340 (48.5) assigned to control track (“business as
usual)
– 92 cases were excluded from study because of track
changes
From Activation to
Integration: County-Focus







Maintaining child safety
Developing routine
Establishing ongoing support
Collecting data: state and local
Developing partnerships
Building political will for change
Problem solving
From Activation to Integration:
State Focus





Responding to workers’ training needs
Building political will for change
Identifying the elements that are critical
to success, including dollars and services
Integrating alternative response into
state’s priorities; aligning initiatives
Ensuring essential oversight and
accountability
Pilot Challenges
 Equity in workloads
(randomization)
 SACWIS
 Dual Caseloads
 Tensions between workers
Practice Challenges
•
•
•
•
•
How to explain AR
Dual caseloads
Interviewing requirements; where rule
meets philosophy
Letting go of old ways; change
management
Finding services
From the front line:
what’s good?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Family Response
Time Spent in Field
Increased/More Creative Services for Families
Families’ Supports
Outcomes show promise
Services reflect family needs
Caseworker satisfaction
From the front line:
lessons….
•
•
•
•
Importance of skilled decision-making at the front door
(screening).
Extended timeframes for assessment allow greater
opportunity for engagement
Caseload size has impact on workers’ ability to engage
Flexible Funding: effective response to families must
have the flexibility that allows both immediacy and
allows services to be determined by need rather than
availability.
From the front line:
critical connections….
•
•
•
Housing
Gaps in substance abuse and mental
health services
Transportation
Infinity and Beyond!

Pilot Study Time Frame:
– July 1, 2008 - December 30, 2009 (18 months)

Final Report
– April 2010

Dual Focus:
– Targeted Pilot Expansion



RFA – March 2010
AR Symposium - May 13 & 14, 2010
Ten Expansion Pilots – June 2010
– Statewide Implementation
REQUEST FOR
APPLICATIONS
Application Review Process



EVALUATION by American Humane
Consultants using Criteria in Application
SELECTION: Recommendations made to
ODJFS & SCO; decisions made by
Subcommittee
NOTIFICATION on June 18th: Selected sites
contacted via telephone (preferred) or Email
Application Criteria







AGENCY CAPACITY AND PLANNING (20
POINTS)
COMMUNITY CAPACITY (15 POINTS)
TARGET POPULATION (10 Points)
SERVICE DELIVERY STRUCTURE (20 points)
EVALUATION CAPACITY (10 POINTS)
ANTICIPATED CHALLENGES (15 POINTS)
BUDGET PROJECTIONS/FINANCIAL
COMMITMENTS (10 points)
Expectations of AR Counties




Participate in Ohio AR Leadership Council
Assess reports of alleged CA/N using AR
approach as permitted by Ohio statute
Provide services for families as directed by
assessment process and family service plan
Collect, analyze and report on specific data
elements to assure ongoing AR efficacy
Timeline




May 13, 2010: Counties submitting proposals are
required to attend Are You Ready for Alternative
Response? from 2:00pm – 5:30pm
May 28, 2010: Deadline for submitting electronic
applications to ohioar2010@gmail.com with the
subject line “Ohio AR Application.”
June 18, 2010: Selection/Announcement of ten
pilot sites.
September, 2010: Families are assigned to
Counties’ Alternative Response Pathways
What Lies Ahead?
Future Plans





Continue to support original 10 pilots
Partner closely with the QIC-DR 6 county pilot
and support their implementation
Review AR Project Final Report
recommendations and outline next steps
Continue the critical support provided by the
AIM team
Expand to 10 new counties by September 2010
Future Plans





Build training infrastructure
Bring on additional counties during the
first quarter of 2011
Review current policies and forms
Draft Ch. 119 rules
Continue to enhance SACWIS to support
the Alternative Response approach
It’s Important to Know….
Training

The 10 accepted sites will minimally have the
following:
– Two-day initial training that includes AR 101,
procedural changes, pathway assignment
and engagement techniques
– A community forum to help partners
understand the changes that will be
occurring within the agency’s approach with
families
Training


Each agency will have at least two on-site coaching
experiences provided by AIM staff
The new sites will be a part of Ohio’s Leadership
Council, the partnership group of Ohio’s alternative
response sites. As such, they will have the opportunity
to participate in all activities available to the Council. In
the past, this has included:
– On-site coaching
– Specialized training opportunities
– Peer review opportunities
– Quarterly Leadership Council activities
Training




It is recommended that all agency staff
participate in the initial AR training
Training for all assists in avoiding organizational
myths and internal friction
Generally, ongoing AR training has been
directed to AR staff
Capacity and relevance determine the
appropriateness of non-AR attending AR
training experiences
Funding





Provided by Casey Family Programs
$20,000 per year for two years
Operates on a calendar year
All monies must be liquidated by the end
of each year
Quarterly reports are required
Funding

Approved uses of funding:
–
–
–
–
–
–
Services
Travel
Staff
Training
Consultants
Cost associated with public events
Additional FAQ’s




Advantageous for counties to apply as
group?
Will there be experimental and control
groups?
Funding available per service plan?
Alternative Response expansion plans?
One Goal
Two Approaches
AR Policy and Practice
Similarities






Child safety is the priority
Comprehensive safety and risk assessments
Holistic family assessment involving all children
and adults in the home
Service plans developed with the family and
based on family needs, safety and risk issues
Ongoing reviews of safety, risk and services
Case closure based on increased safety, risk
reduction or agreement to terminate services
AR-Specific Rules
OAC 5101:9-14-03
Implementation of pilot protocols for public children
services agencies in the alternative response pilot
program

OAC 5101:9-14-04
PCSA requirements for alternative response to child
abuse and/or neglect

AR Toolset







JFS 01401, CAPMIS Safety Assessment
JFS 01409, CAPMIS Safety Plan
JFS 01419, AR Family Assessment
JFS 01423, AR Ongoing Case Assessment
JFS 01418, AR Family Service Plan*
JFS 01417, AR Family Service Plan Review*
JFS 01422, AR Case Closure*
*The CAPMIS case plan, case plan review, and SAR tools may be used
in lieu of these AR tools at the agency’s discretion
Differences

Additional decision within 24 hour screening
timeframe:
– Screen-in/Screen-out
– Case Category
– Priority
– Pathway Assignment (CA/N reports only)
Pathway Assignment Tool



Not a registered JFS form (use is optional)
Decision pending on SACWIS inclusion
Automatic assignment to Traditional Pathway
– Allegations of serious harm to a child
– Allegations of sexual abuse
– Suspicious child fatality or homicide
– Specialized Assessment required
– Third Party Assessment required
Differences

Non-emergency initiation options (24 hours)
– Attempt F=F with parent, child or collateral
source
– Attempt phone contact with parent or
collateral source
– Letter to parent, guardian or custodian
acknowledging a report was received and
inviting the family to engage with the PCSA
Differences



Four (4) working days to make F=F contact with
the child subject of the report and one parent or
caregiver if not completed at the time of
initiation
Four (4) working days to complete the
assessment of safety with an additional three (3)
working days to complete the JFS 01401 in
SACWIS
No disposition; no ACV or AP* labels
*AR report histories cannot be used for Central Registry background
checks
Differences



Forty-five days to complete the JFS 01419, AR
Family Assessment*
A JFS 01418, Family Service Plan (FSP) may be
developed any time after the assessment of
safety is completed; updated as needed
The FSP must be developed no more than 15
days after the decision for ongoing services*
*Recommendations to change the timeframes for completion are
pending
Differences



The JFS 01417, Alternative Response Family
Service Plan Review can be used for both the 90
review and SAR
Case closure decision and information is
documented on the JFS 01422, Alternative
Response Case Closure
Court-involved cases and custody cases cannot
be assigned to the AR pathway
Q&A

Alternative Response Mailbox:
AR@jfs.ohio.gov

Child Protective Services: 614-466-1213
– Dorothy Striker (Program Lead)
– Catherine Lawhorn
– David Thomas
– Denielle Ell-Rittinger
Alternative Response
and SACWIS
Data




Majority if not all of the data collection
will be gathered from SACWIS
It is vital that counties use SACWIS
If other data is needed, ODJFS will ensure
that it serves a clearly defined purpose
and is related to statewide
implementation
One example is services
Counting What Matters



We will extract SACWIS data to inform pilots.
For families to improve, they must have
services.
Concern: Service data is currently insufficient
for determining…
– The number of people needing specific services.
– Duration between the referral and delivery.

It is critical for county leaders to know for future
planning how many families need specific
services, the demand for those services, and
costs.
Counting What Matters

If we are unable to modify SACWIS that will
allow us to report to counties, we will require
counties to report this information to us on a
per case level.

We prefer to obtain this information from
SACWIS rather than counties. Thus, we care
working closely with the SACWIS team to make
a change in the Service screens.