APPENDIX A

The Summit Initiative on Child Protection and Family Support

Over the past decade, there have been numerous declarations by child advocates, child welfare providers and families themselves that child abuse and neglect in the U.S. represents a national emergency. Despite dramatic calls for reform, sensational media coverage of high profile cases, and occasional law suits, child protection systems in the states have not met the standards or expectations of most citizens.

In 1999, Massachusetts Citizens for Children made a commitment to build a broad and deep consensus for reform. That spring, it brought together fifty key child welfare policy leaders from Massachusetts and a dozen experts from across the nation to address the crisis in child protection and the need for family support and prevention strategies.

The two-day "Summit on Child Protection and Family Support" and subsequent post-Summit feedback supported a broader effort to bring about systemic changes. Four key goals were approved:

• To establish a shared baseline of information and data on current research and practice;
• To develop a proposed reform agenda among policy makers, child and family advocates, and providers;
• To educate opinion leaders, the general public, and media about that agenda;
• To mobilize citizen and legislative action to fund and implement reform.

To accomplish these goals, five Summit Working Groups were convened and met regularly over the six-month period from January through June, 2000. In April, May and June, MCC convened three daylong Symposia to discuss the newest brain research and its implications for children traumatized by abuse or family violence. Input from a broad range of mental health, child protection and school professionals resulted in numerous recommendations around policy, practice and prevention. Throughout this period, numerous other national and state experts in areas related to child protection and family support were consulted.

Overall, two hundred child and family policymakers and advocates were involved in the Summit Initiative. They assessed the workings of the current system, explored promising models from other states, and debated options for change.

A description of the Work Groups and the scope of their work follows:

 

Work Group on Dual Track

Premise:
The current child protection system does not allow for differential responses to reports of serious and less serious reports of abuse and neglect. Though serious cases are screened in and investigated, the majority of reports (70% or more) are screened out with no services offered. Significant resources are expended in this process, while few or no benefits accrue to the families and children whose cases are screened out. Massachusetts should explore the dual track systems currently operating in over 10 states and determine if adopting such a strategy would result in a more efficient use of resources and better outcomes for children and families.

Scope of Work:

• Review Massachusetts' uniform approach to screening, assessing, investigating, and servicing reports/cases of abuse and neglect.
• Compile data regarding costs associated with screening out cases that are not deemed to require state agency involvement.
• Compile data, including cost data, outcome measures, related to dual track systems in other states.
• Identify child protection system improvements in dual track states. · Explore identified barriers and challenges posed by dual track systems.
• Identify implication of dual track systems on current mandated reporting laws.

 

Work Group on Multidisciplinary Assessment

Premise:
Approximately 30% of children reported to the state child protection system have experienced serious abuse or neglect. These children require timely and comprehensive clinical assessments to determine their status, i.e. medical, psychosocial, legal, etc., and to develop an effective plan for treatment and intervention. These assessments can best be provided through permanent, community-based multidisciplinary child protection teams that operate under a statewide system grounded in uniform standards of practice and accountability.

Scope of Work:

• Document the current composition, location, referral mechanisms and overall functions of multidisciplinary teams in Massachusetts, i.e. Child Advocacy Centers (CACs), Sexual Assault Intervention Teams (SAIN teams), Multidisciplinary Assessment Teams (MDATs), hospital-based Child Protection Teams (CPTs).
• Document extent and sources of funding for the above.
• Compile and review data on multidisciplinary assessment teams in other states, e.g. types of cases referred; recidivism rates, prosecution rates, child fatality rates among teamed cases; satisfaction rates among mandatory reporters and families; etc.
• Examine legislation that authorizes the functioning and funding of teams, and the roles of state and community partners.
• Explore political and other elements that have contributed to the establishment and maintenance of effective team systems across the country.

 

Work Group on Family & Community Supports

Premise:
Approximately 70 percent of child abuse and neglect reports received by the child protection agency do not warrant court or law enforcement involvement. Children and families involved in these reports are generally screened out and away from the system without being offered any services or supports. Without an opportunity to have their needs assessed and addressed, many may experience further difficulty that could result in future reports. These cases could better be handled through a non-adversarial, community-based response system grounded in family support principles and practice.

Currently, Massachusetts has the beginnings of such a response system, however it is fragmented and lacks coordination. This system could be organized to serve both children and families reported to and screened away from the state agency, and families at-large who voluntarily seek a range of community-based supports. A coordinated, statewide system of family supports and services would promote strong families and prevent child abuse and neglect.

Scope of Work:

• Document the number of reports to DSS that are screened-out and unsupported, and the range of services provided/offered to this population.
• Document services provided to families and children involved in substantiated cases of abuse and neglect, including services provided through mental health managed care.
• Identify Massachusetts data from the Urban Institute's National Survey of America's Families and from other sources that document the need for family supports.
• Explore how a statewide, coordinated system would impact current family support/prevention partnerships and programs involving the Department of Social Services, the Children's Trust Fund, the Department of Public Health, the Department of Education, and local schools.
• Explore models of community partnerships in other states, including mechanisms available to children and families that can both assess and address their identified needs.
• Document current Federal, State and local funding for child and family services and community supports.

 

Work Group on Treatment and Intervention

Premise:
Most current clinical practice involving child victims of serious abuse and neglect does not reflect the latest research and data on the effects of trauma on the developing brain. Implications of this research must be more fully understood by policymakers and practitioners so child victims can benefit from effective state-of-the-art treatment and interventions that address both immediate safety risk and long-term developmental risk.

Scope of Work:

• Compile a comprehensive library of the most current data about the effects of child abuse/neglect trauma on children's brain development, e.g. articles, studies, etc.
• Compile research data concerning the links between poor scholastic performance, low MCAS test scores, behavioral problems, etc. and exposure to family violence and/or abuse.
• Convene a series of symposia for Summit work group members and other policymakers and practitioners aimed at imparting the new data, documenting its impact on children's medical, psychological, behavioral and educational status, and distilling policy and programmatic recommendations.
• Document the current network of treatment services for Massachusetts' abused and neglected children, and its associated costs.
• Identify gaps in the provision of treatment services, including types of specialized services, availability of trained practitioners, geographic limitations, etc.
• Document the costs associated with not developing and providing effective treatment and interventions for abused/neglected children in Massachusetts.

 

Work Group on Workforce/Workload

Premise:
An effective and efficient child protection system requires a competent, adequately staffed and professionally trained work force, and a manageable workload that supports quality casework.

Scope of Work:

• Review Massachusetts data regarding number of workers in workforce, turnover rate, percentage of workers/supervisors with advanced degrees, in-service training, etc.
• Compile budgetary information about current level of support.
• Compile information about current recruitment practices, including roles of schools of social work, NASW, etc.
• Identify barriers to maintaining a competent workforce.
• Compile and examine data on innovative workforce/workload practices from other states.
• Review related legislation supporting improved workforce/workload practices in other states.
• Explore how identified best practices can be incorporated into the Massachusetts child protection system.

Return to Top