an examination of decision making processes and pathway of
TRANSCRIPT
An Examination of Decision‐Making Processes and Pathway of Outcomes for Child Maltreatment Referrals in Madera County
Jerica Ramos, MSW
Child Welfare Decision‐Making Processes: Understanding Screening Processes in Calaveras and Kings Counties
Maria Bravo, MSW
Purpose
Jerica• To seek out trends in decision-making processes for Madera
County Child Welfare Services.• To identify decision-making indicators that may be present.
Maria• To examine decision-making processes that occur when a child
welfare agency receives a child maltreatment referral. • To increase understanding of screening practices to better inform
child welfare practitioners, administrators, community members, and policymakers about complex nature of child welfare decision-making.
Problem StatementsJerica• Little understanding of the factors that may be associated with the decision-
making processes in child welfare.• Explore decision-making pathways for child maltreatment referrals that are
evaluated out in Madera County.Maria• Decision-making related to child maltreatment referrals can be risky
business even with advancements, such as safety assessment tools and training meant to improve the accuracy of detecting risk factors associated with maltreatment.
• Errors in decision-making or screening are sometimes manifested in evaluated out reports of child maltreatment.
• Screening errors can have unintended consequences such as public turmoil, private distress, and a loss in public confidence in CPS.
Conceptual FrameworksJerica• Decision complexity and organizational factors• Decision-making barriers• Decision-making models
Maria• Structured Decision-Making (SDM)
– Incorporates research-based risk assessment tools to guide decision-making in child welfare and to allow agencies to target cases that are most at risk (CDSS, 2007).
• Decision-Making Ecology (DME)– Mutual connections between case, organizational, community, and individual
factors influencing case decisions and client outcomes (Wells et al., 2007). • Organizational Operations Theory
– Organizational culture is shaped by several factors: management style, social function, autonomy level and expectations of workers (Rzepnicki & Johnson, 2005).
Research QuestionsJerica• What are the characteristics of child maltreatment referral for Madera County?
• What are the decision‐making pathways for child maltreatment referral in Madera County?
Maria• Does Calaveras County have higher incidences of evaluate‐out child maltreatment referrals in comparison to California?
• Does Kings County have higher incidences of evaluate‐out child maltreatment referrals in comparison to California?
Methodology
• Secondary Data Analysis: Data from Center for Social Services Research (CSSR) and the National Council on Crime and Delinquency’s (NCCD) Children’s Research Center (CRC).
• Subjects: Children in California between the ages of 0 to 17, who are involved with Calaveras, Kings & Madera CWS due to alleged child maltreatment.
• Data Analysis: Descriptive analysis and discussion of findings.
Child Population by Age Group2012
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Calaveras Kings Madera California
0‐5
6‐10
11‐17
N=8,280 N=40,866 N=42,037 N=9,170,525
CA Dept. of Finance
Child Maltreatment Allegations:Incidences per 1000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2009 2010 2011 2012
Calaveras
Kings
Madera
California
Source: CSSR
Child MaltreatmentAllegation Type ‐ 2012
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Calaveras Kings Madera California
Sexual Abuse
Physical Abuse
General Neglect
Emotional Abuse
At Risk Sibling
Other
N=487,242
N=2,949
N=2,818N=664
Source: CSSR
Calaveras County: Disposition Type
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
2010 2011 2012
Substantiated
Inconclusive
Unfounded
Assessment Only/Evaluated Out
N=699 N=664
Source: CSSR
N=866
Kings County: Dispositions Type
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
2010 2011 2012
Substantiated
Inconclusive
Unfounded
Assessment Only/Evaluated Out
Not Yet Determined
Source: CSSR
N=2,472N=2,429
N=2,818
Madera County:Disposition Type
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
2010 2011 2012
Substantiated
Inconclusive
Unfounded
Assessment Only/Evaluated Out
Not Yet Determined
N=2,823
N=2,799 N=2,949
Source: CSSR
Evaluated Out: County/California Comparison
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
2009 2010 2011 2012
Calaveras
Kings
Madera
California
Source: CSSR
Calaveras County:Allegation Type/Evaluated Out
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2011 2012
Other
At Risk, SiblingAbusedEmotional Abuse
General Neglect
Physical Abuse
Sexual Abuse
N=265
N=218
N=164
Source: CSSR
Kings County:Allegation Type/Evaluated Out
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2010 2011 2012
Other
Severe Neglect
CaretakerAbsence/IncapacityAt Risk, Sibling Abused
Emotional Abuse
General Neglect
Physical Abuse
Sexual Abuse
N=2,472 N=2,429
N=2,818
Source: CSSR
Madera CountyAllegation Type/Evaluated Out
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2010 2011 2012
Other
Severe Neglect
CaretakerAbsence/IncapacityAt Risk, Sibling Abused
Emotional Abuse
General Neglect
Physical Abuse
Sexual Abuse
N=2,823 N=2,799 N=2,949
Source: CSSR
Calaveras County:Evaluated Out by Age Group
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2009 2010 2011 2012
11‐17
6‐10
0‐5
N=316
48%
27%
25%
54%
23%
23%
44%
23%
33%
44%
32%
24%
N=265 N=218 N=164
Source: CSSR
Kings County:Evaluated Out by Age Group
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2009 2010 2011 2012
11‐17
6‐10
0‐5
N=707 N=612 N=570 N=580
42% 39% 41% 41%
28% 27% 25% 29%
30% 34% 34% 31%
Source: CSSR
Madera County:Evaluated Out by Age Group
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2009 2010 2011 2012
11‐17
6‐10
0‐5
N=766
46%
26%
28%
N=851
44%
26%
30%
N=439
40%
28%
32%
N=327
44%
27%
29%
Source: CSSR
Calaveras County: Recurrence of Allegation–Assessment Only
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2009 2010 2011
Substantiated
Inconclusive
Unfounded
Evaluated Out
No Recurrence
B=408 B=302 B=274
Source: CSSR
Kings County:Recurrence of Allegation‐Assessment Only
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2009 2010 2011
Substantiated
Inconclusive
Unfounded
Evaluated Out
No Recurrence
B=978 B=853 B=834
Source: CSSR
Madera County:Recurrence of Allegation‐Assessment Only
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2009 2010 2011
Substantiated
Inconclusive
Unfounded
Evaluated Out
No Recurrence
B=1051 B=1147 B=615
Source: CSSR
CRC/SDM Safety Assessment ResultsRemoval/Placement
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
2010 2011 2012
Calaveras
Kings
Madera
N=409
N=986
N=909 N=994
N=1,219
N=338
N=1,022
N=1,325
N=320
CRC/SDM 2012: Most Prevalent Safety Threats in Removal Households
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Calaveras Kings Madera
Caregiver Substance Abuse
Child Immediate Need not Meet
Failure to Protect
N=54
N=128
N=105
Source: CRC/SDM
CRC/SDM 2012Most Frequent Priority Family Need
Source: CRC/SDM
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Calaveras Kings Madera
Mental Health/Coping Skills
Substance Abuse/Use
Parenting Skills
N=88
N=62
N=142
CRC/SDM 2012Most Frequent Child Need
Source CRC/SDM
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Calaveras Kings Madera
Family Relationships
Emotional/Behavioral
Education
Peer/Adult Social Relationships
Child Development
N=94
N=280
N=193
Implications of Findings for Social Work Practice
Jerica• Increased knowledge of decision-making pathways in Madera CWS.• Service provision and need• Benefits to San Joaquin Valley and surrounding counties• Influence Madera CWS’ System Improvement Plan (SIP)
Maria• As outcomes of child maltreatment reports depend largely on
decisions of child welfare officials, it is important to consider factors that drive, influence, and affect these decisions to improve child welfare screening practices.
• It is important to understand how features of human experience can influence family involvement with CPS to strengthen child maltreatment prevention and intervention efforts.
Future Areas of StudyJerica• Further study of increased removal of children by Madera County
CWS since 2011.• The extent to which substance abuse plays a role in child welfare
involvement with families.• This basis of information can segue into a more descriptive review
of decision making.Maria• Further exploration of the possible factors influencing child welfare
decisions. • Further analysis state, and county policies and protocols used in the
review of child maltreatment allegations. • Further qualitative analysis of child maltreatment referrals received
directly by Calaveras and Kings Counties.