interdisciplinary collaboration
DESCRIPTION
Interdisciplinary Collaboration. Research on How Child Welfare Social Workers and Law Enforcement Officers Collaborate to Investigate Child Abuse Viola W Lindsey, PhD MSW Loma Linda University April 16, 2012. Rationality and Skepticism. Rationality - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Interdisciplinary Collaboration
Research on How Child Welfare Social Workers and Law Enforcement Officers Collaborate to
Investigate Child Abuse
Viola W Lindsey, PhD MSW Loma Linda University
April 16, 2012
Rationality and SkepticismRationality
◦Beyond descriptive to an explanatory discussions about how CPS social workers and law enforcement officers engage in collaboration across professional boundaries.
Skepticism◦Lack of participation based on
confidentiality
Research Site DemographicsRiverside County
◦Population 2,100,156 Ranks number 4 among top ten largest
counties in California◦Geography
7,208 square miles Ranks number 3 in square miles
coverage among top ten largest counties
Research Site DemographicsSan Bernardino County
◦Population 2,015,355 Ranks number five in top ten largest
counties in California◦Geography
20,062 square Ranks number 1 in square miles
coverage among top ten largest counties
Comparative DemographicsRemaining 48 California Counties
◦Population Range from 1,061 to 845,559
◦Geography Range from 48 to 4,060 square miles
Social Workers Demographics (11)
Gender◦One male, 10 females
Age◦Ranged from mid 20’s to early 50’s
Job title◦Social service workers III ◦Social Service practitioners◦Social service supervisors
Social Workers Demographics cont’d
Education◦Six social workers had earned Masters of
Social Work (MSW) degrees, ◦Five possessed Bachelor of Art (BA) degrees
Years on the job◦Ranged from 2 to 13 years
Ethnicity◦African Americans, Caucasians, Hispanics
Law Enforcement Demographics(10)
Gender◦Four males, six females
Age◦Ranged from mid 30’s to mid 60’s
Job title◦Three sergeants, seven detectives
Years on the job◦Ranged from two to 27 years
Law Enforcement Demographics cont’d
Education ◦ Two law enforcement officers had earned
Bachelor of Science (BS) degrees◦ Three possessed Associate’s (AA) degrees◦ Five completed their high school education
Ethnicity◦ One African American, nine Caucasians
Commonality◦ Both professional groups respond to
child abuse allegations across multiple municipalities and/or regional offices
Research MethodQualitative rationale
◦Beyond descriptive to an explanatory discussions about how CPS social workers and law enforcement officers engage in collaboration across professional boundaries
Research Method cont’dGrounded theory approach
◦Provides insight into human interactions involving individuals or groups working together on particular tasks(Hughes, Bryan & Robbins, 2005; Turner, 1983)
◦Data comes directly from the practitioners themselves (emic)
◦ Information gathered has practical and functional use in real world or day-to-day work environments (Myers, 2000)
Research Methods Grounded Theory cont’d
◦Most appropriate candidates
To attach meaning to their cross-discipline actions and social interactions
To defend the consequences of taking such actions (Goulding,1998)
To clarify the conditions in the environments that shape their actions
Key TermsCoordinatio
n
Cooperation
Collaboration
Key Term - CoordinationAbout achieving efficiency in procedures such as sharing informing about rules under which each agency operates
Does not lend itself to communicating the reciprocal consequences of those procedures (Denise, 1999)
Key Term - Cooperation An interaction that is intended to contribute, directly or indirectly, to the effectiveness of each other’s work (Strimling, 2006)Interactions across organizational boundaries are usually informal and lack rigid structureEach agency functions separately and without consideration for the other’s goals; interactions are based on an as needed basis
Key Term - Collaboration
People getting together in a room to talk to each
other often misconceptualized as
collaboration(Mizrahi,1999)
Coordination, cooperation a continuum leading to
collaboration
Degree to which communication is
formalized, frequent, and a willingness to exchange and share information for the purpose of meeting
mutual goals (Horwath & Morrison, 2007)
Key Questions 1. Describe for me how you decide which child abuse allegations do not need to be
investigated. 2. Describe what circumstances you and child welfare social workers(CPS)/law
enforcement join together to investigate child abuse. 3. How frequently do you go out with the same child welfare social worker/law
enforcement officer? [Revised] 3. How often do you meet up with the same child welfare (CPS) social worker/law
enforcement officer?◦ [Probe: When you work with the same officer, what is that relationship like?]◦ [Probe: When you work with a new officer, what is that relationship like?]
4. Describe how well you think CPS social workers/law enforcement officers are prepared to do child abuse investigations?◦ [Probe: What problems do you see in their performance or understanding?]◦ [Probe: What strengths do you see in their performance or understanding?]
5. Both CPS and law enforcement talk about ensuring the well-being of children. What does
that mean to you?◦ [Probe: Describe for me how that meaning is the same or different for CPS social workers/law
enforcement] 6. Describe some of the challenges encountered when working with CPS social workers/
law enforcement. 7. Tell me what’s positive about working jointly with CPS social workers/ law enforcement.
Findings Challenges in collaborating
Different investigative approaches
Lack of understanding
each others’ roles and
responsibilities
Different Timeframes
Different languages
Different standards
Inconsistent engagement
practices
Different Investigative Approaches
Active engagement in cross-reporting
child abuse allegations
reports
Evaluating out’ vs.
investigating each
referral received
Some law
enforcemen
t officers
only
investigated
cases where
prosecutabl
e crime was
indicated
Repeat referrals not
investigated
by social workers
Case appearing to be family law matters
often not investigated by social workers
Inconsistent Engagement Practices
No systematic engageme
nt practices protocol; practice varied
To prevent
interviewing the
victim of abuse
multiple times
Involved
CPS to
ensure
victim’s
complianc
e with a
scheduled
forensic
interview
Involved CPS to
gather knowledge
about the family’s
history
Engaged with CPS only if determination made to remove
child from home
Different StandardsStandard of evidence•Preponderance of evidence - social workers
•Clear and convincing evidence – law enforcement
Social workers
responsible for
assessing children’s
current circumstances
as well as risk factors
From the perspective
of law enforcement
there was no need to
be involved with the
family if there was no
evidence a crime had
occurred
Different Languages
Sexual abuse/incest vs sexual assault; Physical abuse vs physical assault
CPS viewed sexual abuse as a family
dysfunction requiring intervention
strategies to restore the family unit
and improve family functioning
Law enforcement
viewed sexual or
physical abuse as
either a physical or
sexual assault
deserving punishment
and long term jail
time law enforce
ment
made no distinctio
n
between physical or
sexual abuse
occurrin
g in the home
and physical and
sexual abuse
occurrin
g outside the
home
Perpetrator vs
suspect
Well-being• Physical safety vs physical, emotional,
social, educational safety
Different Timelines
Social Workers
• Immediate response (IR’s) - 24 hours
• Non-IR’s – 10 days
• Reunification- 18 months
Law Enforcement
• Statute of limitations open
Findings cont’dLaw enforcement officers’ characterization of
social workers relating to
◦ Time line differences - ‘irresponsible’, ‘overzealous’, ‘jumping the gun’
◦ Punishment versus treatment - naïve and shortsighted
◦ Investigation styles - passive, too soft, lacking in assertiveness skills
◦ Consulting with supervisors - too much emphasis placed on book learning rather than training
Findings cont’dSocial workers’ characterization of law
enforcement
◦ Punitive - more interested in taking the perpetrator down regardless of consequence to the children
◦ Impatient – see child abuse as a low level crime, not as exciting as a homicide or a robbery
◦ Detectives who work in Crimes Against Children Units are low level positions in police departments; it’s like a “you screwed up” position
Findings cont’d Complementary roles
Social workers complement my role when the child is removed form the home and the suspect goes to jail and hopefully to prison
They protect my safety; they protect the safety of the child, but I wish they would value my profession more
They provide another set of eyes; respected for their uniform. All we have is a plastic badge and a plastic notebook going into neighborhoods that we don’t even know are dangerous. Law enforcement tells us they don’t even go into those neighborhood without backup
Theoretical implicationsSocial
identity theory
Boundary spanning
Loosely connected systems theory
Theoretical Implications
Social Identity Theory
Deals with intergroup relations where Individuals see themselves as
a member of a certain group or category (the in-
group) as compared to
another group (the out-group)
These groups evaluate
themselves on dimensions that
lead to the in-group being judged as positive and the out -group to be
judged negatively
These comparison become necessary
to maintain distinctiveness and
boundaries the consequences of
which are stereotypes, biases, and it
promotes an “us versus them”
attitude in inter-professional
relationships(Stets & Burke, 2000; Taijfel, 1982)
Theoretical Implications
Boundary Spanning-
Child abuse – a crime (law enforcement) as well as a family
dysfunction (social work intervention)
All organization have boundaries that specify how internal and/external roles and functions are related but also separated from one another (Fiol, 1989)•Boundary spanning positions link two or more systems whose goals and expectations are likely to be at least partially conflicting (Steadman,1992)
•Boundary spanners perform balancing act between inclusion and separation, dependence, and autonomy (Williams, 2002)
Theoretical ImplicationsLoosely Coupled Systems TheoryCoupling the degree to which organizational aspects are linked,
connected, related, or interdependent (Maguire
& Katz, 2002, Weick, 1976)
Coupled organizations are responsive to each other but they preserve their own identity and their
own physical, and logical separateness (Hagan, Hewitt & Alwin, 1979;
Weick, 1976)
Theoretical ImplicationsLoosely Coupled Systems Theory
Organizations that work together but have separate
standards and separate performance measures (Pajak &
Green, 2003)
Organizations guided by ambiguous mandates that
promote irrational work practices; each system
practices in a manner that meets its organizational goals with little regard for how the
other organization in the collaborative arrangement
achieves its goals (Pinnelle & Gutwin, 2006)
Theoretical ImplicationsLoosely Coupled Systems Theory
Interdependence is reduced; interactions are secondary, occasional,
involuntary, and unequal (Weick, 1980)
Organizations conform closely to behaviors that
symbolize mandated expectations but do not
attempt to seriously implement them at the operational level (Scott,
1998)
Policy Implications• Protocol to require joint
investigations on each referral
• Protocol to define each professional groups’ roles and responsibilities during joint investigations
Federal and state policy mandate strict requirements rather than recommended requirements that
CPS and law enforcement
agencies develop collaborative
protocols
• Reduces timelines conflict (Faller & Henry, 2000)
Remove familial physical and sexual abuse crimes out of the sexual assault Penal Code section
and align the crimes with Welfare and Institution Codes
LimitationsResearcher’s bias
Small N (21)
Findings may be exaggerated based on size of counties studied as compared to other smaller (48) counties, population wise as well as geography
Findings may not be generalizable to other smaller counties due to differences in population size and geography
Findings do provide a glimpse into challenges all counties may face when child welfare Federal and state statutes conflict with criminal Federal and state statute
Summary Findings Structural Barriers
Overall, child welfare social workers and law enforcement officers do not collaborate on a consistent basis
There is a lack of understanding of each other’s roles and responsibilities
The structure of each organization makes it difficult to build working relationships
Summary FindingsStructural Barriers
Patrol officer or deputy who responds to investigate a child abuse allegations work on rotating shifts; rarely is the investigating officer the same ◦ Social workers refer to thIs relationship as ‘the luck of
the draw”
If a more thorough investigation is needed the referral is handed off to a detective◦ Social workers describe this relationship as not having a
connections to the intermediate detectives “so it’s like trying to call the station, you leave a message hoping that whoever is assigned will call you back. And that tends to be a hassle for those of us who are not stationed with police/law enforcement”
Summary Findings Structural Barriers
Similarly, child welfare social workers who are first responders investigate child abuse across multiple geographical locations, a mixture of municipalities, and with different deputies and patrol officers who work on rotating shifts, and with different or no understanding of child abuse
If a child is removed from the home and/or a more in-depth investigation is required the referral, in many cases, is handed off to another social worker
Summary FindingsStructural Barriers
Law enforcement (detective) describe this relationship as “A lot of time I will find that if a deputy took a report and say they took it today and I called the social worker who had contact with the family in the past they are usually not available any more so I can’t get any information about the past”
◦Overall, communication linkage is lost
◦Social workers and law enforcement who are co-located seem to have a better working relationship
Recommendations• Interdisciplinary studies can provide an understanding of how the involvement of different professions from different perspectives is necessary to resolve broad and complex societal problems
• Different perspectives provide a more comprehensive understanding of clients’ multilevel needs and challenges
Schools of social work develop curricula that
teach social work students how to collaborate and
resolve conflict in cross-discipline
settings
• Joint trainings teach social workers how to be secure in articulating their professional perspectives, especially in legal settings(Garrett, 2004)
Joint training with law enforcement
to learn about each others’ roles
and responsibilities
Recommendations
• This process not only has potential to close the communication gap
• Process could potentially aid in the alignment of Welfare and Institution Codes with Penal Codes reducing timeline conflicts and systems’ re-abuse of children
Each professional group assign a liaison from both entities
who can track a case at any point
in the investigation
process to provide
reciprocal updates upon
request.
Reference List Attached
QuestionsDiscussions
Remarks
Thank you for participation