Transcript Bringing Prevention to the Table: Building Capacity

ACF Region IV Networking Roundtable
Building Partnerships Across ACF/CB
Programs
National Trends
Julie Collins
CWLA/FRIENDS NRC
And
Pam Day
Caliber Associates
November 1, 2005
Atlanta, GA
1
What We Will Cover






Collaboration
– Review of continuum of collaboration
– Basics of Collaboration
– Lessons Learned
Trends from the CFSR/PIPs
Trends identified by the CBCAP/PSSF grantees
Potential Areas of Collaboration
Trends from the CBCAP 2004 Annual Reports
and 2005 Grantee Applications
Examples
2
Collaboration Continuum




Networking
– Exchanging information for mutual benefit
Cooperation
– Exchanging information and altering activities for mutual benefit
and common purpose
Coordination
– Exchanging information, altering activities, and sharing
resources for mutual benefit and a common purpose
Collaboration
– Exchanging information, altering activities, and sharing
resources, and enhancing each other’s capacity for mutual benefit
and a common purpose
Adapted from PCA presentation for FRIENDS
3
Collaboration
Collaboration is a mutually beneficial and
well-defined relationship entered into by
two or more organizations to achieve
common goals. The relationship includes a
commitment to mutual relationships and
goals; a jointly developed structure and
shared responsibility; mutual authority and
accountability for success; and sharing of
resources and rewards.
4
Collaboration Basics
The Beginnings of “togetherness”






Build and maintain trust so collaborative partners
are able to share information, perceptions and
feedback and work as a cohesive team.
Find common ground and commit to shared
vision
Agree on core values to guide collaborative work
Enlist support and involvement of key partners
including community members and service
participants
Understand how each service system works and
roles/responsibilities of your partners
Develop a common language
5
Collaboration Basics
The Beginnings of “togetherness”






Respect the knowledge and experience each
person brings
Honor all voices and address the issues they raise
Assume best intentions of all partners
Agree to recognize strengths, accept limitations
and address needs
Agree to share decision making, risk taking and
accountability
Establish method and entity to formalize ongoing
collaboration
6
Collaboration Basics
The business of “togetherness”
Developing the work plan
 Leadership – selecting a valued champion –
convener, catalyst, facilitator and shepherd
 Roles and Responsibilities – Delineating and
Codifying through Memoranda of Agreements or
Understanding (MOA/MOU) and Protocols
 Policy changes – legislative, regulatory,
procedural
 Resources needs - $, staff, training, admin costs,
etc.
7
Collaboration Basics
The business of “togetherness”
Developing the work plan (cont.)
 Model development and strategies for
implementation
 Action steps, timelines and measurable
goals
 Decision making, problem solving and
conflict resolution
 Information sharing and confidentiality
8
Collaboration Basics
The business of “togetherness”
Developing the work plan (cont.)
 Track, document and evaluate results
 Make mid-course corrections as warranted
 Nurture commitment and ability of all to
carry out the work
 Build capacity while implementing (if
possible)
 Celebrate each and every success
9
Collaboration Basics
The challenges of “togetherness”


Reforms are inherently very difficult
Takes time –
– to develop relationships and trust,
– to design, implement, refine and “stick”




Turf issues are continuously revisited
Results determine viability
Sustainability is contingent on $ and leadership
Change in political “winds” is always disruptive
10
Lessons Learned for What Works

Relationships and trust are key to making
it work
– This is what gets you through the rough spots
and the tough conversations
– Facilitator or neutral person can help with this

Leadership
– At all levels

Shared vision
– To get at interpersonal and turf issues
11
Lessons Learned for What Works




Be result focused
– Make sure it is win-win for everyone
Role of family
– Help maintain the focus and will become strong
advocates for what is created
Training
– Needs to be ongoing
Funding
– Not just about the money
– Many partners have resources that could be helpful as
well as many great ideas and energy
12
Review of the CFSR/PIPS
What we Found

The CFSRs provided the majority of the
information

PIPs more focused on process and training

Most of the information came from the
Safety Indicator and the Systemic Factors
for Service Array and Agency
Responsiveness to the Community
13
Limitations of What we Found

Tend to see mention of prevention types of services that
would be paid for through CBCAP grant dollars reported
in the more recent state CFSRs and PIPs.

CBCAP Lead Agencies were required to assist with the
system change efforts only in the last number of years.

The reviewers were not looking specifically for
collaborative efforts with the CBCAP Lead Agencies.

Lack of mention of the CBCAP Lead Agency or CBCAP
funded prevention program(s) doesn't necessarily mean
they are not involved or are not referred to.

Varying levels of comprehensiveness in report writing.
14
Prevention



Prevention – generally the CFSRs and PIPs reflect
prevention activities and services that are more
intervention focused and/or to prevent reoccurrence of
abuse or neglect from taking place.
Less than 10 States mentioned primary prevention and/or
involvement of the Children’s Trust Fund as part of the
array of services to prevent abuse and maintain safety.
These tended to be states where the CBCAP grant dollars
are administered by the Child Welfare Agency.
Where states did not mention the word primary
prevention they might mentioned family support types of
services that could be paid for through the CBCAP grant
dollar although it was not clear how these services were
paid for.
15
Prevention

continued
Most common prevention services mentioned in
the CFSRs that CBCAP funds might be used for:
– Parent education
– Child care
– Family support services
– Family resource centers
– Home visits
– Education and job skills
– Respite care
– Enhancement of child/youth development
16
Prevention

continued
Some of the other more frequently
mentioned services or programs were:
– Healthy Families, Parent Aides, Parent
Educators, 24-hour a day homemaker,
budgeting, mentoring, advocacy, community
based services, housing assistance/advocacy,
anger management, and financial assistance
17
Prevention



continued
Service gaps – additional prevention types of services,
supports for families outside the child welfare system,
transportation, parent aides, flexible funds, respite care,
child care, day care, housing, services in rural areas,
culturally appropriate services, domestic violence
services, services for developmental delayed, in-home
services, wraparound/community-based services, and
mentoring.
Strategies proposed to address service gaps- creation of
resource development plans/resource directory.
States such as NM and TX mentioned they were
developing prevention plan for a full continuum of
services from prevention through intervention to
treatment.
18
Collaboration
Types of collaboration
– Funding
– Programmatic
– Committees/meetings/task forces
 Range
from regularly scheduled meetings
to extensive focused committees and task
forces
– System reform efforts
19
Examples of Collaborations
COLORADO
 DHS has strongly promoted coordination of
services with public and private agencies.
Colorado has used Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act (CAPTA) funds to promote
coordination across systems and has sponsored
training and projects that involve the
participation of providers from various agencies.
To support local agencies forming partnerships in
the community, joint technical assistance and
training of local agencies, community agencies,
and citizens has been sponsored using CAPTA
funds as well.
20
Examples of Collaborations
continued
NEW MEXICO
 To address a rise in the number of Shaken
Baby reports received Child Abuse
Prevention Treatment Act (CAPTA) money
was used to purchase videos, brochures
and posters that will address prevention.
Working with Department of Health
Newborn Screening Unit to collaborate on
addressing the issue statewide.
21
Examples of Collaborations
continued
CALIFORNIA
 Child Welfare Services (CWS)
Stakeholders Group, established through
legislation in 2000, is making
recommendations for redesigning the child
welfare system that will emphasize early
intervention, prevention, and family
support.
22
CBCAP/PSSF Collaborative
Efforts
Areas of collaboration provided at the April, 2005
CBCAP/PSSF grantees meeting include:
 Partnering primary prevention with child welfare
 Involvement of CBCAP in the CFSR/PIP
processes
 Enhancing capacity to support families and
children
 Joint assessment and planning
 Joint funding
 Collaboration at the local level
23
Partnering primary prevention with
child welfare – examples



Arizona:
CBCAP/PSSF Collaboration serves both families
who have been involved with CPS & those who
have not
Louisiana:
Prevention=part of the CW Mission. Each CW
region will have a prevention component
Utah:
CFSR sparked a commitment to prevention.
24
Involvement of CBCAP in the
CFSR/PIP processes - examples



New York:
Both PSSF & CBCAP involved throughout
CFSR process. Used PIP to set funding priorities
for CBCAP.
California:
CBCAP had input into PIP in areas of well being
and service array.
Pennsylvania:
CBCAP & PSSF are to address Areas Needing
Improvement, as identified in the CFSR.
25
Enhancing capacity to support families
and children – examples



Colorado:
CBCAP funded Family Resource Centers are
fairly embedded in judicial and adoption
agencies
Nebraska:
CBCAP is collaborating with CW around service
array.
North Carolina:
CBCAP Resource Centers include family
support, reunification, and adoption support.
26
Joint assessment and planning –
examples



Arkansas:
CBCAP began strategic planning for a
Strengthening Families Initiative with DCFS &
Child Care
Delaware:
PSSF & CBCAP are developing a joint needs
assessment & a model to prevent
occurrence/reoccurrence of CA/N with PSSF
funds
Virginia:
Conducts a unified assessment across programs.
IVB Plan includes prevention, based on CBCAP.
27
Joint funding - examples



Arizona:
Both CBCAP & PSSF use funding to jointly
travel together & give presentations to CW
districts throughout the state.
Hawaii:
To address gaps, local regions empowered to
decide how the money is spent.
North & South Dakota:
PSSF funds are used to meet immediate needs of
families.
28
Collaboration at the local level –
examples


California:
County planning process includes PSSF and
CBCAP. Numerous cross-community planning
opportunities, including PIPs & system
improvement initiatives.
Pennsylvania:
Cross-system collaboration/family services
system reform initiative includes a cross-system
board in 38 counties tied to an integrated CSP.
29
Potential Areas to Focus
Collaborative Efforts





System redesign efforts through participation in
committees/task forces/work groups, funding for the
redesign activities, training efforts and development of a
prevention plan
Service Array –gaps such as services for rural
communities and sufficient continuum of effective
prevention services
Participation in the front end of the system to provide an
effective differential response for families who come to
the attention of the child welfare system but do not
require intervention by CPS
Assistance with the QA activities
Pooling the CBCAP funds with IV-B prevention and
family support funding to issue joint Request for
Proposals to fund programs that meet the shared goals
and objectives of the two programs.
30
Potential Areas to Focus
Collaborative Efforts continued





Family Support for the special populations that could be
served by CBCAP
– Vulnerable families at risk of abuse or neglect
– Special Focus on Specific populations: Parents (all,
new, teens, etc), Parents/children with disabilities,
Racial and ethnic minorities, Members of underserved
or underrepresented groups, and Fathers
Parent engagement/leadership
Meeting performance indicators for safety and well-being
Meeting the federal Program Assessment Rating Tool
( PART) requirements
Involvement in key ACF initiatives – Healthy Marriage
and Strengthening Families , Positive Youth
Development, Responsible Fatherhood, Rural Initiatives
31
CBCAP Linkages/Collaborations
Examples from CBCAP 2004 Annual Reports





Combining PSSF and CBCAP funds for Request for
Proposals – AK, KY, UT
Common outcomes across range of programs – KS, NM
Strong linkages with child welfare through committees
for system reform efforts– MA, NJ
Strong linkages with child welfare and PSSF
representatives participate in Children’s Trust Fund or
Non-Profit Organization that is the CBCAP Lead Agency
– NE, NH
CFSR/PIP findings identify priorities for funding CBCAP
activities – NY, MN
32
CBCAP Linkages/Collaborations
CBCAP 2005 State Applications Highlights

ACF Priorities
– Fatherhood (25):

AL, AK, AZ, CA, CO, GA, HI, ID, IL, IA, KS, KY, ME,
MD, MA, MN, NE, NM, NC, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, WA
– Marriage (19):

AL, AK, AZ, CA, CO, DC, FL, HI, IA, KS, KY, MI, MN,
NC, OK, OR, PR, UT, WA
– Faith-based (9):

AL, CO, KS, LA, MN, NC, ND, OR, RI
– Rural (4):

CA, KS, KY, TN
Adapted from report by Melissa Brodowski, Office of Child Abuse and Neglect, Children’s Bureau
33
CBCAP Linkages/Collaborations
CBCAP 2005 State Applications Highlights
CFSR and IVB Planning Coordination

Thirty-nine States report some coordination between the CBCAP
programs and their CFSR/ PIP/ CFSP process. This coordination
usually entails having prevention representation on PIP workgroups
and/or participation on Statewide advisory committees for the
CFSR/PIP/CFSP process. Some States have specifically identified
CBCAP funding priorities based on the findings of the CFSR/PIP.
Seven State Lead Agencies have made some initial contacts with the
child welfare agency or the ACF Regional Office to become more
actively involved.

Twenty States report strong fiscal and programmatic coordination
between their Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program
and CBCAP. Several States are using blended funding pools which
include PSSF, TANF, and the Early Intervention Program, Part C.
Adapted from report by Melissa Brodowski, Office of Child Abuse and Neglect, Children’s Bureau
34
CBCAP Linkages/Collaborations
CBCAP 2005 State Applications Highlights
LINKAGES WITH CHILD WELFARE

States with CFSR/ PIP Linkages
– Strong coordination (PIP) (22):

AL, AK, DC, HI, IN, KS, KY, MN, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, RI, SC, SD,
TX, VA, WA, WI, WY
– Participating in stakeholder groups (17):

AZ, CA, CO, DE, GA, ID, IL, IA, ME, MA, MO, NV, OK, OR, PR, TN, UT
– Starting discussion (7):

FL, MD, MI, MS, PA, PR, WV
– No linkage discussion in application (6):

AR, CT, LA, MT, OH, VT
Adapted from report by Melissa Brodowski, Office of Child Abuse and Neglect, Children’s Bureau
35
CBCAP Linkages/Collaborations
CBCAP 2005 State Applications Highlights
LINKAGES WITH CHILD WELFARE continued

States with CBCAP/ PSSF linkages (20):
– AL, CA, CO, GA, HI, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, MT, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND,
SD, UT, VA, WY

States working on Statewide Child Abuse Prevention Plans (13)
– AZ, FL, GA, HI, LA, NE, NJ, OK, RI, TN, UT, VA, WI
PARENT LEADERSHIP

States with strong parent leadership components (32)
– AL, CA, CO, CT, DC, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, ME, MD,
MI, MN, NH, NJ, NM, NY, ND, OR, PA, RI, SC, TX, VA, VT, WA, WI
Adapted from report by Melissa Brodowski, Office of Child Abuse and Neglect, Children’s Bureau
36
CBCAP Linkages/Collaborations
CBCAP 2005 State Applications Highlights
CAPTA LINKAGES

States with alternative response models partially funded with
CBCAP funds (9)
– AZ, CT, GA, KY, MN, NH, NC, OR, TX

States with Part C linkages (5)
– AZ, MD, PR, OR, VT

States with Citizen Review Panel Linkages and CBCAP (10)
– AK, CA, IL, LA, MI, MN, NE, NH, VA, WY
Adapted from report by Melissa Brodowski, Office of Child Abuse and Neglect, Children’s Bureau
37
CBCAP Linkages/Collaborations
CBCAP 2005 State Applications Highlights
EARLY CHILDHOOD LINKAGES

States with Head Start/ Early Head Start/ child care Linkages (8)
– DC, IL, KS, ME, MD, NE, NH, NM


Linkages with Maternal and Child Health ECCS grants (5)
– DE, HI, KS, LA, VA
States with CSSP Strengthening Families plans (9)
– AR, IL, MI, MN, NH, OH, UT, WV, WI
OTHER SYSTEMS LINKAGES



States with TANF linkages (3) - LA, NM, OR
States with linkages to schools (5) - IL, KY, ME, NE, PA
Linkages with DV/ SA/ MH (3) - AK, IL, MN
Adapted from report by Melissa Brodowski, Office of Child Abuse and Neglect, Children’s Bureau
38
CBCAP Linkages/Collaborations
CBCAP 2005 State Applications Highlights
OTHER PROGRAM ELEMENTS




States with strong focus on Respite (10)
– AL, CO, FL, GA, ID, IA, KY, MS, NC, OK
States with strong focus on families with disabilities (7)
– AL, CT, KS, MD, OR, PR, VT
States with good tribal outreach (6)
– AK, AZ, MS, MT, OK, WA
States funding home visitation programs (large focus)
– Healthy Families – AZ, HI, MA, NY
– Parents as Teachers – KY
– David Olds – OK
– Other – KS, MO, WA
– Hospital HV for newborns – CO, CT, ME, MI
– Training for HV – DE, ME, MD, NJ
Adapted from report by Melissa Brodowski, Office of Child Abuse and Neglect, Children’s Bureau
39
Minnesota QA Approach


Approximately $5 million per year budget
Four key organizational components
–
–
–
–

State agency
A network of private and public partners
A network of community based councils
A statewide advocacy and public education agency
Three primary goals
– Reduce or deter factors associated with child abuse and neglect
– Increase factors that enhance parental capacity to support child
safety and well-being
– Strengthen and support children and families in which
maltreatment has already occurred
Adapted from a presentation by Christeen Borsheim, Minnesota Department of Human Services
40
Minnesota QA Approach

Major initiatives
– Statewide public awareness
– Public access to services


Minnesotahelp.info
35 Child Abuse Prevention Councils
– Child maltreatment prevention continuum




18 community grantees
Targeted programs
Partnership initiatives
Community based initiatives
Adapted from a presentation by Christeen Borsheim, Minnesota Department of Human Services
41
Minnesota QA Approach





Child and Family Service Plan/APSR’s
– Children’s Trust Fund activities contribute to primary child safety
goals
 Increase community awareness of child maltreatment
 Design/develop a child protection response continuum that
increases community involvement in the prevention and early
intervention of child maltreatment
Continuous Quality Improvement Initiative
Children’s Trust Fund is part of the core planning group for the
statewide assessment and CFSR
PIP development process
Continue involvement in the CFSP and APRS development and
coordination
42
Adapted from a presentation by Christeen Borsheim, Minnesota Department of Human Services
Minnesota QA Approach






Enhanced responsiveness to the community through 35 CAPC’s
Enhanced service array through 18 community grantees and
community initiative networks
Service array that supports improved safety and well-being outcomes
Service array that supports improved performance on repeat
maltreatment
Community partnerships that provide a resource to state and local
level child protection prevention / intervention efforts
Access to statewide agency for public awareness and advocacy for
child welfare system improvements
Adapted from a presentation by Christeen Borsheim, Minnesota Department of Human Services
43
New Hampshire Effective
Community Response
The Foundation for Effective Community
Response:
 Partnership
 Policy
 Planning
 Practice & Performance
Adapted from a presentation by Karen Carpenter, MA, JD, Executive Director, New Hampshire Children’s Trust Fund
44
New Hampshire Effective
Community Response

NH Children’s Trust Fund
– Vision - Keeping Children Safe and Families Strong
– Mission - Support Programs that Prevent child abuse and
Neglect

NH Division of Children, Youth and
Families
– Vision - We envision a state in which every child lives in a
nurturing family and plays and goes to school in communities
that are safe and cherish children.
– Mission - We are dedicated to assisting families in the protection,
development, permanency, and well-being of their children and the
communities in which they live.
Adapted from a presentation by Karen Carpenter, MA, JD, Executive Director, New Hampshire Children’s Trust Fund
45
New Hampshire Effective
Community Response
What is unique about braided funding?
 People are approaching child and family
wellness with a shared vision
 Drive to work together without turf wars,
acknowledging that differences can exist
by people who share a common vision.
 Common vision shared at the state,
business and local service levels.
Adapted from a presentation by Karen Carpenter, MA, JD, Executive Director, New Hampshire Children’s Trust Fund
46
New Hampshire Effective
Community Response
Approach adapts to local need: not a “one size fits all”
• Good Beginnings; Volunteer based approach
• Visiting Nurses' Association: Enhanced Home Visiting
• Family Resource Center Berlin-Gorham: Community
Collaboration Approach in rural setting
• Family Connections Center: Education and resources
for incarcerated parents.
• New Generation: Shelter for Homeless Pregnant Women
• Nashua Youth Council: Youth & Family Orientation
• Up to 40 agencies involved statewide
Adapted from a presentation by Karen Carpenter, MA, JD, Executive Director, New Hampshire Children’s Trust Fund
47
New Hampshire Effective
Community Response

Access needs to be driven locally, through
“grass-roots” community action.
– Local agencies better identify local need
– Local relationships are strengthened
– Families serving families strengthen
themselves and each other

Lessons learned locally are shared through
the network to funding partners
Adapted from a presentation by Karen Carpenter, MA, JD, Executive Director, New Hampshire Children’s Trust Fund
48
New Hampshire Effective
Community Response
What prevention has to offer Child
Protection:
 Opportunity for supports without being
adversarial
 Early access to supports often eliminates
the spiral to child maltreatment,
 Prevention through access to unique
supports keeps families together safely.
Adapted from a presentation by Karen Carpenter, MA, JD, Executive Director, New Hampshire Children’s Trust Fund
49
New Hampshire Effective
Community Response


Becomes the “alternative response” for the child welfare
system.
Comprehensive Family Support
– CAPTA
– Safe & Stable Families
– Social Services Block Grant
• Recognition that families work better when they have
access to basic social, educational, and economic support.
• Outcome Accountability Process
 Coordinated common measures used statewide, adopted
through education & consensus.
 Linked to CFSR
Adapted from a presentation by Karen Carpenter, MA, JD, Executive Director, New Hampshire Children’s Trust Fund
50