Transcript Community Partnerships for Protecting Children (CPPC)

Community Partnerships for
Protecting Children (CPPC)
Andy Kogerma
Family Connection Partnership
CPPC: Philosophy
• Based on the idea that people and places
in neighborhoods are primary resources
for families in crisis
• Formal and informal resources need to
work together
• Protecting children is everyone’s business
CPPC: Background
• Sponsored by the Edna McConnell Clark
Foundation
• Four initial sites (1995): Cedar Rapids,
Jacksonville, Louisville, S. Louis
• Each site is working to achieve three
broad goals . . .
CPPC: Broad Goals
• Change the CPS response to families,
moving away from a “one size fits
all”response
• Develop and expand neighborhoodbased resources to help families keep
children safe and ensure support before
problems become crises
• Involve broad spectrum of community
services
CPPC: Core Beliefs
• Child Focused: every child is valued
• Family focused: respect for families’
capacity/skill in caring for their children
• Results Accountability (define results,
design/implement results-based strategies
for implementation, evaluate results)
• Outcomes based: “What difference are
we making?”
Core Beliefs (cont)
• Strengths Based: “What is right with this
family?”
• Shared Leadership:Promotes the
involvement of all parties
• Cultural Differences Valued/Respected
Taking Stock: Assessing
Strengths/Needs
• Each community,like each family, has
unique strengths and needs
• CPPC must build on these
• Community assessments must occur--for
example, Cedar Rapids used
“geomapping” to analyze geography of
CAN/DV reports, then identified overlap
areas
• Assets/Needs of area must be assessed
Community Assets
• Existing social structures in community:
churches, neighborhood associations,
interagency councils, natural leaders, etc.
• Accurate inventory of formal resources
involved in community
Community Needs
• Limitations on residents ability/willingness
to access available resources (inadequate
public transportation, isolation, cultural
barriers, lack of information, etc.)
• Circumstances/conditions which hamper
families (DV, CAN, substance abuse,
income issues, lack of education, mental
illness, etc.)
CPPC in Georgia
• DFCS Sponsored initiative
• Family Connection Partnership a primary
partner
• Other Partners include:Prevent Child
Abuse Georgia, UGA-CVIOG, Casey
• Operates through the leadership of local
FC Collaboratives with local DFCS
assuming key leadership role
CPPC in Georgia
• Nine counties selected for participation:
Brantley, Catoosa, Clarke, Cobb, DeKalb,
Fulton, Jenkins, Muscogee and Peach
• Each county receives seed money and
one assigned DFCS CPPC position
CPPC: Four Key Strategies
#1: CPS Policy/Practice Change
#2: Use of Family Team
Meetings/Individualized Courses of
Action (“FTM’s”, “ICA’s”) to facilitate
change
#3: Develop Network of Community
Supports and Resources for families in
need
#4: Shared decision making between all
parties
Strategy #1: Individualized
Courses of Action
Develop family centered, Individualized
Courses of Action (“ICA’s”) for
vulnerable families/children
Use strengths-based Family Team
Meetings (FTMs”) to generate plan for
change
Values Informal support (neighborhood,
family)
Involves DFCS/Community agencies
Family Team Meetings
• Core Strategy of CPPC
• Involves meeting of family members,
facilitators, family support, service
providers . . .
• Purpose: to help family identify
strengths/needs and generate a plan for
change
Family Team Meeting
• Based on core conditions of respect,
empathy, genuineness
• Uses active listening skills
• Strengths based: “What is right with this
family?”
• Is solution focused
Family Team Meeting: Steps
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Welcome and Introductions
Purpose
Outcomes
Non-negotiables/confidentiality
Ground Rules
Family Story
Strengths to Achieve Outcomes
FTM: Steps (cont)
• Identification of Individual and Family
Needs
• Brainstorm How to Meet Needs
• Develop Agreement for Plan (who will do
what, when, where, etc)
• Assessing what can go wrong
• Next Steps and Closing
“Dual Track Response”
• Community
• Prevention based
• Low-risk/selfidentified families
• “Hub” conducts
FTM/facilitators may
be community
members
• Generates Family
Support Plan
• DFCS
• Intervention Based
• Moderate-high risk
families identified
through DFCS
• Uses intensive family
assessment and FTM
• Conducted by DFCS
• Generates 6 month
case plan
Strategy #2: Community
Network of Services/supports
Reflects belief that the community is best
able to protect children, support families
through change
 Uses service/resource “hubs”
Prevention is focus of involvement
Depends on informal helpers
 Parents/residents work together
Strategy #3: CPS
Policy/Practice Change
 This includes . . .
outstationed or geographically assigned
staff
individualized responses to maltreatment
reports (“differential response”)
promoting staff connections to community
resources
emphasis on workload, not caseload
CPS and CPPC in Georgia
• Implementing CPPC means changes to
CPS policy/practice in nine counties
• In-depth Family Assessment replaces
Strengths/Needs Assessment
• Family Team Meeting basis for case
planning
• Case Plan written during FTM: “with,
not for, families”
• 6 Month time frame for case plan
CPS and CPPC: Lessons
Learned from Other States
• All sites use “dual track” system:
“investigations” for DFCS cases,
“assessment” for community
• Outbasing/geographic assignment of
workers led to CPS culture change,both
internally and externally.
• Internal CPS change: workers cited
“improved relationships with service
providers,greater accessibility to services,
more informed referral decisions.”
CPS and CPPC: Lessons
Learned /Other States (cont)
• Some CPS staff stated that “outbasing
was the reform mechanism that has
affected the greatest change in their
practice”.
• External perception change: “provided
direct benefits in the relationship between
CPS and community residents/clients.
Community residents recognize CPS
workers on sight, voluntarily providing
more information on safety concerns.”
Quotes from CPS Workers
• “ICA is a helpful framework for involving
the family more in what they want, not in
what we think they want.”
• “I’ve seen it [use of FTMs] change the
opinion of a lot of workers who did not
come from that perspective.”
• “The view of the agency by others is more
positive. I am hopeful now that CPS image
will improve. Families can be shown that
CPS can help in positive ways.”
CPS Quotes (cont)
• “Now, it’s a little different. CPS is not there
just to take their kids. We also come to try
and help you.”
• “I think families are starting to feel better
about workers and workers are feeling
more positive about families.”
• “Word is getting around. People are
seeing us as more helpful, hopefully, and
calling us before things really get out of
hand.”
Strategy #4: Shared Decision
Making
A commitment to shared decision
making between families, community
members and service providers, in
which
resident voices are prominent
decisions are data driven/outcomes
focused
emphasizes outreach to broad spectrum
of partners
Shared Decision Making (cont)
• Two Primary Issues:
What decisions will be shared?
How will we share them?
Fulton County CPPC
• Located in East Washington (East Point)
• DFCS partnered with East Point
Community Action Team
• Created Alpha Center
• Alpha Center now houses outstationed
DFCS staff, alternative school suspension
program, prevention resource library, GED
classes, computer lab, after school sports,
Boy Scouts