Transcript Leading and Managing Change: Implementation of Alternative

Leading and Managing
Change: Implementation of
Alternative Response
Ohio Alternative Response Symposium
May 14, 2010
Erin Sullivan Sutton, J.D.
Director, Child Safety and Permanency
Presentation overview
History of reform in MN
 Key components for MN
 Sustainability
 Use of learning for continuous
improvement

MN Demographics




State supervised, county administered
Financing structure
Rapid growth in child protection
resulted in forensic investigation and
services for only high risk
Poor match for growing number of
neglect concerns
Building blocks to reform




Early MN Child Welfare Reform efforts
Exploration of other states
1997 Legislation and funding provided to
encourage counties to test alternative
methods of responding to child welfare
and child protection needs ($1mil/10
pilots)
Tension between desire to reform and
need for financing
The Turning Point 1999

Legislation passed authorizing counties to
establish programs for alternative
responses to child maltreatment reports
Family assessment and services
ID of reports requiring tradition
investigation

DHS to consult with counties to develop
guidelines defining alternative response,
procedures, forms and training

No funding

The choice-Inaction or action?
What MN needed
Leadership
 Commitment to change the
culture of practice
 Resources and partnerships
 Time
 Strategic plan to move forward

Initiation of 4 year pilot

McKnight Foundation Support
Training, services, time and
evaluation
Redirected state and federal
resources
 Address implementation issues
early

Implementation Issues
Staffing
 County buy in and engagement
 Engage parents
 Engage other stakeholders
 Plan for evaluation over time

Staffing
Dedicated resources and staff
 Drew from expertise in the field
and leaders who were also
teachers
 Kept reform high in the
organization and allow access to
those that can remove barriers

County Engagement
Resources
 Engaged in development of
guidance, best practices and
lessons learned.
 Training and regional forums
 Parent involvement and
feedback

Time frame
2000-2004 Twenty county pilot
 2004 Statewide
 2005 Alternative Response (FAR)
integrated into MN statute as the
preferred response for child
maltreatment reports not
alleging child endangerment

IAR Evaluation





Child safety not compromised-made
safer sooner
AR families less likely to have new
reports
Cost effective over time
Families liked AR and responded
more positively
CPS workers liked AR and saw
effectiveness of new approach
Sustainabilty
Resources
 Annual and regional meetings

Best Practices, Training
Continuity of leaders
 Pay attention to the fidelity of the
model

Child Abuse and neglect
assessments over time
18,674
17,408
17,798
17,805
17,571
18,818
18,348
17,294
17,717
16,429
14,607
13,932
10,934
Reports
12,161
11,176
10,207
10,627
9,983
6,667
8,611
8,691
7,414
5,410
3,191
979
412
390
302
317
365
379
352
338
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
367
2000
6,203
3,873
Family Assessment
Traditional Family Investigation
Facility Investigation
Total Assessments and Investigations
Application of learnings
PSOP
 MFIP Family Connections
 MN Practice Model
 Signs of Safety
 Restructure of training system
 Child welfare supervision

Minnesota Practice Model





Focus on safety, permanency and well
being
Respectful engagement leading to family
and community partnership
Shift from expert intervention model to
collaborative model between the agency,
family and community
Evidence based practices informs
programs
Commitment to organizational and
professional competence
Signs of Safety (SoS)



CP protocol drawing on collaborative
practice models such as solution focused
therapy, family group conferencing and
appreciative inquiry
Collaborative practice model that creates:
- a shared understanding of safety
- a detailed and verifiable safety plan
- a safety team to implement
Counties demonstrate improved safety
and decrease use of court and placement
Improved Outcomes with
Child Welfare Reform






Children and families are safer, sooner (decrease in rereporting)
Out-of-home placements are less necessary (decrease in
placements)
Costs are reduced over time
Greater satisfaction expressed by families and social
workers
More families are being served more effectively with more
services
Collateral improvements in child and family well being
(improved income and housing stability, decreased
chemical dependency, and domestic violence, less troubled
children)