Building Bridges Between Domestic Violence
Organizations and Child Protective Services
LindaSpears
September 1999
February 2000
1999Linda Spears
Acknowledgments
Linda Spears authored this document for the National
Resource Center on Domestic Violence, (800-537-2238); Child
Welfare League of America, Inc., (202-638-2952); National
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Resource Center
on Domestic Violence: Child Protection and Custody,
(800-527-3223); and Family Violence Prevention Fund,
(415-252-8900).
Special thanks to The Ford Foundation for its support of
the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence and
Building Comprehensive Solutions to Domestic
Violence
, the initiative under which these materials were produced.
We also wish to acknowledge the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services for their ongoing funding of the NRC and other
domestic violence resource centers.
The ideas expressed herein are those of the author and do
not necessarily represent the official position or policies
of The Ford Foundation or other founders of the organizations
publishing this paper.
These materials may be reprinted or adapted with
proper acknowledgment.
I am first and foremost grateful to all who participated
in the preparation of this paper for their commitment to the
principles of collaboration between domestic violence and
child protection. Their skill in working together allowed me
to write a paper that reflects these values both in its
content and its preparation.
My deepest gratitude is extended to Susan Schechter, of
the University of Iowa School of Social Work, for her
thoughtful guidance in conceptualizing and completing this
work.
I am equally grateful to Jill Davies, of Greater Hartford
Legal Assistance, for authoring the case narrative and for
her substantive edits to the documents. Their efforts brought
greater clarity and utility to the paper. I would also like
to thank my colleagues for their contribution of source
materials and their review of the many drafts along the way.
Their creative energy and technical assistance were
invaluable. Chief among them are The Honorable Len Edwards of
the Santa Clara County Superior Court; The Honorable Bill
Jones of the District Court of Charlotte, NC; Merry Hofford
of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges;
Janet Carter of the Family Violence Prevention Fund; and
Lonna Davis and Pamela Whitney of the Massachusetts
Department of Social Services.
I would also like to acknowledge the leadership of Anne
Menard, at the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence,
under whose auspices this document was developed.
Finally, I am deeply appreciative for the support of The
Ford Foundation, whose continued commitment to ending family
violence made this work possible.
About the Author
Ms. Spears is the Director of Child Protection at the
Child Welfare League of America, where she directs both its
national child protection reform initiative
Protecting America's Children: It's Everybody's
Business
, and the City/County public child welfare efforts. Prior to
joining CWLA in 1992, Linda served as the Director of Field
Support with the Massachusetts Department of Social Services.
As a member of the department's senior management team, she
was responsible for agency-wide services in family
preservation, child protection, domestic violence,
out-of-home placement, permanency planning, child care,
independent living, substance abuse, and housing.
While in Massachusetts, Ms. Spears led an effort to better
integrate the expertise of domestic violence advocates with
the work of child protection caseworkers. She is a member of
the board of directors of the Family Violence Prevention
Fund, on the advisory committee of the National Resource
Center on Child Maltreatment, and an advisor to the National
Resource Center on Domestic Violence, Child Protection and
Custody.
Introduction
Violence against women and children is centuries old, but
only over the past 25 years have communities made significant
improvements in their responses to each problem.
In the 1970s, state legislatures created systems to help
abused children, and by the 1980s many grassroots women's
organizations had set up shelters for battered women. These
two response systems were designed with very different
mandates, funding, and goals.
As a result, tensions and problems now emerge as service
providers, the courts, and communities try to more
effectively help those families in which violence against
women and children is overlapping and intertwined.
Domestic violence advocates have learned that the concerns
of battered women are inextricably linked to the welfare of
their children and that the safety decisions of battered
women are typically guided by the needs of their
children.
As a result, domestic violence organizations have worked
hard to address the needs of the children of battered women,
including providing a variety of concrete services like
children's play and educational groups, support activities,
and therapeutic services. Advocates have also broadened the
scope of their work to include case-level and systemic
advocacy for children.
Over the last ten years, domestic violence advocates have
learned that it will take a coordinated effort to effectively
protect women and their children. No single organization can
do this work by itself. Without collaboration and
coordination among agencies, it is the battered women and
their children who pay the price: their safety is jeopardized
and their needs for security and stability are
compromised.
"Building Bridges Between Domestic Violence Organizations
and Child Protective Services" was prepared as a new resource
for advocates seeking to strengthen efforts to help battered
women with abused and neglected children. This paper provides
both background information and a framework for collaboration
with child protection agencies that will support the work of
domestic violence advocates as they try to improve safety for
women and their children.
The paper covers the following topics:
Why must domestic violence advocates and child
protection staff work together to keep battered women and
their children safe?
What effects does domestic violence have on
children?
How does the child protection system work?
How can domestic violence organizations and child
protection agencies collaborate effectively and respond to
policy challenges constructively?
Author's Note: CPS is the acronym commonly used to
denote the public agency designated by statute to
investigate reports of child abuse and neglect. In this
paper, the terms cps, child protective agency, and child
protection agency are used interchangeably. The term child
protection system is used to denote the broad network of
partners with critical roles in child protection including
the legal system, the cps agency, and other service
providers.
Why must domestic violence advocates and child
protection staff work together to keep battered women and
their children safe?
Last night Gina's boyfriend Mark came home drunk
again. They started arguing about money, and Mark slapped
and punched Gina. Seven-year-old Sammy ran into the
kitchen and started hitting Mark and yelling, "Stop
hurting my Mommy!" Mark picked Sammy up by the seat of his
pants and yelled, "Stay out of this, you little bastard,
you're just like your father -- a real loser." He then
dropped Sammy, who crashed to the floor. Sammy started
crying, and Gina yelled at him to get out of the kitchen.
Gina and Mark's one-year-old daughter Jessie started
crying in the other room. Mark told Gina to just "let her
cry, or she'll grow up to be a stupid baby like you."
A neighbor called the child abuse hotline to report
that there was fighting in the apartment next door and
that she could hear the children crying again and worried
that they were being hit.
Gina's s situation is all too familiar to domestic
violence advocates and child welfare workers. A woman is the
victim of physical assaults and verbal abuse. Her children's
lives are altered by her situation -- their well being, and
often their safety, are compromised by the actions of an
abusive partner. Sometimes, before the woman can fully
consider the alternatives available to her, she is reported
to child protection authorities because neighbors, friends,
or service providers are concerned that the risk to her
children is too great. Soon, she finds herself meeting with a
child protection caseworker whose assessment of her situation
could result in the removal of her children.
The actions of the police, child protection workers and
others can have a tremendous impact on the immediate and
long-term safety of both Gina and her children. However,
domestic violence advocates and child protection workers
might start from different places of emphasis. For example,
advocates considering Gina's s situation might focus on the
following questions:
How does Gina view the risks to herself and her
children? What supports and resources does Gina have
available to help her keep herself and the children safe?
What is her current safety plan? Will it be effective, or
does she need additional information and resources?
How dangerous is Mark? Does he understand how he is
hurting Gina and the children? Has he ever been arrested
for his violent behavior? How did he respond? Will he obey
court orders?
A child protection worker might focus on these
questions:
What happened on the night of the incident according
to Gina, her children, and the neighbor? Was Sammy
physically injured when Mark dropped him? If so, did Mark
or Gina make sure he got medical attention? Has this
happened before? Has Mark every hit Sammy or Jessie?
What steps has Gina taken to protect the children? Can
Gina protect the children? Are there other indications
that the children are neglected or abused or at serious
risk of harm?
Once advocates and caseworkers answer these questions,
each will begin a series of activities to help family members
achieve safety. These efforts are likely to help some family
members. For example, a battered woman's shelter will provide
safety for mother and children in the short term. However,
once the shelter period is over, lack of resources may send
her back to an abusive partner, placing her and the children
at renewed risk.
At the same time, foster care placement -- arranged
through the child protective system -- can provide safety for
the children, but it may not be needed or desirable if the
mother is able to provide for their care. Even if she can't,
foster care does nothing to address her safety concerns.
Family preservation workers can also provide a valuable
resource to the family, with frequent home visits to provide
help and monitor the safety of mother and children, even if
the abusive partner returns. But this intervention can be
problematic if the family preservation worker does not have
strong skills in handling a domestic violence situation.
Finding strategies that help both women and children to be
safe is a dilemma that challenges domestic violence advocates
and child protection workers every day. Despite mutual
interests, those working with battered women and their
children find that not all approaches are useful in achieving
safety for all victims. Some approaches don't last long
enough. On occasion, interventions to help one victim --
giving the mother time to develop a plan -- might actually
increase the risk to another group of victims, the
children.
When advocates and child protection workers
are
able to effectively assist women and children, it is likely
that they have done so by coordinating safety assessments and
interventions for both the mother and child. Together, they
have also found ways to better understand how services for
battered women and their children work, and how these
services can work together. This has meant sharing vital
information about the differing laws that guide domestic
violence advocates and child protection caseworkers, the
values and principles that guide their responses, and the
tools and resources that are available in each system.
For advocates, collaboration can mean a significant and
positive change in their work on behalf of women and
children. Child protection workers are not experts in
domestic violence. Typically, they must have general casework
skills to deal with a variety of family needs. Only a few
workers have training opportunities that would allow them to
develop expertise in the dynamics of battering and its impact
on children. While most are familiar with local battered
women's shelters, they often have limited information about
the range of related services and supports that are available
through advocates, the courts, and other systems. Domestic
violence advocates can change this through collaboration.
Likewise, advocates can be frustrated in their
interactions with a child protection system whose powers are
substantial and whose rules may often seem arbitrary and
subjective. Collaboration can help unravel the complexity of
the child protection system to reveal ways in which advocates
can work effectively with child protection workers to keep
both battered women and their children safe.
What effects does domestic violence have on
children?
For advocates to collaborate effectively with child
protection workers, the latter must have a basic
understanding of the effects of domestic violence on
children.
For more than a decade, researchers have examined the
impact of children's exposure to domestic violence. This
body of data supports the experience of women like Gina.
Most children who live with domestic violence witness it
in some form, and this experience may cause harm. These
harms include those that result when:
children experience their mother being battered and
also see injuries that result from the violence;children are injured during a violent episode; this
may occur inadvertently when a batterer attacks, a
victim tries to defend herself or the children, or the
child tries to protect a parent; orchildren are
directly abused or neglected.
While effects on individual children may vary, researchers
have concluded that many children who are exposed to violence
exhibit at least some symptoms related to this experience.
These symptoms might include fearfulness, sleeplessness,
withdrawal, anxiety, depression, and externalized problems
such as delinquency and aggression.
Research also suggests that these problems are often
alleviated when children and their mothers are offered
adequate social, emotional, and material support and
safety.
The overlap of domestic violence and child
maltreatment
Through their work with women like Gina, front-line
workers in domestic violence and child protection agencies
are increasingly aware that when there is child
maltreatment there is often domestic violence. Data from
research and from direct practice in shelters and in child
protective service programs are supporting their
experience.
In one nationwide survey of 6,000 families, researchers
found that 50% of men who frequently assault their wives
also frequently abuse their children. In a 1991 Boston
City Hospital study, researchers reported that 59% of
mothers of abused and neglected children had medical
records that suggested that their partners had battered
them.
Although there is little formal research on domestic
violence in child protection caseloads, some data support
a link between domestic violence and child abuse and
neglect. For example, in a 1990 review of substantiated
child protection cases, the Massachusetts Department of
Social Services reported that workers noted domestic
violence in 30% of the cases. Because the agency did not
prepare or require caseworkers to consider domestic
violence in the investigation and assessment process, the
study was believed to underestimate the actual incidence
of domestic violence. In a subsequent study, conducted
after implementing policies and training in domestic
violence, the Department found that in 48% of records
reviewed workers identified domestic violence or cited
"protecting an adult from domestic violence" as a goal of
service.
As with any case type, domestic violence cases can
range from those where child maltreatment is highly
unlikely to those in which there is serious or life
threatening harm to children. Thus far, several other
child protection agencies have documented a disturbing
link between domestic violence and fatal child abuse. In
1993, the Oregon Department of Human Resources reported
that domestic violence was present in 41% of families
experiencing child abuse and neglect resulting in critical
injuries or death. The Massachusetts Department of Social
Services made a similar finding when a 1994 review of
child abuse- and neglect-related fatalities revealed that
43% of mothers identified themselves as victims of
domestic violence. In New York City between 1990 and 1993,
the public child welfare agency found that 55.6% of the
families with child homicides had a documented history of
domestic violence in the four years preceding the
fatality.
Although we are learning more about the connection
between domestic violence and child maltreatment, we still
know little about how the two interact within the family.
There is no evidence, for example, that fatal child abuse
is more likely to occur where there is domestic violence.
A better understanding of domestic violence will help
child protection workers to best target their
interventions. Also, if advocates and child protection
workers strengthen their knowledge and skills in assessing
the risk to children, they will be better able to reduce
the number of children and women experiencing serious
harm.
How does the child protection system work?
How did the child protection system begin?
The child protection movement began more than 100 years
ago and galvanized around a highly publicized New York
City case involving a young child, Mary Ellen, who was
brutally beaten by her caretakers.
This case led to the creation of the first child
protection agency and state statute providing agents to
conduct court investigations into child maltreatment.
Early activists sought protection for children and
punishment for abusers. As the child protection movement
evolved, new mechanisms emerged to support this work
including:
the first juvenile court, in Illinois, in
1899;
a federal oversight agency -- The Children's Bureau
-- which still exists today; and
the Social Security Act in 1930, which provided the
first national directive and funding for child welfare
services.
Each of these events was critical in the development of
the nation's child protection system. Nonetheless, much of
our modern system has emerged over the last 37 years,
beginning in 1962, when Dr. C. Henry Kempe identified the
"battered child syndrome." His work resulted in the first
broad public awareness of child abuse and neglect.
Since then, both state and federal governments have
been proactive in their response creating new legislation
to direct child protection efforts. Throughout this period
we have seen dramatic increases in the number of children
and families served, the array of services, and the scope
of legal requirements guiding the system. The key
components in our current system are highlighted in the
following table.
Key Features of the Child Protection
System
Federal Legislative Framework
Child Abuse Prevention &Treatment
Act of 1974
The Indian Child Welfare Act of
1978
Adoption Assistance & Child Welfare
Act of 1980
The Adoption & Safe Families Act of
1997
Primary Service Mandate
Safety for children
Secondary Service Goals
Permanency for children by
strengthening family or seeking alternative
permanent families. (e.g., adoption)
Well-being of children
Service Providers
Government agencies providing
statutorily mandated services
Contracted and community services used
to reduce risk & address family
problems
Support and Authority Used to Assist
Victims
Child protection worker responsible
(through state statute) to monitor families
and offer supportive services
Supportive & authoritarian roles
also carried by community agencies and
police/courts, respectively
Examples of Services and Tools Used to
Respond
Child Abuse and Neglect Hotline
Joint police & child protective
services response including investigation
& assessment
Shelter, kinship, and foster care
placements
Treatment services like parenting
classes, substance abuse treatment &
counseling
Case management & referral
Temporary & permanent custody of
child
Court Role
Juvenile or Family Courts provide
protection (e.g., legal custody) &
oversee decision-making of CPS
Criminal Courts used in a few extremely
serious cases.
Federal statutes that guide child protection
agencies
While child abuse and neglect laws vary from state
to state,
they all must comply with the basic requirements
established in the following federal statutes:
The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
of 1974 (CAPTA)
The act required that each state establish a
mandatory reporting system for child abuse and
neglect. Through a series of revisions, the most
recent of which became law in 1996, the act has
established detailed criteria for state programs
receiving the limited funds available under the act.
These include provisions guiding the definition of
abuse and neglect in state statutes; requirements
for confidentiality for children and families;
immunity for individuals who report abuse and
neglect; and provisions requiring guardian-ad-litems
for children.
The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978
(ICWA)
This act establishes the jurisdiction of Indian
tribes in child custody cases involving Indian
children. The act provides specific procedures for
the timely notification of tribes when Indian
children come to the attention of child welfare
agencies and placement is being considered, so that
tribal membership can be determined.
The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare
Act of 1980 (P.L.96-272)
This act establishes procedural safeguards for
children to try to ensure that they do not linger in
foster care. As amended in 1983, the act establishes
administrative and judicial case review to try to
ensure that the protective and "best interests"
needs of children were met. The statute also
requires child welfare agencies to make reasonable
efforts to prevent placement and provide services to
reunify families. The statute also supports agency
programs to secure an alternative permanent family
when reunification is not possible.
The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997
(ASFA)
This act is broad in its scope, addressing family
preservation, child protection, permanency planning,
and adoption concerns. Among its key provisions is a
focus on child safety as the first priority in child
welfare decision-making. It also calls for states to
pass legislation detailing specific criteria for
timely permanency planning in all cases and
expedited termination of parental rights in cases of
extreme child abuse and neglect.
Core values of the child protection
system
The principal purpose of a child protection service
is to protect children whose parents or caregivers are
unable or unwilling to provide for their safety, basic
needs, and emotional security. Within this framework,
it is understood that children are not able to protect
themselves and that those who act on their behalf must
be guided by what is in the child's best interests. The
following values hold true:
Every child has a right to adequate care,
supervision and freedom from maltreatment.
Every child should have a safe permanent
family.
Parents have the primary responsibility and are
the primary resource for their children.
In most circumstances, the most desirable place
for children is in their own safe and caring
family.
Most parents want to and can be adequate
parents.
Most parents experiencing difficulty can be
helped to be adequate parents.
When parents cannot or will not fulfill their
protective responsibilities, the community has the
right and obligation to intervene.
Once the child welfare agency intervenes to protect
a child, two key principles guide its work:
Safety is always the first consideration in
determining how the best interests of a child will
be met.
The child's s wellbeing and need for a more
permanent family are also critical
considerations.
At a casework level, this typically means that when
it can be done safely, services must be provided to
strengthen the parent's ability to provide a safe and
permanent home for the child. Whenever safety cannot be
assured while the child is at home, placement outside
the home is made and services are geared at
strengthening the family so that the child may be
returned home. When this cannot be accomplished in a
reasonable timeframe, the agency must look quickly to
other resources, including relatives and adoptive
families, to provide a permanent family for the
child.
The basis for this approach can be found in both
state and federal statutes. At the state level these
laws may also provide more specific guidance to
caseworkers by outlining timelines for key decisions
and criteria for certain agency actions. For example,
statutes often prescribe the number of days within
which a child abuse investigation must be completed and
sometimes detail what contacts or assessments are
required in order to complete an investigation. States
vary widely with regard to the specificity of their
child abuse laws and policies. Advocates seeking to
collaborate should become familiar with their state
statute, and with related state and local policies.
How do cases move through a child protective
agency?
What happens during CPS intake and
screening
To best describe how the child protection system
operates, let's return to the report filed regarding
Gina and her children. Before a visit was made to her
home, the child protection agency "screened" the report
made by the neighbor to determine how it should be
handled. Often this means answering only a few simple
questions. First, if the allegation were true as
reported, would it constitute abuse or neglect
according to the state law? Second, is the report
credible? In Gina's case the intake worker "screened
in" or accepted the report, believing that it was
reliable and that Gina's children may be at risk. Had
the worker found otherwise, the report would be
"screened-out." At that point, it would typically be
closed or referred to another agency for
assistance.
What happens during an investigation or
assessment?
Once a case is screened in, the child protection
caseworker begins an assessment of the situation. This
assessment or investigation typically begins with an
interview of the parents and children that is usually
conducted in the family home. During this interview,
the worker tries to determine what has happened, and
whether or not the children are at immediate risk. [See
Appendix A for a more a detailed description of the CPS
investigation and assessment process.]
After receiving the hotline report, a child
protection caseworker met with Gina and her children
to begin an assessment. The worker learned that
Sammy and Jessie are Gina's only children and that
Sammy's father is Gina's ex-husband, who does not
live in the area. Gina talked freely about the
current incident and said she yelled at Sammy to
leave the kitchen so he wouldn't get hurt.
Although Sammy was not hurt this time when Mark
dropped him, he and Jessie are afraid of Mark. Mark
has never hit them, but Gina is afraid that if she
leaves Mark alone with them he might. Gina also told
the worker that the one time Mark came home really
drunk, she and the kids stayed at a friend's house
overnight. Gina also reported that Sammy and Jessie
sometimes had difficulty sleeping after an episode
of abuse and that she is really worried about
them.
A separate interview with Sammy corroborated
their mother's account of the incident. The children
also stated that they were afraid of Mark and that
they worried about their mother. Sammy is upset
because his Mother yelled at him to leave the
kitchen that night and he didn't know what to do. He
went into Jessie's room to try to get her to stop
crying. When Mark is in a "bad mood," Sammy says,
his mother tells him to stay in his room.
The interview with Mark was very brief. Mark
admitted to having a "few too many" but dismissed
the rest of the allegations as just the "fantasy
world of a busybody neighbor.
In instances like Gina's, the caseworker will also
talk with the neighbor to confirm her report and might
contact the police to gather information about their
history of calls to the home. In addition, the
caseworker might contact a daycare center, school, or
pediatrician for additional information about the
family.
Based on this information, it is the caseworker's
responsibility to make several determinations:
Is there reason to believe that the
allegations of child abuse or neglect are
true?
State law sets the legal standard against
which this is measured. Typically, evidence does
not have to "be clear and convincing" but there
must be "reasonable cause to believe" that
allegations are true. The answer to this question
determines whether a case is substantiated (also
called "founded").
What, if any, risk of harm to the
children currently exists and what is the
likelihood that they will be at risk in the
future?
This assessment of current safety and future
risk usually helps a worker to determine what, if
any, services will be provided to the family.
Cases where the risk is believed to be minimal
are usually closed, unless the agency and family
agree to services on a voluntary basis. Low to
moderate risk cases may receive in-home services
designed to support the family, improve
parenting, and ultimately lower the risk of
future abuse and neglect. Higher risk cases often
result in either intense monitoring through in-
home services or in the removal of the child from
the family to achieve safety.
The worker decides to substantiate a
finding against Mark because of the risk
created when he gets drunk and violent. The
caseworker believes that Gina has not
intentionally harmed her children and that she
has made efforts to protect them. The worker
is concerned about Mark's ongoing violence
against Gina and its effects on the children.
The worker has agreed not to remove the
children on the condition that Mark remains
out of the home. At this point the caseworker
opens a case for in-home services and begins a
more in-depth assessment of the family's
service needs.
What happens during the assessment and
service planning phase?
Once an initial investigation or assessment is
completed, the child protection worker is
responsible for continuing to gather information
about the family and to determine what services
are needed.
As the worker spends more time with Gina,
he finds out the following: Gina moved to this
community two years ago. She and Mark began
dating right after she moved. At first, he was
very kind to her and to Sammy, helping her get
settled and taking Sammy to ball games. He
convinced Gina they would "be a family" if she
let him move in. As soon as she became
pregnant, things got bad. Mark starting
drinking more and he would fly into rages,
destroying property and attacking Gina. She
wanted to ask him to leave, but she quit her
job when she became pregnant with Jessie and
now relied on Mark for financial support.
Mark's parents have also been supportive, and
she's worried that if she asks him to leave,
she'll lose contact with them. The worker is
now also convinced that Gina is severely
depressed and may have an alcohol
problem.
The worker tells Gina she must get a
protective order to assure that Mark can not
legally come back to the apartment and that
she must get an alcohol and psychological
evaluation.
At this point the worker has begun the
process of planning services. The service plan
will later be written down and signed and will
outline the types of resources clients must
access and the requirements they must
address.
What is the role of the legal system in
child protection?
Juvenile and Family Court
Proceedings
The caseworker drops by Gina's home to see
how she and the kids are doing. Gina,
obviously drunk, answers the door. The worker
can see that the apartment is in disarray and
can hear Jessie crying. She asks to see the
children. Gina tells her to go away and to
leave her family alone. As the worker heads
back to her car to call for help, she sees
Mark standing in the back yard.
Gina will no longer talk to the
caseworker, so the caseworker decides that the
children must be removed from their home in
order to be safe. She begins the paperwork to
get a court order giving the CPS agency the
authority to take Sammy and Jessie out of
their home and place them in foster care.
During the initial hearing, however, the
judge decides to place Jessie and Sammy with
Gina, on the conditions that she comply with
the recommendations of the substance abuse
evaluation and treatment program and that Mark
move out and also attend a substance abuse and
batterer intervention program.
Nationwide, only about 15% of children in
substantiated abuse and neglect cases are removed
from their homes. As a result, the court is not
involved with most children who come to the
attention of the child protection agency.
Nonetheless, the court plays a critical role in
certain circumstances. First, court intervention
is needed when an investigation and assessment
indicate that a child cannot remain at home
safely. In these instances, the court's authority
is required to take legal custody of the child so
that placement and other services may be provided
to protect the child. In certain limited
circumstances, the child protection agency may
place a child out of the home voluntarily with
permission of the parent. Policies governing
voluntary placements vary across jurisdictions,
but even these placements are subject to juvenile
court review after six months.
In many jurisdictions, the court may also be
involved and allow the children to remain at home
with the parent. In these cases the court may
oversee the safety of the child and the parents'
compliance with the case plan agreement either
through an order of supervision or by taking
legal custody of the child.
When court intervention is needed, federal and
state statutes guide the court in overseeing the
protection of children. These oversight
responsibilities include assuring that:
the child protection agency has made
reasonable efforts to prevent the removal
of the child
from the home;
there is a sufficient basis for state
intervention on behalf of the child;
the child is adequately represented;
each parent has received adequate due
process including notice; representation; and
the right to be heard, present evidence,
remain silent and appeal;
a proper case plan has been prepared for
each parent;
the child protection agency has either
made
reasonable efforts to reunite the child
with the family
once placement has occurred, and/or the agency
has documented that reasonable efforts are not
warranted because reunification would be
detrimental to the safety of the child;
each case is reviewed regularly by the
court
to ensure that the child's need for a
permanent family is addressed
in a timely manner; and
the child protection agency has made
efforts to find a permanent home
when the child cannot be returned home.
The courts also play an integral role in
decision-making in child protection. Key steps in
the court process include:
The Petition.
In most states, child protection workers
cannot, on their own authority, remove
children from their home. They must rely on
the authority of either the police or the
courts (or in a few cases medical personnel).
Even when a child is removed without a court
order, the child protection agency is required
to file a petition with the court based on
timelines established in state law (typically
72 hours or less following removal). The
petition contains facts about the alleged
abuse or neglect and provides the basis for
juvenile court involvement.
The Initial Hearing.
This is a critical point in the child
protection process. During this hearing the
court will decide whether or not the
allegations in the petition support the need
to remove the child or continue a temporary
custody order to protect the child. It is also
at this hearing that the court ensures that
parents have an attorney to advocate for their
rights in the process and that a guardian
ad-litem (or alternatively a Court Appointed
Special Advocate -- a CASA) is appointed to
ensure that the child's best interests are
addressed.
Adjudicatory Hearings.
These are held to determine whether or not the
petition is true -- i.e., the child has been
abused and neglected -- and whether the child
should be declared dependent -- i.e., whether
custody or supervisory authority should be
removed from the parent and transferred to the
court or the child protection agency.
Dispositional Hearings.
These are held so that the court may decide
what action should be taken after the child is
declared dependent. Choices may include
returning the child home with supervision from
the child protection agency, out-of-home care,
and orders for service to the parents and
children.
Review Hearings.
Following the dispositional hearing, the court
typically sets a date(s) to review the status
of the case, including the case plan, the
parents' progress in meeting the requirements
of the case plan, and recommendations for
changes in the case plan, the child's
placement or custody.
Permanency Hearings.
These are held so that the court may establish
a permanent plan for the child. This hearing
also considers information documenting the
current status of the case in determining how
and when the child's need for a safe and
permanent family will be met. New requirements
established in the Adoption and Safe Families
Act of 1997 require that a permanency hearing
be held within 12 months of a child's entry
into care (and at 15 months for children
already in care). This requirement puts an
enormous burden on battered women to make
quick and effective safety plans for
themselves or else run the risk of losing
their children permanently.
Once the court is involved, the number of
people involved in the case can increase
dramatically. In addition to family members, the
child protection caseworker, service providers,
and the judge, legal counsel represents each of
the parties to the case. This means that one or
more attorneys will represent the parents. The
child protection agency will also be represented.
Finally, the court will assign a
guardian-ad-litem (an attorney) and/or a court
appointed special advocate for the child. With
these participants, and through this process, the
case plan, services to family members, and,
ultimately, the outcome of the case are
decided.
Law Enforcement
Law enforcement plays an integral role in the
protection of children from child abuse and
neglect. In nearly all jurisdictions, police
share responsibility with the child protection
agency to receive and respond to reports of child
maltreatment. In so doing, they carry two primary
roles. First, they are responsible for the
immediate protection of the child -- particularly
in cases where there is an imminent risk of harm.
In many cases, this includes the authority to
take protective custody of the child to ensure
safety. Second, police are obligated to
investigate child abuse and neglect when a crime
may have been committed. In many jurisdictions,
these investigations only occur when children
have been killed or seriously injured as a result
of abuse or neglect, when there is sexual abuse
of a child, or when there is evidence of other
criminal activity by the parent or caretaker.
An additional role for law enforcement is the
safety of service providers. In many
jurisdictions, police provide protection for
caseworkers when they are entering a potentially
dangerous situation.
Each of these responsibilities is carried out
in coordination with the child protection agency.
While many jurisdictions operate informally, in
some states, statute or policy requires formal
agreements between child welfare and police.
Cross reporting of cases between the police and
child protection may be mandated to ensure that
cases are appropriately investigated and services
provided. Jurisdictions may also establish
protocols for joint investigations to ensure that
the work of the two agencies is coordinated, to
minimize the trauma of multiple interviews for
children, and to ensure that juvenile and
criminal court actions are coordinated.
How can domestic violence organizations and child
protection agencies collaborate?
Examples of current domestic violence/CPS
collaborations
Several communities across the country have already
built collaborations that address domestic violence and
child maltreatment collaboratively. Among these are:
The AWAKE Program.
Located at Children's Hospital in Boston,
Massachusetts, this strengths- based and
family-centered program was one of the first to make
the link between domestic violence and child
protection. Offering counseling, support groups, and
advocacy to battered women with abused and neglected
children, the program successfully promotes safety
for mothers and children. In 16-month follow-up with
a group of 46 mothers served by advocates, 85% of
the women reported they were free from violence, and
in only one family had children been placed in
foster care.
Massachusetts Department of Social
Services.
This practice integration model has brought
domestic violence expertise to traditional child
protective services through a statewide program in
which domestic violence specialists work
hand-in-hand with child protection caseworkers. The
specialists provide case consultation, direct
advocacy, and linkages to community resources for
battered women and children served by the child
welfare agency. Policy guidance supports
decision-making that is responsive to the concerns
of battered women beginning with screening and
investigation and including risk assessment, family
assessment, case planning and service delivery.
Michigan's s Families First Domestic
Violence Collaboration Project.
This cross-system collaboration between shelter
programs and family preservation programs is offered
in eleven communities across the state. The program
provides intensive services designed to keep
children safe and with their mothers. The program
has also provided models for cross-training that
integrate principles from family- centered practice,
child protection, and domestic violence.
These three pioneering programs are among a growing
array of models that are serving battered women and their
abused and neglected children (see Appendix B for
suggestions about building positive collaborations).
In Jacksonville, Florida, and Cedar Rapids, Iowa, child
protection and domestic violence programs are working
together in community partnership models. In San Diego and
Minneapolis, hospital-based programs are in place, and
partnerships among police, hospitals, and child protection
are developing. In Hawaii, Healthy Start programs are
combining early intervention for children with screening
and intervention in domestic violence. [For more examples,
see
Family Violence: Emerging Programs for Battered
Mothers and their Children
, published in 1998 in Reno, Nevada, by the National
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.]
What would a collaborative response look
like?
The following scenario provides one example of how
domestic violence advocates and CPS workers could
collaboratively respond to families in which there is
domestic violence and risk to the children. This
particular example, rather than neatly solving the complex
issues in such families, shows a process through which
advocates and workers provide ongoing resources to the
adult victim, while taking actions necessary to protect
the children.
When Gina talked with her caseworker about Mark's
violence, he told Gina about a collaborative program
between the local domestic violence shelter program and
CPS. Gina agreed to participate, and the worker called
the shelter to let them know that Gina would call that
afternoon. When Gina called, an advocate talked with
her to get a basic understanding of her situation and
needs and then set up a time to meet with Gina the next
day. Gina told the advocate that she believes Mark
could be a good partner and father to Sammy if he
didn't drink. She also admitted that she probably
drinks too much and just doesn't seem to have "any
energy anymore." The advocate talked with Gina about
Sammy and Jessie. She validated Gina's efforts to keep
them out of the way, but also tried to make sure that
Gina understood how the drinking and the abuse affect
them and what actions CPS must take if the kids are in
danger. They talked about what Gina thinks will keep
her and the kids safe.
After getting Gina's s permission to talk to the
worker, the advocate called the worker, and they
developed a plan to propose to Gina and to Mark. The
proposed plan called for the following: Mark would move
out of the apartment, go to a substance abuse/batterer
intervention program sponsored by CPS, pay child
support, and visit with Jessie while his parents
supervised. Gina would attend counseling to address her
substance abuse and depression and would bring Sammy to
a children's group run by the shelter. After 6 months,
CPS would reevaluate the potential danger to Sammy and
Jessie. Both parents agreed to this plan.
After six weeks of attending classes, Mark stopped
going. He also told Gina he wasn's t going to pay child
support for a child he only sees once a week. Desperate
for money and tired of single parenting, Gina invited
Mark to move back in.
The CPS worker was notified about Mark's lack of
attendance. The worker called the domestic violence
advocate to let her know, and went out to check on
Sammy and Jessie. The advocate also contacted Gina to
see how she might help.
Principles for domestic violence-child protection
collaboration
Successful collaboration requires a shared framework
for the response to battered women and their children.
Core principles already guide collaborative efforts in
communities across the country. The following discussion
explains each principle and raises key policy challenges
that face advocates and child protection workers as they
practice together to keep children and their battered
mothers safe.
Principle 1: The safety of children is the
priority.
Every procedure, policy or practice of an integrated
response to child maltreatment and domestic violence
must ensure that children are protected. For example,
services to support a battered mother's s safety and
autonomy must not compromise safety for children.
Commitment to this principle can provide essential
common ground as child protection workers and domestic
violence advocates work through the complex issues of
building a collaborative response.
Policy challenges raised by Principle 1:
Does a child's s witnessing domestic violence
constitute abuse/neglect?
There is growing consensus that witnessing domestic
violence is harmful to children. However, the harm will
not be the same for every child, because the level of
violence and each child's s experience of the violence
are different. Therefore, there is much less agreement
about when the harm from witnessing domestic violence
is serious enough by itself to constitute possible
child abuse and neglect that should be reported to
authorities.
While it is clear that situations in which children
are physically injured or sexually assaulted during a
domestic violence incident should be reported, other
situations are less straightforward and require a
careful assessment of danger and risk. For most child
protection agencies, the threshold for the finding of
emotional abuse and even neglect is quite high, and
many domestic violence cases, therefore, will be
inappropriate for a referral to CPS. Typically, CPS
intervention requires independent corroboration that
documents that the neglect and emotional harm is
significant and is caused by the actions of the
parent.
When domestic violence cases fall below the
threshold for child protection intervention,
community-based services are needed to address the
problems that children may experience.
Principle 2: Child safety can often be improved by
helping the mother to become safe and by supporting the
mother's efforts to achieve safety.
Child protection strategies should include efforts
to enhance a battered mother's s safety.
Policy challenges raised by Principle 2:
Should CPS routinely assess for domestic violence at
intake?
Among many child protection workers and domestic
violence advocates there is a great deal of concern
about whether or not routine child protection service
intake assessment for domestic violence should be done.
Child protection agencies fear that this assessment
will overwhelm the agency with even more new cases.
Domestic violence advocates fear that child protection
may fail to address, or, even worse, compromise the
mother's safety during the intake process. In reality,
assessing for domestic violence is already a part of
the investigation and risk assessment procedures for
many child protection agencies. There is growing
consensus that child protection should develop the
skills and protocols needed to effectively assess for
domestic violence, to determine which cases require
child protection intervention and which should be
referred to community agencies, and to offer services
that promote safety for mother and child.
How do we resolve confidentiality issues in child
protection?
Privacy and confidentiality are cornerstones of
domestic violence advocacy with battered women. In
contrast, child protection agencies are often bound by
policies that mean that information contained in safety
plans, service plans and case records may be accessible
to perpetrators. A batterer may use this information in
custody proceedings or to thwart safety plans developed
to protect a woman and her children. Confidentiality
issues and misunderstandings often hinder
collaboration. To avoid unnecessary conflict, advocates
and CPS should work together to understand existing
policy and look for ways to improve it. Confidentiality
policies must balance the CPS's need for information
with the battered mother's right to privacy and with
advocates' legal/ethical requirements to keep certain
information confidential.
Principle 3: Safety for battered mothers and their
children can be supported by holding the batterer, not
the adult victim, accountable for the domestic abuse.
By focusing on perpetrator accountability, we open a
new range of resources that can protect children --
including restraining orders, prosecution of domestic
assaults, and batterer intervention programs. By
focusing on perpetrator accountability, we are less
likely to blame one victim for harm to another.
Batterers must be held accountable for their abuse of
women and children, and they must have access to
services that eliminate violence and that appropriately
and safely support their role as parents.
While most would agree with this principle, in
practice the issues become more complicated.
Gina, for example, did not hit Sammy or Jessie,
nor was she the one who dropped Sammy. In fact, Gina
tried to get Sammy to leave the kitchen and get out
of Mark's way. However, Gina is also a parent who is
responsible for making decisions about her kids'
lives. When Gina decided that Mark could move back
in, after he dropped out of the substance
abuse/batterer intervention program, she made a
decision that could place her kids at risk. Her
decision to let Mark move back in was based on her
need for financial support. It is important to
understand that Gina did not decide, "Yes, I want
Mark to move back in so that Sammy and Jessie are at
risk," but, rather, "I have to let him back in or
else we'll be homeless."
Given Gina and her children's need for financial
support, she had little other choice but to let him
move back in. The key to keeping Gina safe is to
look beyond the decision she made to fully
understand why that was her decision. As CPS and
other agencies make efforts to help Gina and her
children meet their financial needs, Gina's
responsibility is to accept and work with those who
are trying to help her. (In Gina's case, financial
independence through employment may take awhile, and
she may need temporary support from the government
along with opportunities to address her substance
abuse and depression.)
At the same time, Mark needs to be mandated back
to substance abuse treatment and batterer
intervention programs. If Mark is once again living
with the children and, as a result, the children are
in danger, child protection and the courts may have
no choice but to remove them from Gina's care.
Understanding the basis for battered mothers'
decision-making about their lives and the lives of
their children will provide the information necessary
to effectively safety plan with them. Understanding a
battered mother's decision-making also points out that
strategies to protect children that hold mothers like
Gina liable for "failure to protect" -- either in
juvenile or criminal courts -- will be
counterproductive. For example, arresting Gina for
getting access to Mark's financial support would not
make Jessie or Sammy safe, nor would it change her
decision, as she believed she had no other choice. Such
strategies will actually decrease a woman's options
(thereby increasing her danger and her partner's
control) and may subject children to unnecessarily
being taken from their homes and families.
Policy challenges raised by Principle 3:
Decision-making in Child Protection
A decision to substantiate or confirm a report of
abuse and neglect is typically made in the context of
several key questions: (1) Did the reported incident
occur? (2) Is the child at continued risk of harm? (3)
Who is responsible for the maltreatment? and (4) Who
can protect the child?
The last few questions pose some unique challenges in
cases involving domestic violence.
How do we minimize allegations of failure to
protect?
When child protection workers substantiate
maltreatment, they must typically identify what type of
abuse occurred (e.g., physical abuse, neglect, sexual
abuse, or emotional maltreatment) and how the parent is
responsible for the harm.Often a substantiated neglect
decision is based on the mother's "failure to protect,"
when the actual harm to the child is the result of
actions by the father or the mother's partner. Neglect
allegations due to failure to protect may also be the
basis for the petition for juvenile court involvement.
In cases of domestic violence, basing substantiation
decisions or petition allegations on neglect due to
failure to protect can mean that the ultimate cause of
the risk, the abuser, is not being addressed.
Collaborators have worked to achieve mother/child
safety without making "failure- to-protect"
allegations. Typically, these efforts have been
successful when service to the family integrates safety
interventions for both victims. We must further
consider how a system of case decision-making and
substantiation can better reflect the real source of
harm to the child. New categories for case findings
exist in a few states, including New Jersey and North
Dakota, that allow a family to be considered "in need
of services" when there is no need for placement. This
finding does not require that a parent be blamed for
maltreatment but acknowledges that services are needed
to protect the child. As these new frameworks evolve,
they may help us to resolve this concern.
How do we hold batterers accountable when they are
responsible for child maltreatment?
Typically, this would be done through the criminal
legal system process, as many juvenile courts do not
have the same authority to criminally punish. In
addition, when batterers are not the parent, they are
usually not a party to the child protection legal case
and therefore the juvenile court has no authority over
them. New strategies for connecting criminal and
juvenile proceedings may be one solution to this
dilemma. However, criminal court involvement may raise
other legal and safety issues for battered mothers and
their children. For example, a criminal proceeding may
delay the juvenile proceeding and result in an
escalation in the batterer's s violence, or it may
lessen the likelihood that he will agree to voluntary
interventions. In additional, criminal court actions
will not guarantee that the battered mother or her
child will be safe.
Batterers intervention services should also be
integrated in the CPS response. Given the legal
framework guiding child protection, workers typically
have a responsibility to work with fathers who may also
be batterers. These services are typically intended to
strengthen the father's ability to parent and provide
safe visitation with children. We must consider how to
provide workers with a framework for deciding what
services to provide to these men and what criteria to
use for determining when and how these fathers should
be part of their children's lives.
What do we do when battered women abuse and neglect
their children?
Sometimes battered women abuse or neglect their
children. Reluctance to discuss these concerns has
limited our ability to fully consider how to address
the safety needs of women and children in these
cases.
We are also learning that domestic violence,
depression, and substance abuse are interrelated. For
children living in these situations, the risk of abuse
and neglect is elevated. We must thoughtfully consider
how these circumstances place children at risk and work
with child protection agencies to develop guidance for
properly identifying and appropriately helping these
families. In each of these circumstances, safety
planning for battered mothers and children will need
different yet coordinated strategies.
Conclusion
The policy dilemmas will not be resolved overnight. They
will require that we embrace a shared agenda of safety for
battered women and for their abused and neglected children.
They will require that we turn this shared agenda into real
work and shared policy, program, and practice strategies that
support our shared goals. This practice paper is intended to
offer information and ideas that will help begin this
process. The answers to the many questions it raises can be
provided in local communities only through concerted and
collaborative efforts. In each locale, collaboration efforts
can move us from these problems to new solutions meeting the
safety needs of women and children.
Learning to work collaboratively is rarely easy. If they
are to succeed, front-line domestic violence advocates and
child protection workers will need assistance from others in
the community, including administrators, public officials,
and policy makers who can commit resources to promote more
effective collaboration on behalf of children, adult victims,
and batterers. The material in Appendix B -- Preparing to
Work Together -- is offered as a beginning guide for bringing
potential collaborators together.
Finally, this paper reflects the learning from a number of
groundbreaking collaborations across the country that link
domestic violence and child abuse/neglect interventions. We
know that these efforts are just the beginning. More needs to
be done to forge new ways for domestic violence advocates to
approach and work with child protection caseworkers, juvenile
courts, child welfare attorneys, foster families, treatment
providers and others. Through these future collaborations we
will learn much more about what works for women and children
and for those who work on their behalf.
Appendix A
Responsibilities of caseworkers in the child
protection process
Steps in Casework Process
Key Tasks
Key Questions
Key Decisions
Intake/ Screening
Gathering & analyzing information
about:
Family demographics
Nature of the alleged maltreatment
Behavioral, emotional & physical
condition of child & parents
Prior child welfare history
Is the report credible?
Does the report meet statutory & agency
guidelines for abuse & neglect?
Should the report be accepted for
investigation or assessment?
What is the urgency of the report & the
timeline for response?
Initial
Assessment/Investigation
Interviewing the child, adult caretakers,
alleged perpetrator, & family members
Gathering information from schools, medical
personnel, other service providers
Participating in multi-disciplinary teams
bringing special expertise to the table
Documenting their findings
Seeking court authorization for emergency
placement
Preparing court petition
Is the child currently safe?
Is the child at risk of maltreatment in the
future?
What intervention is needed to ensure
safety?
If the child's safety cannot be assured at
home, what type & level of care is
needed?
Does the family have other emergency
needs?
Should ongoing services be offered?
Is maltreatment substantiated?
Should the case be opened for services?
Is placement needed to ensure safety?
Is court action needed to achieve safety?
Comprehensive Family
Assessment
Review of initial decisions
Gathering additional information
Conducting additional child & family
interviews
Seeking evaluations
Talking with other service providers
What are causes, nature & extent of
risk?
What are effects of maltreatment or risk
factors?
What are the individual & family
strengths?
What must change to reduce or eliminate risk
of harm?
What must happen for effects of maltreatment
to be addressed?
Case Planning
Involving the family in developing the
plan
Finalizing the plan
Preparing a written case plan or agreement
& obtaining parents' signatures
Filing the plan with the court
What risk factors must be addressed?
Are goals reasonable & achievable?
Who will do what & when?
How progress will measured &
evaluated?
What are service goals?
What changes are needed to reduce risk &
meet treatment needs?
What services will be used to achieve goals
& changes?
How will progress be evaluated?
Evaluating Family Progress
Reviewing the case plan
Collecting information from service
providers
Talking with the child and family
Evaluating changes in conditions, behaviors
& family dynamics
Documenting evaluation and related
decisions
Is the family participating in service?
Is progress being made toward achieving the
goals?
Does the child remain safe?
Are the child's permanency needs being
met?
Is the goal still viable, or is a new goal
indicated?
Are additional services needed?
Case Closure
Reviewing progress
Meeting with the family
Preparing court reports
Establishing a timetable for closure
Referring family for community service
Providing for follow-up as required
Is there a continued need for service?
Do all parties agree that closure is
appropriate?
Has the goal been achieved?
Does the child remain safe?
Are the child's permanency needs being
met?
Can case be closed?
What services might be needed to assist the
family following closure?
Appendix B
Preparing to work together, how do we begin to
collaborate?
Many of the existing collaborations have evolved
through a combination of approaches. Outlined below are
some strategies that build on these experiences and some
basic community organizing approaches. Although the goal
is to build collaborations that help battered women and
their children, each community may start with different
strategies and achieve separate ends.
Establishing a Shared Mission
Each community will need to engage in a process that
will help it determine what it wants to achieve. In
some locales, this will mean establishing a broad
vision for a community-wide and comprehensive system of
services to children and families that includes
everything from prevention, early intervention, and
supportive services, to treatment and civil and
criminal court interventions. In others, the vision
will be more focused on specific protocols for
collaborations between advocates and caseworkers.
Efforts to collaborate are often preceded by some
driving force that prompts action. This might be a
key individual, an agency, group, or an
institution
that cares about the issue and is in a position to act
on its concerns. It may also be found in
an event
that galvanizes a community to act. Often high-profile
cases prompt both community and political action that
can bring potential collaborators together.
Collaborations may begin when there is
general agreement that a common problem
exists
. In Massachusetts, for example, dialogue began because
people in both domestic violence and child protection
agreed that improvements were needed -- even though
they had not yet found common ground about what was
needed. Finally, collaboration may begin when
information
generated from agency data or research sheds new light
on the scope and nature of family violence.
The following key steps are representative of some
of the approaches that may be helpful in creating an
effective collaboration.
A Start-Up Phase. Here, the primary goal is to
establish a baseline consensus about the need to
improve collaboration between child protection and
domestic violence.
This will typically include the following
tasks:
Open the Lines of Communication between
Potential Collaborators. This may mean starting
with one-on-one conversations, small working
groups, or community- wide task forces so that
participants can share the concerns that prompt
their participation.
Enlist the Support of Key Partners. These
include those who are influential in each field
and in the community. They will typically
include:
The commissioner/director from the child
protection agency or a key designee able to
act on behalf of the agencyThe director of the local domestic
violence coalitionDomestic violence shelter directors and
advocatesKey staff from the executive branch of
governmentAgencies and organizations serving
children and familiesCommunity leaders and othersCivic and community organizationsLaw enforcement officials and the
courts
Create vehicles for furthering the
discussion. This is done through formal or
informal meetings, structured work groups,
conferences, and task forces.
An Information-Gathering Phase. Collaborators
need to be better informed about the characteristics
of children, women and families; the scope of their
concerns; the availability and effectiveness of
services; unmet needs; and service system mandates,
strengths and weakness.
Understand how each system works. This means
learning in some detail who receives services,
what service methods are used, what resources
support service, and what goals are sought and
outcomes achieved.Develop a shared understanding of the issues.
Joint information gathering can be an effective
method for learning about what is needed, and
what works. It can also help us focus on gaps and
agreed-upon needs.Bring citizens, service recipients, and new
partners to the table. A broad range of community
partners can bring a refreshing and valuable
perspective to collaboration -- raising questions
that can challenge our basic assumptions and
prompt us to consider creative strategies for
addressing service needs.Bring information and ideas to the community.
Successful collaborations will include public
hearings, community surveys, workshops, and other
efforts to broaden community participation and
strengthen constituencies on behalf of battered
women and children.
A Planning Phase
Articulate shared values and set common
priorities. These will guide the collaboration
and focus its activitiesDevelop program models and protocols. Include
specific strategies that will be used to provide
services in a new way. These may include pilot
projects and demonstration programs intended to
test out new methods.Identify needed changes in policy. Include
any need for legislative and regulatory changes,
as well as changes in agency protocols and
procedures.Identify resources needed. Include staff
resources, training, administrative support, and
other costs that will be incurred as a part of
the effort.Devise a strategy for implementing new
collaborative approaches. Include a workplan that
identifies specific tasks and timetables for
accomplishing these tasks.Create a process to evaluate the new model.
Include a method that will help collaborators
understand how well they are working together,
what impact the collaboration is having on
service delivery and outcomes, and what
mid-course corrections are needed to resolve
unforeseen problems. Typically, this will combine
data collection and structured sessions to
promote problem solving.
An Implementation Phase. Once planning is
completed, the hard part begins -- we must actually
work together. Collaborators will have the
opportunity to try out shared service values and new
procedures for working together. During this phase
we will learn what works and what still needs to be
improved. Success will require an ongoing commitment
to open communication and joint problem solving.
During this process we will also need to continue to
bring new partners to the table, including political
leaders and other policy makers so that they have a
thorough understanding of the collaboration's goals
and methods. The process is never smooth, but great
gains are possible.