Citizen Participation in Public Child Welfare:A Multi-State Study of Citizens Review Panel Members’ Perceptions of Effectiveness

Blake L. Jones, MSW, LCSW, ABD

University of Kentucky

College of Social Work

National Citizens Review Panel Conference

Lexington, Kentucky

May 28, 2004

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed it is the only

thing that ever has."  

Margaret Meade

“Service is the rent we pay forliving. It is the very purpose of lifeand not something you do in your spare time."

~ Marian Wright Edelman

“Our state has Citizens Review Panels because they are REQUIRED to. Period.”

~survey respondent

“We’re not really helping kids. All we’re doing is just generating another report that CPS won’t use!”

~Survey Respondent

Objectives of this Presentation Brief Background on CRPs

Review of literature

Theoretical and Conceptual foundations of the study

Methodology

Results

News You Can Use

Citizen Review Panels

• Created through a 1996 amendment to CAPTA

3 panels per state (some only need one) by 7/99

Each panel has the responsibility to review compliance of state and local CPS agencies with respect to:– state CAPTA plan– Federal child protection standards– Other criteria the panel considers important, which may

include coordination with foster care and adoption programs and review of child fatalities and near fatalities

Requirements for Citizen Review Panels

Composed of volunteer members that– are broadly representative of the community in which they are

operating– include individuals with expertise in the prevention and treatment of

CA/N– Include CPS liaison

Meet at least quarterly

Examine policies and procedures and, where appropriate, specific cases of both state and local agencies

Maintain confidentiality

Prepare an annual report

New Requirements from CAPTA Reauthorization

Evaluate PRACTICES as well as policy and procedure

Develop a means for public comment

Child welfare agency is to respond in writing to annual report within six months

ACYF to do an evaluation of CRPs

CPS Standards Subject to Review Reporting procedures Screening and

investigation Child safety steps Immunity for good faith

reporting Confidentiality of

records Public disclosure in

fatalities and near fatalities

Expedited TPR

Cooperation of law enforcement, courts and state CPS agencies

Expungement of records available to public

Appointment of guardians ad litem

Appeal of findings Provisions not requiring

reunification in certain cases

Panel Should Establish Protocols and Procedures to Review Each of the Following Parts of the CPS

System

Intake and initial screening

Investigation or assessment

Case determination Service planing,

implementation, and monitoring

Case closure Crisis intervention;

emergency placement; family stabilization

Coordination of Services

Staff qualifications, training and workload

Examples of Approaches and Sources of Information

In-depth review of a small number of cases

Broader review of cases

Analysis of statewide data systems

Review of agency policy and procedures

Surveys

Quality Assurance Reviews

Focus groups or interviews of staff, consumers, service providers, mandated reporters, foster parents, others

Perceptions of Effectiveness… The first step

Previous Research on What Increases Perceptions of Effectiveness in Citizen Panels

Access to information

Clear goals and objectives (should be congruent with other entity)

Training

Cohesion among members

“Authentic” communication between agency and panel

Opportunities to build trust

Previous Research on CRPs

Jones, Litzelfelner, & Ford (2003)

> Significant difference between CRP members and CPS workers

regarding whether or not citizen involvement was important

> Found a need for increased communication between the two as well as more education about each other’s roles

Main Research Question

What variables impact how CRP members perceive their Panel’s effectiveness?

Theoretical Underpinnings

Webler & Tuler (2000)

> Theory of Discourse (based on Hambermas’ “rational

communication”)

> Says the process should be “fair” and “competent”

Arnstein’s “Ladder of Participation”

States in the Study

Alabama Minnesota North Carolina West Virginia Arkansas New Hampshire Ohio Wisconsin WashingtonFlorida New Mexico South Carolina Wyoming Georgia New York Tennessee Idaho Maryland Nevada Michigan

VariablesIndependent Dependent

Communication Flow Education Months on Panel Group Cohesion Bylaws Budget Chairperson Paid Staff Person

Perceived Effectiveness

Placement on Ladder of Citizen Participation

Instrumentation

Created “Citizen Review Panel Perceived Effectiveness Survey” composed of:**

> “Perceived Effectiveness” Scale

> “Communications Scale”

> Group Cohesion Scale-Revised

**Good internal consistency on all scales (Cronbach’s alpha .82-.90)

Methodology

664 anonymous surveys distributed by mail or through key contacts

SASE envelope enclosed (real stamps)

332 Returned (50% return rate)

Used SPSS to analyze

Results

75% Female, 25% Male

Mean Age: 52 years

Mean Education: 17.24 years

39% social workers (others: medical field, retired, educators, attorneys)

What variables have an effect on “Perceived Effectiveness”?

Communication Flow**

Months on Panel*

Group Cohesion*

Paid Staff Support*

* p. <05 ** p.<001

What has an effect on where respondents placed themselves on the Ladder?

Communication Flow**

Group Cohesion*

Paid Staff Support*

* p. <05 ** p.<001

Barriers to Collaboration Lack of Funding/Resources for

CRP

Defensiveness of child protective services agency (manifested through hidden agendas, for example)

Inconsistent meeting attendance by Panel membership

Lack of communication/feedback (i.e., no “official” response to the annual report )

Suggestions for Working Together

Better communication between CPS and CRPs (i.e., through memos of agreement)

Clearer goals and objectives for the Panel

CRPs need to be more educated about the roles of CPS

A more diverse membership on the panel (including parents, non-professionals, and ethnic minorities

Increased funding (including staff support) for CRPs

Limitations

Only 20 states surveyed (had to sample in some)

Did not measure “effectiveness,” only perceived effectiveness

Did not survey child welfare agency workers

So What? Clearly define roles of responsibilities of CRPs

and child welfare agency (this should be spelled out in a Memo Of Agreement)

Give feedback to Panels about what happens to their recommendations. If they are not feasible, say so, and explain why

Create consistent “point persons” within the agency to answer critical questions.

So What?

Ongoing and meaningful communication is critical (hold joint retreats/strategic planning sessions, potlucks, awards ceremonies)

Think Quality, not Quantity.

Set clear guidelines and goals, check in half way through the year to make sure the group is “on track”

So What? Work on team development (use cohesion scale to assess)

Work with Chairperson to develop her or his leadership abilities

Provide at least a part-time paid staff person (be CREATIVE, sub-contract with a University to coordinate CRPs)

Celebrate successes and improvements

Value citizenship

The MOST important question: WHY is your work important?