“A half-century of research
demonstrates convincingly that
children’s well-being builds upon
meeting first their primary needs for
a stable and lasting family life.”
─Mark Testa, national child welfare
expert
Overall Reduction:
Steady decline in the number of children in care
Source: AFCARS and NCANDS.
Safety Has Improved:
Percent of Children Experiencing Repeat Maltreatment within 6 Months
Source: AFCARS and NCANDS.
Assessing
Child Safety in
Oklahoma
Sue D. Steib, LCSW, Ph.D.
Senior Director
Conducted at the request of OKDHS leadership
February – March, 2011
Methodology
Document review
Staff interviews
15 staff: area directors, county directors, field liaisons, training director,
supervisors, caseworkers
Key interview questions centered on
• Impact of “imminent safety threat” as the criterion for removal;
• Whether the criterion comprises child safety; and
• Strengths/concerns about safety assessment and safety planning
processes.
The Review
The Findings: Document Review
Generally in accord with sound practice in child
protective services
Practice Model Guide
Strengths
• Operationalizes OKDHS practice standards;
• Defines concepts of child safety, present and imminent danger;
• Provides guidance for assessment of child safety and family functioning;
• Addresses case planning and consultation approaches, e.g., multidisciplinary
teams, family team meetings, concurrent planning;
• Provides guidance for crafting effective safety plans; and
• Acknowledges that casework is complex and that caseworkers need clinical
skills and to have some flexibility in practice to accommodate unique situations.
Concerns
• Lacking detailed and comprehensive discussion of application of child
vulnerability in safety decision making; and
• Insufficient guidance in addressing situations with multiple risk factors that
cannot be adequately served with external community resources.
The Findings: Document Review
Child Protection Policy and Memoranda
Strengths
• Detailed and internally consistent;
• Calls for comprehensive investigation of reported child maltreatment;
• Explains legal threshold for removal of a child;
• Addresses identification of safety threats, incident-based fact finding,
identification of maltreatment; provides a process for requesting court
intervention when families refuse necessary services voluntarily; and
• Provides processes for requesting immediate custody for children in danger.
Questions/Concerns
• One section of proposed policy 340:75-13-61 used permissive language
concerning interviews with parents/caregivers of children, i.e., investigations
“may include interviews with the parents of the child or any other persons
responsible for the health, safety, or welfare of the child.”
The Findings: Document Review
Assessment of Child Safety
Strengths
• Based on ACTION for Child Protection model, well recognized in U.S.;
• Generally compares well with other safety assessment tools used in CPS;
• Defines safe, unsafe, present danger, impending danger;
• Provides that children >3 years; those with diminished physical, mental
capacity are to be considered more vulnerable;
• Key questions to elicit information about child safety; and
• Requires immediate plan for protection if any safety threat identified.
Questions/Concerns
• Lacking detailed and comprehensive discussion of application of child
vulnerability into safety decision making;
• Needs greater clarity in guidance for identification of present danger as
distinguished from impending danger;
• Protective capacities and vulnerability are to be considered only in the safety
response rather than in the determination of safe vs. unsafe.
The Findings: Document Review
Training and Related Documents
Strengths
• Generally in accordance with sound practice; and
• Critical thinking training targets supervisors.
Questions/Concerns
• The Safety Decision article from ACTION for Child Protection may be confusing
to staff in that it conflicts with directions in the Assessment of Child Safety
concerning consideration of caregiver protective capacities in making the safety
decision.
• Some materials provided for review were lacking in the level of detail normally
associated with training curricula and related information (e.g., PowerPoint
presentations).
The Findings: Staff Interviews
Impact of the “imminent danger” standard on child protection
practice
Strengths
• Overall, the standard has not compromised child safety;
• Change from “incidence-based” system to one focusing on actual harm
and danger viewed positively;
• Current practice calls for greater attention to antecedent conditions,
contributing factors, and underlying causes.
Concerns
• None voiced
The Findings: Staff Interviews
Impact of the “imminent danger” standard on child safety
• The new, more narrow criteria for removal was needed;
• Former standard of a child’s “surroundings presenting a danger to his/her
welfare” resulted in unnecessary removals;
• Concerns remain about how to handle high risk cases in which children are
not “unsafe” at the time of the investigation.
o Multiple significant risk factors;
o Community resources often are not adequate to address risks or
families do not accept services voluntarily; and
o District attorneys reluctant to file petitions when OKDHS is not
requesting custody.
The Findings: Staff Interviews
The process of assessing child safety
Strengths
• Joint protocols with law enforcement are helpful;
• 23 hour window in which child can be returned to parents without custody
viewed positively;
• Assessment of Child Safety (AOC) tool comprehensive, supported by
adoption of early team decision making;
• AOC supports more thorough investigations.
Concerns
• Process takes more time, even after initial learning;
• Time required for documentation exacerbated by duplication between the
AOC and DA’s report; and
• Some staff may lack sufficient skills to determine present, imminent
danger.
The Findings: Staff Interviews
Using safety plans to maintain children in their own
homes/families
Strengths
• Children are better off if they can be kept safe in their own homes;
Concerns
• Creating and monitoring adequate safety plans is challenging in terms of
time, skills, resources; and
• Staff do not always apply critical thinking necessary to create, monitor
case plans effectively.
The Findings: Staff Interviews
Staff skills, knowledge, and capacity related to safety
assessment and planning
Strengths
• Training has improved; and
• Mentoring/coaching has been helpful.
Concerns
• High staff turnover means that many cases are handled by new,
inexperienced caseworkers;
• Due to high turnover, supervisors often lack solid, extensive experience;
• Supervisor to caseworker ratios range from 1:5 to 1:9 with 1:7 estimated
as most common;
• More skill building training is needed (older employees should also receive
training); and
• Findings of reviews of child deaths, serious injuries should be used
consistently to inform policy and training for all staff.
Limitations of the Review
Focused on the specific impact of the legislative changes
related to the threshold for the removal of a child and the
process for assessing and ensuring child safety;
Did not include a comprehensive review of policy or
assessment of practice;
No cases were reviewed;
No families, stakeholders were interviewed;
Due to time constraints, interviews were conducted only in the
central office and in Areas 1 and 3.
Summary & Recommendations
The more narrow threshold for removal of children from their
homes, the focus on child safety, and processes for safety
assessment and planning are generally consistent with sound child
protection practice.
Recommendations:
1.Consider revisions to the AOC
a. Re-label “Safety Threats” as “Signs of Present Danger”; delink them
from questions designed to assess emerging danger over 30 days;
b. Expand discussion/guidance for application of child vulnerability in
the safety decision;
c. Consider caregiver protective capacities in determination of safety;
and
d. Review terms designating safety interventions (safety response,
safety plan, and voluntary safety plan) for clarity and understanding.
Summary & Recommendations
2. Explore ways to eliminate duplication in required documentation,
particularly with regard to the AOC and DA’s report.
3. Consider conducting a workload estimation analysis to inform position
requests.
4. Give priority to provision of coaching and mentoring for caseworkers and
supervisors.
a. safety assessment and decision making
b. safety planning and monitoring
c. family engagement
5. Establish “Practice Model” specialists in each Area for ongoing training
and consultation.
Summary & Recommendations
6. Develop, train, and implement guidelines and expectations for assessing
and responding to risk/needs absent a safety response.
7. Consider revisions to the Practice Model Guide to clarify the agency’s
responsibility for providing services and possibly for obtaining court
intervention in situations of high risk which do not, at the time of the initial
assessment, meet the criteria of unsafe.
8. Re-evaluate the efficacy and need for court-ordered services to prevent
placement and ensure that families’ needs are addressed and child’s
safety not diminished.
Sue D. Steib
ssteib@casey.org
