INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The Division of State and Community Assistance of the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment
(CSAT), in conjunction with the Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), held
a two-day State team-building workshop May 8 and 9, 2001, in Savannah, Georgia. The
workshop was titled, Protecting Children: Substance Abuse and Child Welfare Working
Together. This was the first of four CSAT/ACYF meetings to be held on this topic in 2001.
These workshops are designed to help build the State infrastructure necessary to bring about
coordinated delivery of care for children in the child welfare system and their parents in
substance abuse treatment.
The Federal sponsors invited States to send teams of six individuals representing single State
alcohol and other drug agencies, State child welfare agencies, members of the judiciary, and other
agencies and individuals involved with families, including foster care, TANF, Medicaid,
advocacy groups, and consumers. Team members completed a Collaborative Values Inventory
prior to attending the workshop, which was designed to help them start thinking about the values
and principles they share and those on which they need work to reach consensus.
In addition to their work in values clarification and State team building, workshop attendees
heard presentations on such topics as the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), family drug
courts, and successful approaches to collaborative work. They attended concurrent working
sessions on confidentiality, safety/resiliency, interdisciplinary training, substance abuse
assessments, trauma, and providing effective testimony in court. The agenda for this workshop
evolved from a national planning meeting held in Bethesda, MD, in November 2000.
Tuesday, May 8
WELCOME
H Richard (Rick) Sampson, Director
Division of State and Community Assistance
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
This is the first of four CSAT/ACYF regional meetings designed to bring State systems together
around the issue of families involved in both the child welfare and substance abuse treatment
systems. Participants have an opportunity to bring healing to families and communities in
powerful ways.
Some 80 to 85 percent of children in out-of-home placement are there because of parental
addiction. The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA, P.L. 105-89) provides both an
opportunity and a responsibility for the child welfare and substance abuse treatment systems to
work together as effectively and efficiently as they can to support these families. However, while
the ASFA timelines for creation of a permanent plan for children represent a laudable goal, they
also create complexities for a substance abuse treatment system faced with multiple needs and
inadequate resources. In particular, the following barriers impede timely and effective substance
abuse treatment for parents:
- Lack of access. Nationwide, alcohol and other drug providers serve approximately 35 to
40 percent of the individuals in need of publicly funded substance abuse treatment.
- Multiple needs. Some 80 to 90 percent of women in substance abuse treatment are
victims of physical and sexual abuse, and problems of addiction, child abuse, and
physical and sexual abuse often are multigenerational. Trauma takes time to heal.
- Lack of resources. Both the child welfare and substance abuse treatment systems are
strapped for time and resources, and this creates a natural tension between the systems.
- Different values and beliefs. Individuals and organizations within the child welfare and substance abuse treatment systems may have very different values and beliefs about the
work they do and differing perceptions about each other's system.
The number one need expressed by States prior to this meeting was the opportunity for both
systems to come together to examine their values and beliefs and how these attitudes affect the
way they work together. Participants should think about creating a synergistic system that honors
the natural, human pull to home and family and helps children grow and thrive in spite of
parental history of substance abuse and child abuse and neglect. This meeting is dedicated to
children and parents who need such services and who deserve the opportunity for recovery.
Catherine M. Nolan, M.S.W., A.C.S.W., Director
Office of Child Abuse and Neglect
Children's Bureau
Administration on Children, Youth and Families
Administration for Children and Families
Collaboration between CSAT and ACYF began with preparation of the April 1, 1999, report to
Congress, Blending Perspectives and Building Common Ground, which was required by ASFA.
Based on our work together, we made a commitment to continue our collaboration and not let the
report sit on a shelf.
The report to Congress includes five recommendations to promote collaborative efforts between
the child welfare and substance abuse treatment systems. The number one recommendation is to
build collaborative working relationships. In particular, the groups agreed to develop a
framework for cross-system collaboration and conduct leadership meetings that will convene
national and regional discussions among agency leaders, service providers, and consumers to
begin the process of working through different perspectives to build common ground.
This is the first of four meetings designed to begin, in some cases, and continue, in others,
discussions about collaboration between these systems. In addition to the report to Congress,
CSAT and ACYF jointly sponsored a national stakeholders' meeting, a planning meeting for the
regional workshops, and a meeting of invited experts in the area of confidentiality. It has been
both challenging and rewarding to keep this collaboration strong and ongoing. This is an
evolving process, and the hope is that State teams will continue their dialogue when they return
home.
Bruce Hoopes
Acting Chief
Division of Mental Health, Mental Retardation, and Substance Abuse
Georgia Department of Human Resources
Few people are not impacted by substance abuse. Some human services workers themselves are
victims of child abuse, sexual abuse, or substance abuse that may not have been identified or
treated. They bring these experiences to their work with families.
Prevention and treatment are inextricably linked, and providers should blend prevention into the
treatment equation. This includes examination of protective factors and resiliency.
Because of the prevalence of co-occurring mental health and substance abuse disorders,
especially among women, providers should be cross-trained clinically in both disciplines. They
must also be able to identify and treat trauma. Treating trauma is a significant challenge, but one
that must be addressed.
GENERAL SESSIONS
Adoption and Safe Families Act: Foundations for Collaboration
Gail E. Collins, M.P.A.
Acting Deputy Commissioner
Administration on Children, Youth and Families
Administration for Children and Families
The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) represents the first major piece of child welfare
reform legislation in the past 20 years. In the past, there was too much emphasis on keeping
families together at all costs, which, in some cases, sacrificed the safety of children. In addition,
many children who were removed from their homes languished in foster care.
ASFA creates an urgency about the need for collaboration across systems, especially child
welfare and substance abuse treatment, to address the needs of children and families. Major
themes embodied by the legislation include the following:
- Child safety is paramount. The law acknowledges that reasonable efforts should be
made to prevent removal of children from their families and to promote reunification, but
it also recognizes that there are some situations in which remaining with the family poses
too great a risk for the child.
- Children need permanent homes. Foster care is designed to be temporary, and is not a place for children to grow up. ASFA timelines require that if a child has been in foster
care for 15 of the previous 22 months, the State must petition for termination of parental
rights.
- The timely provision of services is critical. Termination of parental rights is one of the most emotional and extreme things a government can do. Everyone's feet are to the fire
to determine and provide the services a family needs to heal. Case workers must be clear
with parents from the beginning about what they need to do to get their children back and
about the consequences for their noncompliance.
ASFA has the potential to be positive for children and parents if families get the services they
need. Yet the timelines do cause tension. Fifteen months is a short time to recover from
addiction and related social and health issues, but it's a long time in the developmental life of a
child. Providers need to redouble their efforts to make things work better. In particular, they
need to understand each other's perspectives and values and the different "lingo" they use. This
meeting is an opportunity to forge linkages and establish personal relationships. States can learn
from one another as they set about the work of healing families.
Values Clarification: Building Toward a Joint Mission
Nancy K. Young, Ph.D., Director
Children and Family Futures
Irvine, CA
Eighty-three of 95 meeting participants responded to a pre-workshop questionnaire called the
Collaborative Values Inventory. The survey was designed to help the child welfare and
substance abuse treatment systems 1) clarify the underlying values in collaborative work; 2)
develop common principles and goals; and 3) uncover differences in values that may impede
cross-system collaboration. Often, differences in basic values and beliefs are the cause of the
problem when even seemingly successful collaborations hit a roadblock. These differences can't
be dismissed; they must be identified and discussed.
The survey provides State teams the opportunity to begin a discussion about some key questions,
including: 1) What do we believe together? and 2) What don't we agree on? It also allows them
to compare their individual State responses to the regional responses as a whole.
Individuals who completed the survey represent alcohol and other drug services (31); children's
services (27); dependency/family court personnel (10); mental health providers (3); Medicaid
providers (2); TANF providers (2); and others (8). There was strong agreement among these
respondents in some areas.
For example, 82 of 83 respondents agreed that solving the problems caused by alcohol and other
drug use would improve the lives of a significant number of children, families, and others in
need. A majority of respondents (51) also agreed that alcohol and other drug providers should
prioritize women from the child welfare system as their most important clients to receive
services.
However, some interesting differences emerged, which can help pinpoint areas States need to
discuss. For example, a slight majority of respondents (48) disagreed with the Statement that
"illegal drugs are a bigger problem in our State than use and abuse of alcohol." However, among
the four major systems represented by the survey (substance abuse treatment, child welfare, the
courts, and others), child welfare representatives agreed with this Statement.
Other areas without clear agreement include whether or not a parent who abuses alcohol or other
drugs can be an effective parent. As a whole survey respondents were evenly split on the issue,
as were substance abuse treatment providers. However, court respondents agreed that parents
who abuse substances can never be an effective parent, while child welfare workers disagreed.
The various systems also had divergent views on the usefulness of urine screens for determining
a parent's readiness to retain or regain custody of his/her children (court representatives find
them useful), and whether allowing more services to be delivered by for-profit agencies would
improve the effectiveness of services. Though most respondents believe that services should not be delivered by for-profit agencies, respondents from other systems were more likely to feel that for-profit agencies would be more accountable. A majority of respondents (53) agreed that
requiring all clients, regardless of income, to make some kind of payment for services would
improve the effectiveness of services. Court respondents were most likely to agree with this
Statement.
Child welfare respondents and those from other systems agreed with the Statement that "the most
important causes of the problems of children and families cannot be addressed by government;
they need to be addressed within the family and by non-governmental organizations such as
churches, neighborhood organizations, and self-help groups," but 60 percent of substance abuse
treatment providers and court respondents disagreed. What does this mean for how you structure
your programs?
Interestingly, alcohol and drug and court respondents did not agree that people in recovery from
substance abuse are the most effective counselors to work with their peers, but child welfare
respondents overwhelmingly agreed with this idea. This response is counter to conventional
thinking.
More than 60 percent of respondents disagreed that confidentiality of client records is the most
important barrier that keeps alcohol and other drug providers and child welfare agencies from
working together. A majority of respondents believe that most parents will be successful in
alcohol and drug treatment and in family services.
Using the survey results, States can work together to discover what issues are important to them
and how those issues play out in the ways they work together. Finally, they can ground these
principles in reality by relating them to the three primary daily practice activities that take place
between the two systems: 1) intake, screening and assessment; 2) engagement and retention in
care; and 3) the provision of services to children.
Family Drug Courts: Responding to Child and Family Needs
The Honorable John Parnham
Circuit Judge
Pensacola, FL
The first drug courts, begun in Miami in the late 1980s and early 1990s, recognized that jails and
prisons were filled with nonviolent drug users, and that incarceration doesn't change an
individual's behavior. Drug courts are a treatment-based process that merges rehabilitation with
the judicial system. They have grown dramaticallythere are now more than 450 such courts,
including juvenile and family drug courts. For those of us in juvenile court, the work can be very
depressing, frustrating, and isolating. It requires a tremendous systems-wide effort to coordinate
human services for our clients.
The drug court's primary concern is child welfare. Most children love their parents despite
parental neglect, and most parents who are addicted to alcohol and drugs love their children.
They don't want to continue their addictive behavior. Whenever possible, it's preferable to have
children with their natural parents than with foster parents or relatives.
Families involved in juvenile or family drugs courts are extremely needy. Their housing is
inadequate, they have no transportation, and the women often are abused by pimps, drug dealers,
and other family members. Parents involved with the child welfare, justice, and substance abuse
treatment systems, who by and large are women, need supportive environments to succeed. Drug
court team members must be knowledgeable about the full range of issues these families face,
including substance abuse, treatment, and recovery.
The Pensacola drug court is designed to be a 12-month program. Clients must be referred by the
Department of Children and Families and must qualify based both on their offense and on their
willingness to participate. They must plead "no contest" to the charges, accept 12 months of
probation, and submit to urine screens.
Key features of a drug court's success include accountability and support. The court has an
investments in its clients. Accountability has both therapeutic and legal significance and differs
from punishment. Drug courts can't make people change; they must be self-motivated and want
to do it themselves. We know that relapses are inevitable. Still, we need more consensus about
defining success and failure in substance abuse treatment.
The judge's role in all of this is to give support to the clients, the treatment team, and the drug
court administrators. Drug court is a non-adversarial process that combines legal and therapeutic
remedies. It can be a positive experience that we think of as "therapeutic jurisprudence."
Wednesday, May 9
SUCCESSFUL APPROACHES/BEST PRACTICES
Connecticut: Retention of Women in Treatment
Karen Snyder
Assistant Commissioner
Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services
Connecticut is a small State with many agencies that interact with families in trouble. Though the
administration of these agencies is different, the clients they serve don't fall into neat categories,
which creates a need for collaboration to avoid fragmentation. Several of these efforts are
already in place. Connecticut identifies all children receiving services from child protective
services or children's mental health by age 16 who will require services after age 18. The State
added money to the adult system to create transitional services for these youth.
In addition, all corrections clients are evaluated for mental illness. Those with medication needs
are identified and tracked, and a discharge plan is prepared for their release to the community
mental health system. Further, jail diversion teams are available in local courts.
The State has also initiated a set of service improvement goals that include: 1) a major trauma
initiative; 2) an emphasis on evidence-based treatment; 3) a focus on addressing the totality of an
individual's need for substance abuse, behavioral health, and trauma services; 4) the involvement
of consumers in planning, developing, and delivering mental health and substance abuse services
(with a special emphasis on destigmatizing these conditions); and 5) the development of local
substance abuse authorities, similar to local mental health authorities, to coordinate service
planning for individuals with substance abuse disorders.
Much of the hard work of coordination and collaboration takes place at the local level.
Statewide, the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services and the Department of
Children and Families partnership is based on: 1) designated leadership and project
responsibility; 2) joint program planning and evaluation; 3) regional service team meetings; 4)
cross-training forums; 5) co-contracting; and 6) resource development and shared funding. The
development of personal relationships and agreement on objectives also are key.
Peter Panzarella
Director of Substance Abuse Services
Connecticut Department of Children and Families
Project SAFE began in 1995 after three infant deaths in three months. Substance abuse was
involved in each case, but the parents had not been screened. Project SAFE is a program for
evaluation and treatment of alcohol and other drug dependency among parents in the child
welfare system. The program is a collaboration among the State Department of Children and
Families (DCF), the State Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS), and
Advanced Behavioral Health (ABH), a network of nonprofit behavioral health providers.
Project SAFE services include a Statewide centralized intake through a toll-free number. This
gives DCF social workers priority access to ABH providers for drug screens, substance abuse
evaluations, and a variety of outpatient substance abuse treatment services. The program also
uses centralized data reports and electronic billing. The ABH provider network manages the
quality of care.
As part of Phase I, Project SAFE staff created a specialized screening tool that includes
information about both substance abuse and child welfare issues, and developed specific consent
forms. DCF hired substance abuse specialistslicensed clinical social workers who are also
certified alcoholism counselorsto serve as consultants, trainers, and provide some direct
services to families.
The strengths of Phase I included: 1) a direct link between child welfare and substance abuse
treatment; 2) priority access to substance abuse services for child welfare clients; 3) the
simplicity of the system for child protective services workers; 4) the use of standardized clinical
summaries and preferred practices; 5) a centralized data collection system; and 6) the
development of DCF supportive housing for recovering families.
The limits of Phase I included: 1) limited collaboration between DCF and DMHAS, despite
serving joint clients; 2) low rates of engagement and retention in treatment; 3) poor client
outcomes; 4) a behavioral health approach narrowly focused on addiction; and 5) different values
and priorities between the two systems.
Phase II includes a focus on improved outcomes for women, children, and families. Focus groups
of clients and providers indicated that success with this population is based on the following: 1)
respect and empathy toward the client; 2) direct and clear communication: 3) ongoing motivation
and engagement; and 4) good relationships among child protective services staff and substance
abuse treatment providers. Nancy Young of Children and Family Futures helped the State
develop a strategic plan for the DCF/DMHAS collaboration.
The Phase II Project SAFE program serves between 5,000 and 6,000 unduplicated clients a year.
Eighty-four percent of these parents are referred by DCF social workers because of allegations of
substance abuse in the child protective services report. Alcohol is the most significant problem
substance for men (80 percent), and cocaine is the most significant problem substance for women
(60 percent). Cocaine use by women in the child welfare system is disproportionately higher
than it is in the adult treatment system as a whole.
Judith Ford
Director of Women's Behavioral Health and Trauma
Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services
Most women served by Project SAFE are ages 18 to 35. Fifty percent are Caucasian, and the
balance are African American and Latina. They are in low paying jobs, with many on welfare,
and they have co-occurring trauma, depression, and other anxiety disorders. They also
experience significant social stressors, including their involvement with child protective services,
current violence, and homelessness or risk of homelessness.
All of these women are mothers, but that fact is not being addressed in substance abuse
treatment. Our culture places a high value on the maternal role, and a mother is evaluated as a
person by her success in this role. It is difficult for women to discuss their ambivalence about
their roles as mothers. Most treatment programs stress a woman's role as a parent to provide for
the physical needs of her children, and her very involvement in the child welfare system implies
she has been a failure in this role. Fear of losing her children is a negative incentive. Few
treatment programs address issues of emotional attachment and nurturing that allow a woman to
discuss her feelings about her child and give her a positive incentive to stay in treatment.
To help women and their children heal, Project SAFE Phase II services include the following:
- Outreach and engagement. Outreach workers help women meet immediate survival
needs and build on their strengths.
- On-site child care. Having their children with them makes mothers feel more
comfortable, and it allows substance abuse treatment providers to see how families
interact.
- On-site parenting support. On-site parenting groups provide mothers with education
and support in the context of their substance abuse treatment.
- Trauma education and treatment. Trauma services include assessment, a three-session
education model, and trauma-sensitive treatment.
- Comprehensive substance abuse evaluations. Project SAFE is field testing a family-focused substance abuse evaluation that includes a trauma screen, as well as information
about anxiety and mental health and motivation to change.
Illinois: Empowering Families through Collaboration
Maya Hennessey
Administrator of Women and Youth Services
Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse
Illinois Department of Human Services
Project SAFE is a collaborative effort between the Department of Children and Family Services
(DCFS) and the Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse (OASA). Initially funded as a
Federal demonstration program, the program is now funded by the State of Illinois. The proof of
Project SAFE's success is in the numbers: an 81 percent completion rate and a 54 percent
reunification rate.
Parental addiction is an issue for 74 percent of Project SAFE clients, and nearly 100 percent have
histories of domestic violence, including sexual abuse. Women show an early onset and long
duration of violence, with multiple perpetrators and further victimization in a system that doesn't
believe them. Most are single but in intimate, often abusive, relationships. They are dependent
both on toxic relationships and on public institutions.
These women are difficult to engage, and they are at high risk for relapse, but acknowledgment
of relapse is built into the program. It is not considered a measure of failure. As women
progress through the program, their relapses are less intense and shorter in duration. Project
SAFE also recognizes that women's alcoholism progresses differently than men's disease, a
factor important in assessment and treatment. For example, a man gives up on relationships in
the early stages of alcoholism. But women cling to their relationships to the end, so they can be
much further advanced in their disease and still have a connection to family and friends.
Project SAFE program components include the following:
- Referrals. All clients sign an initial consent form on referral that allows the substance
abuse provider to acknowledge whether or not the client arrived for treatment. As more
information is needed, the consent form is expanded incrementally.
- Outreach. Outreach is one of the keys to Project SAFE's success. Outreach workers
befriend the mother and gain her trust. They meet immediate needs and help remove
barriers to substance abuse treatment. They are seen as an ally, not an enemy. Each
outreach worker is assigned 8 to 12 families.
- Intensive outpatient treatment. This includes 15 hours a week in group and individual
treatment.
- Transportation. Initially viewed as an ancillary service, transportation has become an important assessment tool. Mothers and children are more open to sharing as they ride a
van to appointments. Van transportation has become a sort of "traveling therapy group."
- Child care. Originally offered on-site, child care is now available at community sites and with friends and relatives. Once again, transportation to child care sites becomes an
important time for outreach workers to see families interact.
- Parenting. Parenting education has to be introduced gradually, after staff gain the
woman's trust. Project SAFE uses "experiential parenting," giving parents and children
time to interact together so staff can observe a parent's behavior and correct it.
- Case management/coordination. Coordinating care for clients involved in multiple
systems is time-consuming and complex. Case coordination takes place at weekly staff
meetings and quarterly meetings.
- Joint administration and evaluation. DCYF and OASA conduct joint site visits and
provide on-site technical assistance.
As the program has evolved, treatment has moved from a male-oriented model to a gender-sensitive, family-oriented model. Treatment is outcome-based, rather than time-based, and
treatment plans are flexible and individualized. Using the American Society of Addiction
Medicine (ASAM) criteria, clients are placed in appropriate treatment settings, which ensures
better outcomes. Outpatients hours and services, as well as detox and residential hours and
services, have been expanded.
Outcomes for various Project SAFE agencies vary, but commitment and shared responsibility
and ownership are keys to success. Staff support is essential to prevent burnout. It's difficult to
face this level of trauma and tragedy on a daily basis.
STATE TEAM REPORTS
One of the most important goals for this CSAT/ACYF workshop was to bring together State child
welfare and substance abuse treatment systems to begin or continue collaborative efforts. Mr.
Sampson asked State team representatives to consider three key questions as they met together
during the two-day workshop. The questions and the State responses, as reported to the group as
a whole, follow.
- Where were you at the start of the workshop as a State team?
- Where are you at the end of the workshop as a State team?
- Are there next steps planned?
Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania team was already collaborating to a great extent, but as a result of the
workshop, they feel they know each other better. They discussed ideas that need to be further
refined as they continue their work together.
Illinois
The Illinois team has been working together for 15 years. They cited some key areas they would
like to improve, including:
- More integration of mental health and domestic violence services
- More services in the southern part of State
- More training with the judiciary
- Continue working on confidentiality
- Expand juvenile services
- Determine how to define progress and success
North Carolina
Members of the North Carolina team found the CCI survey helpful because it allowed them look
at current gaps in services. Overall, they found more agreement than disagreement among team
members, but they recognized the need to involve advocates. They will examine how to align
policy and practice, define outcomes, share data, and sustain their efforts.
West Virginia
Members of the West Virginia team didn't know each other prior to this workshop. They feel
they are now a much more cohesive group and have begun planning and making key connections
as a result of what they have learned.
Tennessee
Most members of the Tennessee team already knew each other. Representatives of mental
health, child services, youth services, and substance abuse meet monthly, but they would like to
include advocates. They believe in a holistic approach to treating the whole family and
supporting front-line staff to prevent burnout. More training is needed around drug courts and
getting the judicial system involved.
Virgin Islands
Virgin Islands team members had not formally meet previously, but they have talked to each
other by phone. As a result of the workshop, they came to understand each other's challenges
and business better. They recognize the Virgin Islands has some unique issues to address, and
they would like to strategize about how other colleagues at both higher and lower levels can be
brought aboard to help change the system.
Puerto Rico
Members of the Puerto Rico team discovered a great deal of consensus and will leave the workshop with a stronger sense of commitment to work together. They have a new government and will try to influence it. In particular, they would like to develop interagency training
sessions, meetings, and planning and educate their child welfare colleagues and administrators.
Kentucky
The Kentucky team included some new members and others who have known each other for
years. The values clarification process indicated considerable consensus. The meeting group
plans to call itself a steering committee and take workshop information home to agency staff.
They will conduct informational sessions regarding substance abuse, child welfare, and criminal
justice, and use these forums to help formulate a State plan.
Georgia
Members of the Georgia child protective services staff and substance abuse treatment staff met
for first time. They agreed about the need for early identification of families in trouble. They
also recognize the need to understand each other's culture and operations and to cross-train child
welfare and substance abuse treatment staff. They would like an integrated screening tool.
Delaware
Delaware team members have been working together closely for years. They have a formal
agreement between child welfare and substance abuse to provide early assessments. As a result
of the workshop, they feel like a more cohesive group. They would like to talk to the judiciary to
start a drug court for child protective services Statewide, and connect TANF funds from the
Department of Social Services to child welfare/substance abuse coordination.
Florida
At the State level, the Florida Department of Children and Families has undertaken initiatives to
reform the child welfare system. But collaboration is more challenging at the State level than at
the local level, where providers meet to discuss cases and clients. The Florida team expressed a
renewed commitment to work with those impacted by trauma. The would like to develop a
screening tool to be used by child welfare, substance abuse, and domestic violence workers.
They will seek to make linkages for clients and not merely referrals.
Virginia
The Virginia child protective services representatives, treatment providers, foster care staff,
TANF representatives, and judicial systems representative are already doing a lot of collaborative
work. They brainstormed about how to make the best use of limited resources and build on the
current structure they have. They would like to work both up and down the system and build an
infrastructure that doesn't depend on personalities. They recognize the need for cross-training.
Alabama
Some of the Alabama teams members didn't know each other prior to the workshop. They
recognize that opportunities to collaborate exist, but they need to identify them. They would like
to meet again to discuss how to maximize limited resources. They plan to change the focus at the
local and State level to benefit clients.
Mississippi
Mississippi team members didn't know each other personally, but they are already doing a lot of
collaborative work. The alcohol and drug system developed an assessment tool for the TANF
system, but team members weren't aware of it until this workshop. They plan to work more
closely together and interface their computer systems.
Maryland
Four of six members of the Maryland team already work closely together. The foster care
representative and public defender will add to the team's effectiveness. Team members learned
they don't understand each other's terminology, and they think the other systems enable their
clients. They plan to continue meeting and to add judges and other key stakeholders. They
recognize the need for cross-training at all levels for agency staff and judges.
South Carolina
South Carolina team members work well together at the State level, but that coordination doesn't
always translate to the regional and local levels. On a positive note, their team includes a TANF
representative, and family drug courts are starting in many counties. Team members recognize a
need for more cross-training, but there are few resources available to support this. In particular,
child protective services staff need expertise in other fields. The State team would like to identify
more treatment money, and work with local providers to provide more coordinated services.
TOC
|
