Child Safety and Well-Being
___________________________________
Research, Resources and Strategies
May 2016
Author: Randa Downs, Child Welfare Specialist
Page 1 of 25
Research on Child Safety and Well-Being:
Resources and Strategies
This report was requested by the Sauer Family Foundation to assist the First 90 Days Project in its work to improve and sustain the
safety and well-being of Minnesota’s children.
Two areas of child welfare are examined:
1. Identification of practice standards and definitions of child safety and well-being. In addition, selected promising strategies
and resources that promote child safety and well-being are included.
2. Identification of the current measurements of child safety and well-being, examples of validated/promising assessment tools
and a brief review of the data and predictive analytics models.
The identified resources and models of practice in this summary are not meant to be exhaustive nor does the Sauer Family
Foundation endorse these resources or programs.
Safety and Well-Being
In an online search of the Minnesota Department of Human Services’ (MDHS) website for definitions of safety and well-being, brief
definitions of child abuse were found in the areas of neglect, physical abuse, mental injury, and sexual abuse. These definitions of
maltreatment are critical to an agency’s ability to protect vulnerable children in unsafe conditions or circumstances. However they
are limited in scope and a positive and affirmative reference to child well-being is not available.
In a broader search for definitions of child well-being, various emphases on child safety and permanency came up again within the
context of child protection. And while recent federal guidelines offer more holistic definitions and interpretations of child well-being,
Page 2 of 25
“a search of the child protection and the broader child welfare literature quickly reveals that the term “child well-being” is used
widely, but with varied and inconsistent meanings.”1
Is it the role of CPS to determine well-being or just safety and permanency? If Minnesota is poised to implement child well-being
principles and practices, it has yet to concretely define child-well-being.
Minnesota-Based Resources
Minnesota Child Maltreatment Intake, Screening and Response Path Guidelines (Dec. 2015).
These guidelines give expanded definitions of the MDHS’ areas of abuse and the corresponding Minnesota statutes are identified. In
a section on documentation of new allegations during open cases, it is left to the worker to make any determination on a case-bycase basis as to a child’s well-being. “Local child welfare agencies have varying practices on whether or not the same worker will
complete a new assessment or investigation. Consider what is best for a child’s safety and well-being in each situation when making
that decision.” There is no information for the worker on what child well-being might look like or how it is defined in the context of
intake or screening.
Child safety is stressed throughout these guidelines, but they are in the context of failure to protect a child, neglect that leads to
unsafe conditions, physical abuse or injury due to parental substance abuse, etc. There is one section that identifies child safety and
strength-based practices (pg. 16) that lists protective factors that could be considered as part of a framework and important to the
overall well-being of children. They include nurturing and attachment, knowledge of parenting and child development, social
connections, parental resilience and supports. Knowledge of strengths and protective factors will, for the worker, strengthen
effectiveness of interventions with a family. But again, a clear connection or model of child well-being is not stated in this section.
1
Jones, A.S., LaLiberte, T., Piescher, K.N. (2015). Defining and strengthening child well-being in child protection. Children and Youth Services Review, 54. 59-70.
Page 3 of 25
This report also notes that a recent revision of state policy includes prevention. “Intervention and prevention efforts must address
immediate concerns for child safety and the ongoing risk of abuse or neglect and should engage the protective capacities of
families.” [Minn. Stat. 626.556, subd. 1]2
Minnesota’s Child Welfare Report 2014: Report to the 2015 MN Legislature (Dec. 2015)
NOTE: This report overlaps with Metrics and Measurements.
This report provides 2014 state and federal performance measures for all counties. The lone mention of well-being is in the
introduction. It states that tribal and county social services “are responsible for safety, placement and well-being of children.” Safety
is connected to the risk of future maltreatment and the assessment of safety. The federal performance indicators (pg. 47 online
document) lists two safety indicators concerning repeat maltreatment and maltreatment in foster care.
The remaining indicators apply to permanency.3
Available at: http://archive.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2015/mandated/151362.pdf
In trying to determine high-performing counties, it was difficult to make strong cases for any particular ones using the discrete data
used in this report. Interviews with several child advocates and researchers confirm that there is a lack of aggregate data because
the current SSIS system is a case management tool and doesn’t support data collection from multiple sources. In addition, a countybased system such as Minnesota lacks a defined and measurable set of practices that one can point to for assurance that these data
prove why a particular county’s children fared better than others.
2
Minnesota Department of Human Services (Dec. 2015). Minnesota Child Maltreatment Intake, Screening and Response Path Guidelines. Child Safety and
Permanency Division, State of Minnesota. Available at: https://edocs.dhs.state.mn.us/lfserver/Public/DHS-5144-ENG
3
Minnesota Department of Human Services (Dec. 2015). Minnesota’s Child Welfare Report 2014. Child Safety and Permanency Division, State of Minnesota.
Page 4 of 25
Minnesota Child and Family Services Plan 2015-2019
NOTE: This report overlaps with Metrics and Measurements.
Issued in 2014 this report lists safety, permanency and child well-being outcomes and how the state performed according to 2013
federal indicators. However, the vision statement only mentions child safety and family stability.
Included in the narrative is an assessment of the state’s strengths, concerns (gaps in service and planning), and the intention to
address early childhood safety and well-being, but the descriptions are brief. Also included in its list of strengths is a four-page
practice model disseminated state-wide that identifies the “outcomes, values, principles and skills necessary to assure child safety,
permanency and well-being.” However it appears to be more of a marketing or public relations snapshot rather than a practice
model for use by child welfare social workers as it lacks comprehensive details.
Three child well-being outcomes are assessed beginning on page 17. The well-being seems to refer primarily to safety and
permanency. In the second outcome, there is reference to the department’s Child Well-being Tool that has been incorporated into
the Structured Decision-Making (SDM) Assessment of Strengths and Needs. The tool is completed by caseworkers to assess the
presenting strengths and needs of children across eight life domain areas, including education. However, the most current version of
the State’s SDM Assessment was unavailable. The 2012 version does not include a child well-being component.
It was noted that the Governor’s Task Force recommendations included revising the guidelines on reports related to older youth
because protection of this population is inadequate. Recommendations 26 and 27 address youth who are runners, joining gangs and
entering into dangerous relationships as responses to underlying family conflict and problems. These recommendations could be
strengthened through the utilization of child well-being principles and practices.
Additional standards and measurements:




Compliance and protective measures per the Indian Child Welfare Act (pg. 74)
Standards for the content and caseworker visits with children in care (pg. 89)
The intent to extend Title IV-E care assistance to ages 18-21.
The proposed measurements and a plan to implement a trauma screening protocol using the state’s SDM tool. (pg. 97)
Available online at: http://archive.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2015/other/150540.pdf
Page 5 of 25
NOTE: This report was written before the Governor’s Task Force Recommendations were released. No updated version of this plan
reflecting revisions that apply to the new recommendations could be located.
Child Safety, Permanency, and Well-Being Checklist: Questions to Ask Regarding Every Child Involved in the Child Protection Court System
(March 2015)
This document from the Children’s Justice Initiative, Minnesota’s Judicial Branch and MDHS offers questions within 13 domains for
judges working in family court many of which are related to well-being and safety.
http://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/scao_library/CJI/Child_Safety,_Permanency,__Wellbeing_Checklist_(March_2015).p
df
Two National Frameworks for Child Well-Being
Looking to the Future: An Agenda for the Children’s Bureau’s Next 100 Years (April 2012)
Bryan Samuels, former Commissioner of the Administration on Children, Youth and Families released this memorandum to all state
agencies to promote the social and emotional well-being of children and youth receiving child welfare services. The memo states
that, “Increasing the focus on well-being is not a move away from the child welfare system’s essential emphasis on safety and
permanency; rather an integrated approach is needed.”4 Furthermore it is believed that moving to a more comprehensive child wellbeing model may strengthen permanency for children.
The memo highlights a Framework for Well-Being (pg. 21) beginning at birth through age 18 and lists two areas of intermediate
outcome domains:

environmental supports that includes family income, social support, and community and neighborhood
4
Administration for Children, Youth and Families (2012). Promoting Social and Emotional Well-Being for Children and Youth Receiving Child Welfare Services.
Washington D.C. Children’s Bureau. Log No. ACYF-CB-IM-12-04.
Page 6 of 25

personal characteristics such as temperament, cognitive ability, and identity development
It follows with four well-being outcome domains:




cognitive functioning such as language development, approaches to learning, academic achievement and problem-solving
and decision-making
physical health and development that includes normative standards for growth and development, overall health and riskavoidance behavior
emotional and behavioral functioning such as trauma symptoms, coping, internalizing and externalizing behaviors and
motivation and self-control
social functioning lists attachment and caregiver relationships, adaptive behavior, social competencies and skills
The ACYF states that safety and permanency are necessary but not sufficient to ensure well-being of children and youth. Children
reunified with families had increases in internalizing behavior; kinship care placements were not predictive of mental health
outcomes; and, regular assessments of adopted children showed they were more behaviorally impaired.5 This could be a cautionary
reminder for legislation on Minnesota’s Northstar Care for Children that became effective January 2015. Hopefully, the
consolidation of family foster care, kinship care and adoption assistance will embrace child well-being assessments such as the tools
recommended by ACYF as it supports permanency for children.
Screening Tools
Children who have experienced maltreatment can have substantial behavioral, emotional and social difficulties. In Section X of the
document, there are examples of strategies to promote well-being in state systems. (pg. 17-18 online). It recommends using valid
and reliable screening and assessment tools as early as possible to…”fulfill child welfare agencies responsibility for ensuring the wellbeing of children and youth who have been exposed to complex interpersonal trauma.”6
5
6
Ibid.
Ibid.
Page 7 of 25
Those screening tools include:




Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS) Trauma version that measures functioning across domains for traumatic
experiences
Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) is a self-report inventory
Pediatric Emotional Distress Scale (PEDS) is a valid rapid screening tool for ages 2-10.
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is a brief behavioral screening instrument for ages 4-16.
More information on these tools are here: https://training.cfsrportal.org/book/export/html/2458
ACYF also recommends using evidence-based interventions and lists a number of private and public organizations that offer
databases and reviews of valid and reliable screening instruments.
The memo goes on to caution that some approaches to social and emotional well-being have been researched and found to not
deliver what was promised. Life skills training, generic counseling and parenting classes are ineffective and should be “de-scaled.”
Trauma screening, evidence-based trauma interventions and psychological first aid are research-based strategies that do work and
should be “scaled up” in state systems.
Available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/im1204.pdf
Integrating Safety, Permanency and Well-Being Series: A Comprehensive Framework for Nurturing the Well-Being of Children and
Adolescents (Feb 2014)
This more recent report describes a second framework published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is the
first of three papers on how to integrate safety, permanency and child well-being in child welfare. It provides a framework for
“considering the domains and indicators of well-being. It identifies the normal developmental trajectory for children and
Page 8 of 25
adolescents and provides examples of evidence-based interventions to use when a child’s healthy development has been
impacted by maltreatment.”7
This framework offers information on recent neuroscience discoveries that show how maltreatment can impact brain functioning
and architecture and it confirms that evidence-based interventions are critical to the healing and recovery processes of children and
their families. The framework presented (pg. 6 online) was adopted from an analysis by the Promise Neighborhoods Research
Consortium (PNRC) and collaborative researchers. The PRNC model focuses on distal influences, proximal influences, biological
mediators and primary outcomes.
It is followed by a series of tables that highlight the following:




Key outcomes in all developmental phases from prenatal to adolescence ages 15-19.
Milestone outcomes
Lists of evidence-based family interventions for early childhood to late adolescence
Resources to determine cost benefits
One of the most persuasive descriptions of why child welfare should embrace a more holistic child well-being model is at the end of
the paper. It shows a picture of how many fragmented silos there are when it comes to working with children and families:
”Different organizations have worked on different aspects of the same problem with little coordination and without a shared
understanding of what young people need. Education has worked on ensuring young people’s academic skills, but has typically given social
and emotional development much less attention. Agencies addressing child abuse have typically done so as though this problem could be
solved with a focus on safety and permanency. Organizations exist to prevent teenage pregnancy, but often focus narrowly on sexual
activity, as though it has nothing to do with coercive family and social environments. Criminal justice deals with delinquency, but rarely
intervenes in families to prevent delinquency from developing. Drug abuse treatment treats drug abuse, but not mental illness, while
mental health treatment is provided by other agencies, as if problems like depression and anxiety are unrelated to drug abuse. And few of
these efforts take into account the effect of maltreatment and trauma on the developing brain architecture and stress response system,
7
Biglan, A. (Feb. 2014). A Comprehensive Framework for Nurturing the Well-Being of Children and Adolescents. Department of Health and Human Services,
Wash. D.C.
Page 9 of 25
which are significant causes of derailed development across all domains of well-being. All of this is changing thanks to the accumulation of
a huge amount of evidence about neuro-biological, behavioral and psychological development.”8
Link to the Framework: http://gucchdtacenter.georgetown.edu/resources/WP1%20-
%20Comprehensive%20Framework%20508%20v5.pdf
Essentials for Childhood: Steps to Create Safe, Stable, Nurturing Relationships and Environments
NOTE: This resource document overlaps with Measurements and Metrics.
The guide was written by the Centers for Disease Control whose frame of reference to child maltreatment is through a public health
lens. They identify safety, stability and nurturing as qualities important during stages of child development that if promoted can be
prevention strategies. One example is Parent Child Interactive Therapy that has been shown to reduce physical child abuse in
families who are at risk of causing harm to a child.
There is a Note of Caution statement on how to bring awareness of child abuse and well-being via targeted messaging for
stakeholders. Messages include the consequences and negative impacts on children, their families and communities; the economic
impact on our society; and emphasizing how investing in evidence-based strategies can alleviate child abuse and impact child wellbeing.
There is useful information on gathering and using data (pg. 18) and they recommend capturing
cross-systems data.
The document link:
8
Ibid.
Page 10 of 25
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/essentials_for_childhood_framework.pdf
As a final note on child safety and well-being, in a recent article in the Star Tribune, County Board Chairwoman Jan Callison spoke
about Hennepin County’s aim to collaborate more in 2016.
“…children could be better served through something like a child well-being model or
the creation of a Department of Children…breaking down silos and harmonizing
efforts that are underway.”9
Measurements and Data Collection
Many national child welfare leaders believe that evidenced-based decision making can lead to better outcomes for child safety,
permanency and well-being. There is increasing interest in and utilization of data analytics and the sometimes controversial
predictive analytics movement. “Just as companies and organizations are capturing, analyzing and sharing data in new ways, social
service groups can use these approaches to inform and strengthen their work.” 10
Minnesota already captures data to show compliance with federal indicators of child safety and permanency. It submits a
standardized data set to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) on a yearly basis. It includes data for each
unique child and a unique report that is screened in for assessment or investigation. However, NCANDS data is limited to screened in
reports.
Here is an example of Minnesota Data for 2010 – 2013 on safety, permanency and well-being as reported to Congress by the ACYF
and Children’s Bureau. The sources for the data is the Census Bureau, NCANDS, and AFCARS. It meets compliance and covers the key
indicators for safety and permanency. However, if we are looking for data on stability, nurturing, families economic health, etc. this
data does not provide that more holistic view.
9
Smith, K. (April 21, 2016). Hennepin County aims to partner, collaborate more in 2016. Star Tribune. Available at: http://www.startribune.com/hennepincounty-aims-to-partner-collaborate-more-in-2016/376647771/
10
Guterman, K and others (June 2015). Assessment of Hennepin County Children and Family Services’ Intake System. Casey Family Programs. Seattle, WA.
Page 11 of 25
To view Minnesota data, open the Executive Summary and scroll down on the left sidebar to State data. Click on Minnesota.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/cwo-10-13
According to Casey Family Programs’ 2015 assessment of Hennepin County’s Child Protective Services (CFS), there were a large
number of cases screened out. “Minnesota has one of the highest screen-out rates in the country at 71% of total reports and
Hennepin County CFS screens out almost two-thirds of reports (63%).”11 When the reviewers asked for a custom data pull, the data
regarding CPS screened out reports was extremely limited and did not show re-report rates for screened-out cases which is an
important indicator of child safety. The data received was…”in a complex structure, including 28 different worksheets with tens of
thousands of records that all needed to be joined together in order to identify patterns.”12
In addition, several advocates and researchers gave the opinion that the SSIS, the state’s case record system, is less useful for
tracking relevant indicators at a systems level. When asked about the Child Welfare Data Dashboard, they had a similar response. It
is meant to be a public-information tool that tracks the 12 key federal indicators for safety and permanency. It gives ratings of Met
or Not Met for each county and other high-level data on a quarterly basis.13 The SSIS system and the Data Dashboard is not
configured to measure child well-being or detect risks of maltreatment.
Developing a dedicated data unit or center that had the ability and nimbleness to capture complex data from diverse sources would
be ideal for the entire State. This would allow CFS managers to understand system functioning and detect trends from various
perspectives and detect risks to children and families before they enter the system.
Integrated Data Systems, Projects and Reports
Cumulative Risk of Child Protection Service Involvement before Age 5: A Population-Based Examination (2015)
11
Ibid. Note that this data is from February 2015.
Ibid.
13
Note: The Child Protection Strategy work group report of 2015 lists updates to be made to SSIS and Child Data Dashboard (include well-being).
12
Page 12 of 25
The Children’s Data Network in collaboration with the University of Southern California’s School of Social has conducted a
prevention-focused evaluation of all children born in California in 2006 and 2007. Principal investigator for the project is Emily
Putnam-Hornstein, Ph.D. These children were matched to statewide child protection records up to a child’s fifth birthday.
“These linked records were then analyzed by county, allowing us to describe the characteristics of children at birth and generate
longitudinal, cumulative estimates of how many children were involved with CPS during the first 5 years of life. Additionally, these
data provide an opportunity to examine child-and family-level characteristics at a population level, helping us to identify attributes
that are most strongly correlated with later CPS-involvement.”14
The Children’s Data Network website provides a summary of their project and an overview of their findings in three areas:
Cumulative Count, Burden of Abuse and Neglect, and Variable Risk. The report offers this example of variable risk: “in viewing data
for both California and Los Angeles, we see that among children without paternity established at birth, roughly 1 in 3 was reported
for maltreatment.”15
Like Minnesota, California is a county-based system. This site offers interactive cumulative risk companion reports for over half the
counties. These reports give information on the selected variables used, findings on each county, helpful definitions of Record
Linkages, the differences between retrospective vs. prospective designs and five data tables.





Table 1: Characteristics of children by birth payment method
Table 2: Characteristics and comparisons of children reported to CPS
Table 3: Characteristics and comparisons of children that are substantiated
Table 4: Characteristics and comparisons of children place in foster care
Table 5: A summary of county data
Link to website: http://www.datanetwork.org/research/1002
14
Putnam-Hornstein, E., Mitchell, M.N., Hammond, I. (201), Cumulative Risk of Child Protection Service Involvement before Age 5: A Population-Based
Examination. Children’s Data Network. University of Southern California.
15
Ibid.
Page 13 of 25
America’s Children: Key National Indictors of Well-Being, 2015
This recent report published by The Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics provides a summary of national
indicators of child well-being. Their intention is to improve reporting of Federal data on children and families.
The section titled About This Report is a helpful guide to this large paper. It shows the conceptual framework used, how the report is
structured and changes made which are primarily the addition of health-related information.
The value of this report is the rich variety of data it offers on a national level. It could be a blueprint for how states set up their
databases and the cross-systems of data captured. For example, under Health, there are eight indicators including infant mortality,
emotional and behavioral difficulties, adolescent depression, obesity and asthma. Under Education, there are indicators for family
reading to young children, high school completion and college enrollment as well as academic achievements. The section on
Economic Circumstances, there are indicators for child poverty, parental employment and food insecurity.
Each indicator section also offers indicators needed. What is missing in terms of data? Under Health it is the need to develop
improved measurements of children with disabilities. For Education, there is a need for better data on early childhood development
that tracks the cognitive, emotional and social skills of preschoolers and young children over time. Under Economic Circumstances,
there to track economic well-being of families over time and measurements of long-term poverty of families with children.
The report delivers its data in quick bulleted forms and well-developed graphs and charts.
The report is here: http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/
Minnesota Child Welfare Continuous Improvement Brief: Examining Child Re-entry into Out-of Home Care (2013)
This is one of the key areas in need of improvement. The report examines what is known about families and their children who reenter care (pg. 3) using various factors. One of the factors is race and African American children had the highest re-entry rates. It
also acknowledges there are risk or predictive factors that could be used to anticipate re-entry. (pg.7).
The report states that “Within the Minnesota Child and Family Service Reviews conducted, promising approaches have emerged that
assist in addressing the tension between expedited reunification and the likelihood of re-entry.”16 A list of strategies and
16
Minnesota Department of Human Services (2013). Minnesota Child Welfare Continuous Improvement Brief: Examining Child Re-entry into Out-of-Home Care.
Page 14 of 25
recommendations can be found on pages 10-11. One call for improvement is improved data tracking to break down the category of child
behavior problems. The recommendation is to implement an SSIS enhancement.
A link to the report is here:
https://edocs.dhs.state.mn.us/lfserver/Public/DHS-6637A-ENG
Two Risk Assessment Models
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania: Department of Human Services’ Data Warehouse
This article expands on the story of how Alleghany County, under the leadership of Marc Cherna, Children and Youth Services
Director in the county since 1996, mandated that a data warehouse be built in 1999. It gives a quick snapshot of how they overcame
the challenges of disconnected systems and addressed staff doubts of its efficacy and ease of use. Written in 2014, the warehouse
has since then begun sharing data with the public school system.
Allegheny County is now attempting to break new ground with a project to build a predictive analytics tool─what Cherna refers to as
the new frontier. Emily Putnum-Hornstein has begun to work with the county on such a tool that would not only use child welfare
case history housed in their warehouse, but pull in law enforcement, health and education data.
As stated earlier in this report, predictive analytics/risk assessments are not without its detractors.
The links below lead to a number of informational documents about this work. The first link is the county’s site on the Data
Warehouse.
http://www.alleghenycounty.us/Human-Services/News-Events/Accomplishments/DHS-Data-Warehouse.aspx
This is the article out of Harvard University.
http://datasmart.ash.harvard.edu/news/article/allegheny-county-pennsylvania-department-of-human-services-data-warehouse-4
Page 15 of 25
National Child Protection Clearinghouse Resource Sheet: Risk Assessment in Child Protection
The second risk assessment model comes from the Australian Institute of Family Studies and compares consensus-based and
actuarial assessment instruments and their strengths and weaknesses. It offers a list of criticisms of standardized risk assessments.
There are two case studies.
On the efficacy of actuarial assessment tools, the article states: …”evidence suggests that if the goal of assessment is to identify
those children whose situation warrants further investigation, then actuarial assessment tools will likely produce a more accurate
prediction than consensus-based tools…actuarial tools are usually developed by statistically modelling the factors that increase the
risk of re-referral to child protection services. They enable practitioners to make evidence-based judgements about which children
are at the highest risk of re-referral to child protection services.”17
The link to the article is here:
https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/sites/default/files/publication-documents/rs24.pdf
A Profile of Youth in the Los Angeles County Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Pilot (2015)
This less than successful pilot is included in this report because of the valuable lessons learned in the Summary and
Recommendations (pg. 35). It offers cautionary wisdom on data collection by workers and fidelity to the tool used and mistakes
made in data entry.
http://www.nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/la_dpp_evaluation_report.pdf
17
Price-Robertson, R., Bromfield, L. (2011). National Child Protection Clearinghouse Resource Sheet: Risk Assessment in Child Protection.
Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Page 16 of 25
Partners for Our Children: Data Portal
While this site focuses on Washington State, it shows the possibility of how to capture rich data and make it easily accessible.
http://partnersforourchildren.org/data
Yale Child Study Center
Yale has an evidence-based program called Minding the Baby. The link below takes you to the FAQ. They work, of course, primarily
within Connecticut, but there are options to replicate the program.
http://mtb.yale.edu/about/faqs.aspx
Child Well-Being Ancillary Resources
Family Strengthening Research
This family affirmative paper, written by the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, focuses on research and evaluation related
to strengthening families, fatherhood engagement, monitoring infants and toddlers and older youth transitioning to adulthood.
There are several evidence-based programs highlighted.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/opre_familystrengthresearch_v7_web_007.pdf
What to Say, What to Do: African American Babies Coalition
This Twin Cities based website is written by local professional and caregiving African Americans. They offer well-being suggestions for families
with infants.
http://www.africanamericanbabies.org/what-to-say-what-to-do/
Page 17 of 25
Defining and Strengthening Child Well-Being in Child Protection
In their research, the authors of this paper confirm the ongoing discussion of how difficult it is to define child well-being. They offer
several frameworks to consider as examples. They also issue a cautionary note: “failing to address issues and trauma and well-being
at early points of contact within child protection systems, these children may be at an increased risk for placement stability,
placement in more restrictive settings, and behavior problems that may follow children even as they transition into adulthood.” 18
This article is located in the Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 54 – May 2015.
National Child Protection Training Act
This bill written by Amy Klobuchar, Al Franken, and John Boozman would use the model of child welfare training being used by
National Child Protection Training Center’s (NCPTC) facilities at Winona State University in Winona, Minnesota, and at Northwest
Arkansas Community College in Bentonville, Arkansas.
This is a link to Klobuchar’s website: http://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/2015/12/klobuchar-boozman-franken-introduce-bipartisannational-child-protection-training-act
Measurements and Data Ancillary Resources
Eckerd Rapid Safety Feedback and Success Metrics (2016)
Eckerd’s Kids is a private provider located in Florida. After a series of high-profile child deaths, they developed the Eckerd Rapid
Safety Tool. It relies on data analytics to flag high-probability of risk cases for intensive monitoring. There is a case-study in
Hillsborough County, FL and the agency claims it is working with Alaska, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine and Oklahoma to custom-tailor
18
Jones, A.S., LaLiberte, T., Piescher, K.N. (2015). Defining and strengthening child well-being in child protection. Children and Youth Services Review, 54. 59-70.
Page 18 of 25
the model for their systems. While intriguing, it is in the ancillary section because not enough concrete information could be found.
This may be because it is highly proprietary information.
http://www.eckerd.org/2016/03/23/eckerd-rapid-safety-feedback-highlighted-national-report-commission-eliminate-child-abuseneglect-fatalities/
They have a page on their site on Success Metrics on how to measure performance. Again, their methods are not clearly
communicated.
http://www.eckerd.org/about-eckerd-kids/what-were-doing/success-metrics/
Being a Good Consumer of Predictive Analytics in Child Protection (2015)
This is a webinar produced by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency that addresses questions agencies and organizations
should be asking when considering this type of data mining. It is a Vimeo with some audio issues in the very beginning. Let it run for
about 60 seconds – the audio will begin working by then.
http://vimeo.com/145566451
Can Big Data Save These Children? (March 2016)
This report Laura Santhanam Public Broadcasting examines the possibilities and pitfalls of using predictive analytics to determine
which children and their families are at risk of abuse and neglect. It features the successes that Pennsylvania’s Alleghany County has
had with its data warehouse.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/can-big-data-save-these-children/
National Baby Facts: infants, toddlers and their families in the United States (2012 data)
This site could be useful in helping development well-being metrics for birth to three – the most vulnerable age group in child
welfare. http://www.zerotothree.org/public-policy/pdf/national-baby-facts.pdf
Page 19 of 25
Here are the facts for Minnesota’s babies. http://www.zerotothree.org/public-policy/state-community-policy/babyfacts/minnesota-baby-facts.pdf
Page 20 of 25
Addendum
Recommendations to Improve Child Welfare in Minnesota: A Comparison
In attempting to compare the three sets of recommendations it was apparent that it was similar to comparing apples and oranges.
There were a number of similar recommendations, but just as many differences in context and language. For instance, the Citizen
Review Panel’s report makes strong recommendations for developing specific practice standards for children ages 0-3. There is
scant mention in the other two reports. However, all three reports stress the importance of collecting better data. Listing all Casey
Family Programs’ recommendations is used to launch this comparison. All three reports are accessible below this table.
Casey Family Programs
Engage staff at all levels in a re-visioning process for an
improved CPS system. Include community
stakeholders. (Urgent)
Reconsider the Open Office Space arrangement; give
workers assigned spaces for desks and computers to
operate effectively. (Urgent)
Add staff (caseworkers, case aides admin staff) to
screening/investigational units to carry out tasks as
required by CFS policies (Urgent)
Give CFS permission to hire to vacancy rate (Urgent)
Re-examine policy/procedural requirements to free up
caseworkers to spend more time with children and
families (Urgent)
Do a workload study to verify the time required to
complete CPS work as described in policy and
procedural manuals. (Urgent)
Page 21 of 25
Hennepin County Citizen Review Panel
Child Protection Strategy Work Group
There is no mention of rectifying this issue.
This report suggests that these kinds of strategies
are too costly and take away resources from
serving children and families.
Casey Family Programs
Hennepin County Citizen Review Panel
HSPHD needs to adopt a positive leadership model to:
 Develop a culture of safety
 Make it safe for staff to speak their minds
 Invest in professional development and
certification programs for all staff
Leadership fully commits to Signs of Safety; develop a
3-5 year plan to implement and make it an agency
priority.
Child Protection Strategy Work Group
1) DHS should immediately review, update and
validate all decision-making tools with
priority given to the safety assessment. 2)
Identify a validated safety assessment tool
that better reflects dangerousness and child
vulnerability.
Develop internal communication plan that tolerates
different views and engenders hope; CFS leaders will
model how they want staff to communicate with
families on a daily basis.
Develop and implement a well-articulated practice
model that integrates work of all units.
Develop opportunities for community professionals
and citizens to engage in improving child protection
issues.
Screening, track assignment and response time
decisions need to focus on safety and well-being.
Revise criteria for screening/track assignment of
reports of inflicted non-visible or past physical
injuries, neglect reports in which children are not
substantially endangered and reports of children 0-3
and disabled children endangered by parental
substance abuse, mental health conditions and
domestic violence.
Page 22 of 25
Need better coordination and communication
with service agencies; better use of volunteers;
encourage better collaboration between
service agencies and caseworkers to help with
engaging families; provide more relevant info
on the child/family so the agency can provide
appropriate interventions.
Recommendations are similar to Casey’s
Develop specific practice standards for children
0-3 years that requires investigation of every
report of abuse; track every report in a data
system; treat any subsequent report(s) with
the same urgency as the threat of imminent
danger.
Casey Family Programs
Provide training/supervision for screeners to reinforce
interviewing skills that gathers relevant info from
callers. Allow screeners to ask “leading” questions to
gather key info.
CFS managers mandate the use of risk assessment
guidelines for screened-in cases which do not involve
substantial endangerment of children at time of
report as the basis for track assignment.
Consider creating specialized units for investigations
and family assessments to allow for the best use of
caseworkers’ skills.
Expand funding for prevention services for families
with apparent risk factors and need help yet are not
screened into CPS or FA case management.
Develop and implement guidelines to use safety
plans; focus on format and follow-up to these plans.
Contract with a consultant/expert to review how CFS
responds to chronic neglect, chronic maltreatment
cases and emotional maltreatment to improve CFS
practice with these types of maltreatment.
CFS needs a more diverse workforce to help
strengthen and sustain relationships with
communities of color.
Invest in improving cultural competency of all staff.
Identity ways to improve the quality of screening
units’ workforce. Best caseworkers in the agency need
to be screening CPS reports.
Page 23 of 25
Hennepin County CP Citizen Review Panel
Child Protection Strategy Work Group
Adopt stronger and more robust intake and
screening tools for data gathering prior to
pathway assignment to strengthen the quality of
the information available.
Recommendations are similar to Casey’s. In
addition, provide consistent funding for service
providers.
DHS, as part of a redesign review, engage
outside expert to work with the agency,
counties, tribes and stakeholders to advise,
develop and implement MN’s child protection
response continuum.
Develop a community system of early
intervention that is non-judgmental, nonconfrontational and culturally appropriate.
Recommendations are similar to Casey’s
Recommendations are similar to Casey’s
DHS should collect and use data on racial
disparities to develop an evidence-based plan to
reduce disparities at critical points in the child
protection system.
Casey Family Programs
Have practitioners from various units determine
reasonable caseload standards and standards for
assignment of new investigations/assessments. Insure
consistent use of these standards.
Reinstate case aide and clerical support staff positions
to give casework staff more time to work directly with
families and more accurately assess child safety and
risk of future maltreatment.
Conduct a workload study specific to Hennepin to
provide a better understanding of the actual time
needed for caseworkers to complete various required
tasks and would provide a factual basis for staffing
requests.
Conduct a workload study to better understand the
time commitments necessary for new administrative
requirements recommended by the Governor’s Task
Force.
Create a dedicated data unit that can provide timely
data reports that describe work at the case, unit and
system levels. This will develop capacity for CFS as a
learning organization by generating relevant data at a
level that is user friendly for caseworkers, supervisors
and managers.
Hennepin County Citizen Review Panel
Child Protection Strategy Work Group
Recommendations are similar to Casey’s
Develop a cost model and funding proposal for
the legislature that fully funds a CP system to
address safety consistently statewide, is
outcome-based, supports innovation, access and
equity.
Establish workload standards for CP workers and
supervisors. Include necessary funding in
legislative budget requests.
Recommendations are similar to Casey’s
Partner with Human Services Performance
Council to produce a dashboard and reports for
both the counties and citizens that provides
needed data on performance. Note: they see a
statewide child abuse and neglect reporting
system as too costly and would take resources
away from children.
Articulate a clear set of behaviorally based practice
guidelines to describe key practices consistent with
the FA approach. Develop accountability systems to
maintain practice fidelity to that model.
Note: Casey’s recommendations are specific to Hennepin County, but could be applicable to other counties; the Citizen Review
Panel’s findings are both specific to Hennepin County and apply to broader reform statewide; and, the Child Protection Strategy
Work Group’s recommendations are statewide. Links to full reports follow this table.
Page 24 of 25
Assessment of Hennepin County Child and Family Services’ Intake System (June 2015)
This is a comprehensive assessment/analysis done by Casey Family Programs, a national foster care foundation in February 2015.
The report looks at how effective CPS was at assessing and addressing child safety, risk and needs of families. They focused primarily
on screening, assessment, investigation and closure and transition. It also examined how well are child welfare capacity and system
resources currently working to address safety concerns. http://archive.kare11.com/legacy/pdfs/hennepin-county-full-report.pdf
Hennepin County Child Protection Citizen Review Panel: 2015 Annual Report
The strength of this report is in its focus on four critical areas: the vulnerability of children birth to three to child abuse and neglect;
the need for stronger coordination between child protection staff and community service providers; systemic issues such as poverty
and housing instability; and, the limitations of the current data system both county and statewide.
http://www.dhs.state.mn.us/main/groups/children/documents/pub/dhs16_195820.pdf
Child Protection Strategy Workgroup (2015)
This is the DHS and MACSSA work plan being used to help implement some of the recommendation that came out of the Governor’s Task Force
and the Casey Family Programs assessment of Hennepin County’s Child Protection System. System improvements have been prioritized and
given timeframes. It is the least helpful in terms of concrete recommendations.
http://www.lcc.leg.mn/tfcp/meetings/11102015/Child%20Protection%20Strategy%20Work%20group%20REVISED.PDF
Page 25 of 25