EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive Summary

An Overview of Emerging Child Abuse Prevention Models

Alison E. Suominen

University of Minnesota Duluth

The purpose of this study was to assist the Carlton County Human Service Agency in their plans to launch a child abuse prevention program. To assist in their program development efforts this researcher was asked to research child abuse preventative program models around the country and provide background on possible program options. A special focus of the study was to identify how the characteristics of recent Minnesota initiatives, funded by DFIS, compare with the National child welfare programs?

Methodology

This study is a comparative analysis of nine innovative child welfare projects in Minnesota, recently funded by the State Department of Human Services, with a framework- of "best practices" criteria developed for this study. In this study, I developed a "best practices" framework (variables) that characterize ideal child welfare programs. These characteristics were generated from the literature review through a content analysis of materials describing Nationally recognized model projects, funded by leading foundations and government services such as the WX Kelloggg Foundation, the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse, and the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

I utilized the "best practice- criteria as a too] to analyze the National child welfare models and Minnesota State initiatives. For this study, I tested nine recently funded Minnesota initiatives against the "best practice" criteria. I determined which of the variables within the "best practice" criteria were found specifically on Minnesota model projects funded by DHS.

In collecting data for my research I conducted interviews, utilized existing data- documents, and records that are publicly available through electronic sources (Internet), journal articles, training/program manuals, and research documents. When available, annual reports, reports of supporting foundations (e.g. Kellogg, Foundation, Casey Foundation) were also reviewed.

Results,

The results obtained 'in this study present a review of some "best practices" emerging in the field of child abuse and neglect. An organizing umbrella among these new programs is "Community Partnerships," a comprehensive new approach for protecting children. In the findings, I narrowed the focus on the two most ambitious changes necessary for building Community Partnerships: (1) creating, differential response by the CPS agency, and (2) developing comprehensive neighborhood-based supports and services.

To date, the major examples of differential response have been the "dual track" designs being tested in Missouri, Florida, and Iowa. Another innovative approach that was established to create a differential response is the Community Peacemaking Circle Process. Significantly, I found that the limitations of each model could be balanced out by the strengths of the opposite model.

The "dual track" systems is a simple approach but one that provides freedom and opportunity for communities to develop according to their own strengths and limitations. Given the composition of Carlton County, I found the Community Peacemaking Circle approach to be exciting. creative and especially compatible to the values framework of the Ojibwe culture. After examining each of the models strengths and limitations. I decided to combine the strengths of both the dual track and Community Peacemaking model to portray a new model.

In the second half of the findings, I also discussed comprehensive neighborhood-based supports and services as an essential piece of community partnerships. In the development of a continuum of pro-rams and services that effectively strengthen and support families, I have identified key services that communities could provide in their search for effective prevention programs for families. The primary product of my data analysis is the development and construction of two matrices. These rnatrices describe how key characteristics essential to "best practice" child welfare programs (as identified in the literature and National model projects) compared within Minnesota initiatives funded by DHS.

Importantly, I found both the Minnesota initiatives and the National child welfare models to strongly target cultural competent practice. One evident discrepancy between the Minnesota models and the National child welfare models is the "dual track" characteristic. Eighty percent of the pilot projects funded by the Minnesota Child Welfare-Child Protection Reform Grant shared dual track characteristics which clearly illustrates Minnesota's support for this new model of practice. It is likely that the reason dual track is not a characteristic of the "best practice" child welfare programs is because it predates the establishment of the dual track model.

There are three specific characteristics found to be strongly present in the "best practice" models as opposed to the Minnesota models. These characteristics are: reaches key times in family life cycle, provides 81-nergency and crisis services, and universality ("available to all families"). It is interesting that these important areas are not addressed by the most current Minnesota models, even with the emphasis of the Safe Families Act. The Safe Family Act was established around the time of the Minnesota initiatives to enhance the capacity and accountability for both safety and permanence of children.

Limitations

There are areas in the study which could be improved. First there was only one key informant interviewed to contribute to the development of this study. None-the-less, I was able to phone administrators to attempt to clarify program's parameters of recently developed programs funded by the Minnesota Department of Human Services. However, most of these administrators regarded their projects as too young to discuss.

I feel it is also important to recognize that the majority of the study focuses on building Community Partnerships and more specifically on the "dual track" concept. It is the current popular trend which has taken shape throughout various states and numerous counties. Another I imitation identified is the fact that a great deal of the information generated for this study will essentially be "old news" by the time it reaches Carlton County Social Services. Research within the field of child abuse and neglect is always rapidly changing-it may already be implemented in some places while others may have already discarded them. Thus, there is a risk of research being out dated as soon as it is in print.

Recommendations

With this collected data, I would recommend that a community-based advisory council or taskforce may be established within Carlton County to begin the creation and innovation of their own unique response to child abuse and neglect based on these findings. I strongly suggest that Carlton County involve the community in the process of creating innovative ways to find answers to better support children and families; and that the community task force utilize the freedom they have to establish their own method of a child abuse prevention model that reflects unique community values and norms as well as emphasizes the target community's existing resources.

Regents of the University of Minnesota | College of Education and Human Service Professions

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.

Contact the webmaster for comments