CPS assessment tool raises criticism: The system is based on 1986model...

CPS assessment tool raises criticism
Long paperwork said to be thorough, but system is based on 1986 model
By Josh Brodesky
arizona daily star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 06.04.2007

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/related/185926.php

Child Protective Services launched an updated assessment tool Friday
that officials say will help guide case managers through their
investigations, ensuring they do thorough and comprehensive work.
But the tool has drawn heavy criticism from those who say it involves
excessive paperwork, is outdated in its approach and won't necessarily
help the agency safeguard kids.
CPS is under intense legislative and public scrutiny after high-profile
deaths of children who were in its charge here, including Brandon
Williams, 5; Tyler Payne, 5; and his younger sister Ariana, 4.
A completed sample assessment distributed internally at CPS is 81 pages,
raising concerns that investigators, already juggling heavy caseloads,
will lose time to filling out the assessment.
Also, one leading expert in child welfare assessment said the tool is
reflective of what was used 20 years ago, and that it will do nothing to
make children safer.
Similar assessment tools are used in other states, CPS officials said
Friday, and the new changes were brought about with the help of
consultants and feedback from CPS staff.
Without the changes, "we weren't able to see how they (investigators)
made their decisions," said Janice Mickens, an administrator with CPS.
"We need to have something that guides us throughout this process."
Glitches in assessment tool
So after a brief trial period in Pima County, the assessment tool was
launched statewide Friday despite several lingering technical glitches.
For example, investigators can't save their work on the computer until
the lengthy document is filled out. Then, once it's saved, it can't be
reopened, meaning that additional information has to be added as an
addendum. There is also no date/time stamp to document when information
is input, so, in theory, a person could back-date their work in the
unsaved document.
After reviewing a copy of the 81-page sample assessment, Christopher
Baird, vice president for the Children's Research Center, a nonprofit
group that has developed assessment tools for 24 states as well as
Australia and Canada, said he was "kind of astonished."
"It is very poorly designed, and it really represents where the field
was 20 years ago," he said. "It's the kind of thing we came into the
field to work on replacing."
Asked about the length, he said it is "one of the longest systems we
have ever encountered."
Length ensures thoroughness
CPS spokeswoman Liz Barker Alvarez said the newly implemented tool is
about 50 pages when not filled out. The length is needed to ensure more
thorough and complete investigations, CPS officials said.
"Sometimes staff forgets that they should see every child or every
caregiver in the home," said Linda Johnson, CPS's state policy manager.
To achieve this goal, the tool does not use a chronological
investigation narrative, but instead divides the narrative by the people
interviewed. There are sections for parents, children, officials and others.
CPS officials said they realize such a format could possibly be
confusing, but that it guarantees investigators are interviewing all the
right people.
"The reason we separated it out that way was, again, that staff
understand that they need to interview all persons in the home," Johnson
said.
She and Mickens declined to say how often investigators fail to
interview people they are supposed to.
Tool dated to 1986
The new tool assesses child safety and risk, and it is the risk portion
that Baird said is antiquated.
The risk portion is modeled after an assessment tool developed in
Washington.
That tool was developed in 1986 — although it has been updated.
The general philosophy behind it and the Arizona model is what is known
as a "consensus-based" approach, meaning the case manager assesses risk
from a number of areas like the child's behavior and development,
severity of abuse and the qualities of the caretaker, among others.
Such an approach has been criticized in social work academic journals
for being subjective, overly broad and using the same variables to
predict different types of abuse and neglect.
Johnson said the Washington model was chosen as a basis for the changes
partly because it creates "uniformity" in decision-making. That is, by
using it, different case managers should usually come to similar
conclusions about the same cases.
Research suggests, however, that the model doesn't necessarily create
uniformity.
One academic study, led by Baird, found the Washington model was "no
better than chance."
Also, a review published by the University of California-Berkeley said
the Washington assessment did not "perform very well" in predicting
future child maltreatment.
Rep. Paton has doubts
In an e-mail, Baird said the Arizona model is "at best, based very
loosely on the Washington risk assessment instrument."
"Perhaps more telling is that the state of Washington is in the process
of developing a research-based assessment instrument to replace the
current tool," he wrote.
Rep. Jonathan Paton, a Tucson Republican who is taking part in
legislative hearings on CPS, said his main concerns were the technical
glitches and the amount of time it will take to fill out the document.
"I can agree that you want an assessment which is uniform," he said in
an e-mail. "But the 81 pages seems excessive. I can envision a lot of
frustration from workers who have too many cases as it is."
Mickens said she doesn't think the changes would add much, if any,
additional time. She said workers were already filling out many of the
same forms, only the forms were kept separate. The newly implemented
tool simply brings those forms together.
But the agency also didn't study how long it took investigators — many
of whom average about 12 new cases a month — to fill out the new form.
"We didn't really look at that," Mickens said. "This is a critical tool.
We believe it's important to ask the right questions."
Despite such concerns raised by Baird and Paton, CPS officials see the
new changes as a step toward child-welfare reform.
In a memo sent across CPS, Deputy Director Ken Deibert said the changes
"will move this organization even closer to achieving the goals of
reforming our child welfare system."






CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A
DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NSA / CIA
WIRETAPPING PROGRAM....

CPS Does not protect children...
It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even
killed at the hands of Child Protective Services.

every parent should read this .pdf from
connecticut dcf watch...

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com

Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US
These numbers come from The National Center on
Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN)
Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS

*Perpetrators of Maltreatment*

Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59
Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13
Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241
Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12
Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5

Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that
are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per
100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse
and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the
citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold
parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY
government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and
death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more
human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which
they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that
they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when
children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a
bunch of social workers.

BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF
REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES
TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY
ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION...

My biggest complaint about Risk Assessment instruments
is that they are intended to make decisions without
attitude and subjective bias.

But most of them have a great many "override" sections
which allow caseworkers to input a GREAT DEAL of
attitudinal bias, subjective bias, etc.

(Completely defeating the basic intent of the whole thing!)

A secondary concern is the rediculous nature of some
of the "indicators".

A single Mom, living in the country, with three kids
is basically considered GUILTY before she even makes
the mistake of opening her door to a caseworker.

The score sheet marks families as being at risk
using score points for such things as

living in the country,
single Parent,
more than 2 kids.

One version of these "idiot sheet" checklists was created
by an outfit called Structured Decision Making and
on their web site they had a disclaimer against using
their instrument for actual decision making.

The form is supposed to be used only after a family is
founded, to assess services to be contracted and directed.

The problem is that many caseworkers actually use
this form long before any founded, to DECIDE whether
or not to found the family. Where they don't misuse
this instrument in that way, they still USE IT to justify
the founded decision after the fact! (Which implies
of course that it was part of how they arrived at the decision.)

The Structured Decision Making web site that said
their product is not for decision making has undergone
massive changes.

SDM is a consortium put together by several states
but there are several different groups or companies
that have created them, many versions of these
"Risk Assessment" ""idiot sheets"" in use.

Some states have created Risk Assessment forms
that are plagiarized or homogenized plagiarizations
of other copyrighted risk assessment documents.

Creators urge that caseworkers using these "instruments"
need a lot of expensive training to use the instruments
properly, provided by them of course. They seem to
presume that caseworkers have a high level of training
and education that they do not in fact have.

Most CPS caseworkers have never even read the entire
state manual for their JOB.

Even when caseworkers go through training, they are
only provided with pieces and parts of the caseworker
manual, not the entire manual.

Why pretend the Risk Assessment instrument is
being properly used by qualified and trained personnel?

Ask one of the outfits who produced these "idiot sheets"
how many caseworkers they have actually
trained in each state!



On Jun 5, 11:24 am, "0:-]" wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:24:56 -0700, fx wrote:
CPS assessment tool raises criticism
Long paperwork said to be thorough, but system is based on 1986 model
By Josh Brodesky
arizona daily star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 06.04.2007

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/related/185926.php

Child Protective Services launched an updated assessment tool Friday
that officials say will help guide case managers through their
investigations, ensuring they do thorough and comprehensive work.
But the tool has drawn heavy criticism from those who say it involves
excessive paperwork, is outdated in its approach and won't necessarily
help the agency safeguard kids.
CPS is under intense legislative and public scrutiny after high-profile
deaths of children who were in its charge here, including Brandon
Williams, 5; Tyler Payne, 5; and his younger sister Ariana, 4.
A completed sample assessment distributed internally at CPS is 81 pages,
raising concerns that investigators, already juggling heavy caseloads,
will lose time to filling out the assessment.
Also, one leading expert in child welfare assessment said the tool is
reflective of what was used 20 years ago, and that it will do nothing to
make children safer.
Similar assessment tools are used in other states, CPS officials said
Friday, and the new changes were brought about with the help of
consultants and feedback from CPS staff.
Without the changes, "we weren't able to see how they (investigators)
made their decisions," said Janice Mickens, an administrator with CPS.
"We need to have something that guides us throughout this process."
Glitches in assessment tool
So after a brief trial period in Pima County, the assessment tool was
launched statewide Friday despite several lingering technical glitches.
For example, investigators can't save their work on the computer until
the lengthy document is filled out. Then, once it's saved, it can't be
reopened, meaning that additional information has to be added as an
addendum. There is also no date/time stamp to document when information
is input, so, in theory, a person could back-date their work in the
unsaved document.

Oh for **** sakes. Programming a database system for that problem is
child's play. You simply code the field to NOT accept a date earlier
than today's date.

You know, The Puckering Default? The problem anyone that does data
entry is familiar with?

What pucks up.

After reviewing a copy of the 81-page sample assessment, Christopher
Baird, vice president for the Children's Research Center, a nonprofit
group that has developed assessment tools for 24 states as well as
Australia and Canada, said he was "kind of astonished."
"It is very poorly designed, and it really represents where the field
was 20 years ago," he said. "It's the kind of thing we came into the
field to work on replacing."

And why did this happen?

Because the puckering system is underfunded and the administration
tried to get by with bargain basement software, developed by kiddies
with no experience or talent. Seen it before. We'll see it again.

Asked about the length, he said it is "one of the longest systems we
have ever encountered."
Length ensures thoroughness
CPS spokeswoman Liz Barker Alvarez said the newly implemented tool is
about 50 pages when not filled out. The length is needed to ensure more
thorough and complete investigations, CPS officials said.
"Sometimes staff forgets that they should see every child or every
caregiver in the home," said Linda Johnson, CPS's state policy manager.
To achieve this goal, the tool does not use a chronological
investigation narrative, but instead divides the narrative by the people
interviewed. There are sections for parents, children, officials and others.
CPS officials said they realize such a format could possibly be
confusing, but that it guarantees investigators are interviewing all the
right people.

If they are properly trained to use it in that manner. Actually that
IS a logical design feature given the challenge not to overlook anyone
in the home or related to the case.





"The reason we separated it out that way was, again, that staff
understand that they need to interview all persons in the home," Johnson
said.
She and Mickens declined to say how often investigators fail to
interview people they are supposed to.
Tool dated to 1986
The new tool assesses child safety and risk, and it is the risk portion
that Baird said is antiquated.
The risk portion is modeled after an assessment tool developed in
Washington.
That tool was developed in 1986 - although it has been updated.
The general philosophy behind it and the Arizona model is what is known
as a "consensus-based" approach, meaning the case manager assesses risk
from a number of areas like the child's behavior and development,
severity of abuse and the qualities of the caretaker, among others.
Such an approach has been criticized in social work academic journals
for being subjective, overly broad and using the same variables to
predict different types of abuse and neglect.
Johnson said the Washington model was chosen as a basis for the changes
partly because it creates "uniformity" in decision-making. That is, by
using it, different case managers should usually come to similar
conclusions about the same cases.
Research suggests, however, that the model doesn't necessarily create
uniformity.
One academic study, led by Baird, found the Washington model was "no
better than chance."
Also, a review published by the University of California-Berkeley said
the Washington assessment did not "perform very well" in predicting
future child maltreatment.

R R R R.....and what tool has done that, I wonder.

What bull****. That is NOT how such tools are to be used.

NO ONE should EVER base a prediction of future abuse of a child by his
parent on such a tool, or any other.

IT'S ALWAY A GUESS, because one cannot predict all the other factors
that can change how a parent responds to a child.

Risk is an estimate, not a prediction.

And those that do not know the difference are doomed to this kind of
nonsensical failure outcome. Again and again.

A prediction says, "this will happen." A good estimate says that there
is this much chance this will happen, or not happen.

A good estimate says, "if this parent is able to integrate the
parenting skills for managing child behavior, and no other factors
intervene, there is a more than 50% chance he will not re abuse the
child."

A 'prediction' would have it that if the parent attends the parent
training they will not re abuse.

The latter is nonsense, and spouted by politicians who do not
understand assessment tools.

Rep. Paton has doubts
In an e-mail, Baird said the Arizona model is "at best, based very
loosely on the Washington risk assessment instrument."
"Perhaps more telling is that the state of Washington is in the process
of developing a research-based assessment instrument to replace the
current tool," he wrote.
Rep. Jonathan Paton, a Tucson Republican who is taking part in
legislative hearings on CPS, said his main concerns were the technical
glitches and the amount of time it will take to fill out the document.
"I can agree that you want an assessment which is uniform," he said in
an e-mail. "But the 81 pages seems excessive. I can envision a lot of
frustration from workers who have too many cases as it is."

The 81 pages includes a great many that will NOT be filled out because
they will be nonapplicable to the particular case. Read the
description in prior sections of this article.





Mickens said she doesn't think the changes would add much, if any,
additional time. She said workers were already filling out many of the
same forms, only the forms were kept separate. The newly implemented
tool simply brings those forms together.
But the agency also didn't study how long it took investigators - many
of whom average about 12 new cases a month - to fill out the new form.
"We didn't really look at that," Mickens said. "This is a critical tool.
We believe it's important to ask the right questions."
Despite such concerns raised by Baird and Paton, CPS officials see the
new changes as a step toward child-welfare reform.
In a memo sent across CPS, Deputy Director Ken Deibert said the changes
"will move this organization even closer to achieving the goals of
reforming our child welfare system."

And now for the sock's usual lie:





CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A
DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NSA / CIA
WIRETAPPING PROGRAM....

CPS Does not protect children...
It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even
killed at the hands of Child Protective Services.

every parent should read this .pdf from
connecticut dcf watch...

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com

Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US
These numbers come from The National Center on
Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN)
Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS

*Perpetrators of Maltreatment*

Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59
Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13
Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241
Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12
Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5

Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that
are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per
100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse
and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the
citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold
parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY
government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and
death

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -