Alternative Variants to Upbringing Children - Article Example

Every child is the gift of god and the future of every country. Their way of upbringing goes a long way in determining the progress of every nation across the world. However, there are some people who don’t realize this fact and are busy involved in abusing and neglecting them. The state of Florida is the first one in the US to introduce some exemplary rules which will protect and safeguard the children greatly and set an example for others to follow. The secretary of Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF), Bob Butterworth had announced six planned points for the enhancement of the child protective investigators (DCF Office of Family Safety, 2007, p.1). These planned points included a new strategy, the Alternative response system whose main purpose is to provide two or more different and exclusive responses of intervention and also generate numerous ways to solve the cases of maltreatment that has been screened in for assessment (National Quality Improvement Centre, 2009, p.2). In this paper we shall discuss the alternative responses that are available to the child protective agencies in Florida, compare them with those available in the state of New York and Minnesota and lastly discuss the drawbacks of the Florida ARS, if any, and what can be done to improvise the system. The Alternative response system or the differential response system which is also known as dual track or multiple track system, has been defined as “an approach that allows child protective services to respond differently (i.e., without investigation) to some accepted reports of child abuse and neglect. In cases handled in non-investigation tracks, typically no formal determination or substantiation of child maltreatment is made”. This system will make an effort to recognize families who will gain more from a “family assessment” rather than the traditional system of investigation. Under this new system, the family will be provided help faster and also save them from sitting through the much longer, rigorous court routine (National Quality Improvement Centre, 2009, p.4). The DCF has introduced two design models under the ARS for implementation. Under the first model, the investigator will be accompanied by the family assessor from the beginning of the investigation so as to ensure easy and prompt transfer of the case from the investigator to the assessor. The second model will work in the traditional manner where the investigator will hand over the case to the assessor after he has finished with the ‘initial safety assessment’. The assessor will have to start his family assessment within 48 hours of the investigator transferring the case to him. The most important factors that will decide whether a family should be directed towards to the assessment or the investigation tract are – considerations of the child’s safety, any imminent danger, level of risk or any kind of resistance faced from the family. However, the uniqueness of the Florida’s ARS is that it is the only state to introduce an ‘initial safety assignment’ whose purpose is to identify any immediate signs of risk or danger to the child and his family and thereby provide incessant ‘initial protection’ to the abused even though the severity of the maltreatment has not been confirmed. Thus an abused will receive full protection and help even if his maltreatment has not been determined. This will further help the ARS in deciding whether the family has to go through the traditional investigation system or the new family assessment system. The family will be made to go through the system of complete scrutiny and interrogation if the issues determined are relevant. However, a family is deviated towards the family assessment track if the issues found hold no immediate danger but shows signs of future risks. The problems or issues faced by the child and family are solved by the assessors by providing proper advice and counseling (Leon, 2007, p.2). The DCF has also been enabled to have direct online access to National criminal justice information. This will help the child protection investigators to directly retrieve history records and warrants of criminals or accused which will allow them to take better protection of the abused and neglected children. Florida’s DCF is the first in the country to directly avail the NCIC database into their reporting system. This new database technology will help the investigators to perform full search of the background of alleged abusers reported in the child abuse case at a prompt. And because of the availability of this new technology any current harmful situation can be immediately identified ensuring prompt action. The DCF is also the first state to have introduced a new website where cases of abuse can be reported directly to the investigators (DCF Office of Family Safety, 2007, p. 1) The system of alternative response followed in different states in US is almost same with a few differences. For example, in New York, the alternative response system is called the Family Assessment Response (FAR) and has been implemented for handling cases where no serious child hazardous issue has been found. In most of the cases FAR can easily solve the problem by providing the required support and advice to the family of the child victim. The family is saved from going through the strain of interrogation and formal court procedures. There are certain issues like allegations of sexual abuse, physical abuse, repeated abuses, abandonment and failure to thrive which have been excluded from the family assessment response system. However, in Florida every case whether severe or minor, is made to go through an initial safety assignment which helps in identifying if there is any immediate signs of danger to the child and his family. Moreover, the ARS workers provide continuous initial protection to the abused even though the severity of the maltreatment has not been identified whereas in New York the required assistance is only provided if the FAR workers find any new development of maltreatment during their contact with the family. The FAR workers then intimate the local department of social services (LDSS) about the evident maltreatment. The LDSS then conducts a thorough examination of the family and provide the needed support and assistance, even case management if required, to the family. However in New York, it is mandatory for the LDSS to send a written notice to the family of the accused about the district’s intention of meeting the family and fulfilling its needs through a FAR program and not a proper investigation. This system saves the family from unnecessary harassment although this system is not followed in Florida (Ruppel, Huang & Haulenbeek, 2011, p.1). There is another example of the state of Minnesota which has also implemented the system of alternative response but with an approach different from Florida. In this state, under the differential response system (DRS) , as the ARS is named here, a case of maltreatment is firstly reported to local child protective services either by mandatory reporters (those who are directly working with the children) or by any voluntary reporter who wants to report any known issue of child maltreatment. Once the report is accepted it is reviewed by a screener who determines whether the case needs a family investigation or a family assessment. The Minnesota State law like New York’s has excluded cases of the sexual abuse, physical torture or maltreatment in child day care or foster home care from the parameters of DRS. Further, the history of past records and the family’s behavior with the child might also be reviewed by the screener. If the case requires a family investigation, then the county or the tribal workers concerned with child safety will interrogate the minor victim, his family and the accused. On interrogation if is found that the accused or any family member is at fault and the child is a victim of maltreatment, the workers will make a determination that maltreatment has taken place and initiate further action. However in case of a Family Assessment, a county or a tribal worker arranges to meet all the family members of the victimized child. They all sit together, discuss and analyze matters concerned with the safety of the child. This helps the workers in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the family and thereby provides the necessary advice and support required by the child and his family (“Minnesota Department of Child Services”, 2010, p.3). Although the State law of Minnesota has initiated a good system to counteract the problem of child maltreatment through a differential approach but it still lags behind the initiatives taken by the Florida government. The ‘initial assessment system’ which is provided to every victim’s family despite the determination of the severity of the maltreatment in Florida puts this state much ahead of other states like Minnesota who have implemented the differential approach system. This not only saves a lot of time but ensures quick action. Further, Florida is the first state to introduce the new technology, NCIC database in its ARS structure which will provide the past information of the accused immediately and support in deciding if there is any immediate danger to the child or not. Also, Florida has started the online services system where any issue of maltreatment can be reported directly to the investigators which help them in taking faster action. Conclusion The alternative response system is a very genuine effort towards preventing families from reentering into the state’s child welfare system by directing them to the community resources. This has proved to be a very significant approach for families affected by poverty and domestic violence. Also, the DR system has given full freedom to the CPS workers to decide the kind of assistance that needs to be provided to the child and his family. They also help the families develop an unrivalled and strong relationship among the family members and the children. For instance in Florida, the ARS has made families more open and receptive to the CPS involvement because of enhanced family engagement seen in this system (National Quality Improvement Centre, 2009, p. 17-19). However, certain improvements can be made in the ARS so as to make it more effective. The CPS should take into consideration the level of risk of future maltreatment while case is being screened for assignment to the ARS. Their concentration should be towards prevention rather incident based solution. In Florida, the decision for pathway or differential assessment is taken by a number of people – hotline workers, case workers, supervisors and community agencies but it would be better if is assigned to a county or local agency. Also, besides providing family counseling and parenting classes, the CPS can arrange for counseling related to anger management and mental health services for the child and his family. Further, they should train workers further in skills needed for family engagement and increase community involvement in its functioning. However, it can be concluded that the ARS is a righteous approach which will help workers in assessing the child and his family appropriately without focusing only on the report made by the perpetrator or complainant. Further it has been seen that since it is an assessment and not an investigation, families have been responding to the system wholeheartedly. References DCF office of family safety: Training bulletin (2007, May). Governor announces Florida first in Nation to access National Crime database. Retrieved from http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/admin/publications/fsp/trainingbulletin/dcf_bulletin_may.pdf Leon, M. (2007, May). Secretary’s Action Plan for the Improvement of Child Protective Investigations to Include the Alternative Response System Demonstration Sites. In DCF office of family safety: Training bulletin, 5(1), 2. Retrieved from http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/admin/publications/fsp/trainingbulletin/dcf_bulletin_may.pdf Minnesota Department of Human Services, Children and Family Services Administration & Child Safety and Permanency Division (2010, August). Child Maltreatment. In Minnesota’s Child Welfare Report 2010 (Section 1). Retrieved from https://edocs.dhs.state.mn.us/lfserver/Public/DHS-5408C- ENG National Quality Improvement Centre: On Differential Response in Child protective Services (2009, June). Online Survey of State Differential Response Policies and Practices Findings Report, p. 2-19. Retrieved from http://www.differentialresponseqic.org/assets/docs/qic-dr-findings-report-jun09.pdf Ruppel, J., Huang, Y. & Haulenbeek, G. (2011, January). Introduction. In Differential Response in Child Protective Services in New York State (chap.1). Retrieved from http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us/main/reports/CPS Differential Response Evaluation Final Report_ Jan 2011.pdf Read More