Child Protection Service in My Community - Essay Example

Child Protection Service in my Community Child Protection Service in my Community Introduction Child abuse is a big problem not only in the United States of America but throughout the world. National Child Abuse Statistics (2011) point out that more than three million cases of child maltreatment are reported yearly and about five children die on daily basis due to child maltreatment. Because of the economic downtown experienced in the past few years, cases of child abuse have been increasing. On the same note, reduced budgetary allocations have strained child welfare groups to reduce rehabilitative and intervention services for families. Large reports are another problem experienced by welfare workers. From these trends, it is clear that the traditional model of child protective services (CPS) has failed in its bid to successfully protect many children who require help (American Humane Association, 2005). The Traditional Model Child Protection Service Traditional child protective services lay more emphasis on investigations of probable maltreatment to establish whether or not children have been or are exposed to risk of being harmed. In general, this model is governed by legal obligations established in every state in the United States of America (Ortiz, Shusterman & Fluke, 2008). Child protection services has care for the children as its main concern but the stipulated laws do not clearly spell out all that has to be carried out to help families and children. However they just offer a framework within which appropriate steps can be taken. Consequently, it is important to point out that the traditional model of child protective service system is not adequately safeguarding the welfare of children. In many occasions, a conflict between the need to protect children and the aspiration to engage and maintain families has been within child welfare services. Professionals within the child protection services, especially the social/ welfare workers probably encounter this tension most. Among others in the field, they endeavor to respond to questions such as: when are the signs of neglect and abuse so severe among children that they have to be taken away from their homes? How can partnership be built with parents in areas of substantiated or suspected child maltreatment. What is the best approach to assist families change to ensure that children’s welfare is well taken care of in the best interest? The traditional model has put more pressure on many welfare workers due to the volume of work hence making it difficult to investigate allegations and engage parents. Further, the approach complicates issues as research has indicated this deficit-focused and problem-solving model of investigating approach neglect and abuse is an obstacle to family engagement. In essence, most states are working towards eliminating this barrier/ barrier that is deeply entrenched in the history of social work. The Current Status of Child Protection Services in my Community To advance child welfare, there was urgent need for my community to initiate an alternative form of child protective service. The approach taken is referred to as Differential Response System (DRS) that other than research indicating that it is the solution to increased cases of child maltreatment, it emphasizes on family group decision making and risk assessment and safety (Yuan, 2005). Differential response is a form of approach that engages more than one technique of response to cases of child abuse and neglect. The approach is also referred to as multiple or dual track and it has not only received increasing attention in my community but nationwide. Within this community DRS is a unit of a bigger child welfare approach referred as Multiple Response System (MRS) which is basically county-administered but there is state oversight. The entire assessment and case management is carried out by public agencies while provision of other services is mostly carried out by community partners. According to research by Child and Family Service Federal Review (CFSR), the community in North Carolina is offering the services in an inconsistent way hence a more comprehensive approach must be taken (Pennell & Burford, 2005). How the Current Status Might be improved The DRS approach is the best solution but only if done in a proper way. The Community should ensure that family engagement is the core of all operations if any fruits to be realized within this approach. The caregivers and parents have to be heavily involved in the planning process and achieving well-being and safety of children in the community because they spend much time with them hence understand them better that anyone else. The parents/ caregivers should not be treated as suspected perpetrators as it has been experienced in some cases in the past (Pennell & Burford, 2005). Researches indicate that family support key to understanding the social hardships encountered by families and readiness to offer thorough family-focused services. Strategies to strengthen the DRS have to be put in place that will maximize its achievement. Consequently, there is need for meetings entailing child and family teams to be incorporated integrated within the realization of non-investigative pathway of the state, as a form of in-home services. This has been the case in various states including Minnesota where cases of child maltreatment have tremendously reduced as pointed out by Wheeler and Johnson (2003). Sustaining community partnerships is also a key approach if any achievement is to be realized. It is important to emphasize that the model of differential response has variations in ways through which private agencies provide services for families. In some states like Washington and Florida, the implementation of this approach was done through a private and public agencies partnership (Pennell and Burford, 2000). In this case, the planning and management duty was left for the public agency where as service delivery and assessment was left in the hands of private providers who contracted for the same. In the end, the children welfare has been well taken care of effectively. Therefore the North Carolina community has to highly engage the private sector. It is important to both establish the accessibility and the availability of the required services and efficiently harmonizing between community-based service providers and child protection service. Various factors influence the success of this approach entailing the quality of communication between CPS and the service providers, the capacity, accessibility and availability of the community-based services. For maximum success, community capacity and collaboration is key. This can only be achieved through good and consistent communication, training of the workers on the new approaches and sensitizing the community members about the model and various ways of treating children in an appropriate way. Success has been achieved in many areas like Olmsted County in Minnesota where CPS incorporated the courts, domestic violence providers and law enforcement and providers into their team strategy to CPS reports (Zielewski et al 2006). Emphasis should also be laid on building and sustaining constructive partnerships among and within families, line workers and community providers, and count and state agencies as evident in The Ohio Alternative Response System (Kaplan and Amy, 2010). A more cultural approach should also be initiated because cultural relevance is a very vital component of majority family engagement efforts. This is evident especially using California as a case in point where various counties initiated ethnic and cultural concerns a foundation of their policy and practice. A good illustration is a model referred to as Point Engagement that was established within the largely Latino and African-American neighborhood of South Central Los Angeles (Yuan, 2005). This approach laid more emphasis on the protective role that faith based organizations such as churches among others can play in family support and engaging them with culturally competent substance abuse, domestic violence and child welfare services. Eventually, these approaches have been established as flourishing in keeping many children away from CPS hence a great contribution in curbing disproportionality within the child welfare system. Advocates for Children & Youth (2008) explain that the community has to go ahead and educate legislators concerning this approach, a move that will ensure that all community members are aware of the program. This has been done in many regions and is widely and positively received by other key stakeholders including the business people and the civil society within the area. Conclusion To sum up the whole discussion, it important to emphasize that the traditional model of child protection service has failed in its bid to protect children welfare. The solution to this is a more comprehensive alternative approach referred to as differential response system that employs many aspects to ensure that cases of child maltreatment at kept at minimal levels. Reference Wheeler, C. E., & Johnson, S. (2003). Evaluating family group decision making: The Santa Clara example. Protecting Children, 18(1 & 2): 65-69. Yuan, Y-Y. T. (2005). Potential policy implications of alternative response. Protecting Children, 20 (2): 22-31. Zielewski, E. H. et al. (2006). Families’ connections to services in an alternative response system. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. National Child Abuse Statistics. (2011) Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse | Childhelp. Child Help. Retrieved 13 Oct. 2011 from http://www. childhelp.org/ Ortiz, M. J., Shusterman, G. R., & Fluke, J. D. (2008). Outcomes for children with allegations of neglect who receive alternative response and traditional investigations: Findings from NCANDS. Protecting Children, 23 (2): 57-70. Pennell, J., & Burford, G. (2000). Family group decision making: Protecting children and women. Child Welfare, 79(2): 131-158. American Humane Association. (2005). Differential Response in Child Welfare. American Humane Association, 20 (2&3): 23-98 Kaplan, C., & Schene, P. (2008, November). Primer on differential response: Take two! Presentation at the American Humane Association Conference on Differential Response, Columbus, OH. Advocates for Children & Youth. (2008). Alternative response key to reducing child welfare disparities. Retrieved 13 Oct. 2011 from http://www.acy.org/articlenav.php? id=246 Kaplan, C. and Amy, R. (2010). Ohio Alternative Response Pilot Project: Final Report of the AIM Team. Rep. Englewood: American Humane Association. Read More