Search Options | RSS | Jobs

A Nonpartisan Economic and Social Policy Research Organization

issues

Crime / Justice
Economy / Taxes
Education
Health / Healthcare
Housing
Welfare
Work / Income

sectors

Civil Society
Federal / State Gov't
Nonprofits

places

U.S. Cities / Communities
International Issues

people

Adolescents
Children
Family / Parents
Immigrants
Race / Ethnicity / Gender Retirees/Seniors

About UI
Annual Report
Careers
Events
Pressroom
Support UI
Contact Us

Urban Institute > Publications

Efforts by Child Welfare Agencies to Address Domestic Violence

The Experiences of Five Communities

Laudan Y. Aron, Krista K. Olson

Publication Date: March 01, 1997

Other Availability:
Printer-friendly summary

Permanent Link:
http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=406798

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Urban Institute, its board, its sponsors, or other authors in the series.

Executive Summary

I. Background and Overview

II. Family Violence Project, Children's Services Bureau, San Diego County, California

III. Intake/Crisis/Investigative Unit, Department of Human Services, East Hawaii, Hawaii

IV. Domestic Violence Unit, Massachusetts Department of Social Services

V. Oregon Department of Human Services, State Office for Services to Children and Families

VI. Families First, Family Independence Agency, Michigan

VII. Findings and Observations

The research reported here was prepared under contract with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, with additional support from the Office of Community Services and the National Institute of Justice. The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of DHHS, the Urban Institute, or its funders or trustees.

For their guidance and contributions, we thank Martha R. Burt, our Project Director at the Urban Institute; Jerry Silverman, our Project Officer at ASPE; and Frances Gragg and Dana Schultz of Westat who helped us with several site visits. Finally, we thank the many individuals who shared their insights and wisdom with us during the site visits. This study would not have been possible without their contributions. Any errors or omissions are those of the authors.

Executive Summary

Until recently, programs and policies for family violence or abuse have responded to two of its forms — child maltreatment and woman battering — through two different service systems, child protective services (CPS) and domestic violence programs. This separation is due, in part, to differences in when these service systems were established and how they developed over time. The child welfare system is by far the older, dating back to early in this century. Child welfare agencies have tended to view the mother's role in child abuse that was perpetrated by a male partner as "failure to protect" the child, rather than acknowledging that the child's safety might depend on addressing a situation that endangers both mother and child. Emergency shelters and other services for battered women first emerged in the mid- and late 1970s. Their focus has been on helping battered women. Services directed specifically toward the children who accompany their mothers into these shelters are very recent and remain limited in many communities. Relations between the two systems have at times been strained, since a primary focus on helping the mother and a primary focus on protecting the child have not always been seen as compatible. This need not be the case.

Child welfare agencies across the country are beginning to consider how families in their child protection caseload are affected by domestic violence and what they can do differently to serve such families more effectively. Agencies are reexamining their policies and procedures for training, investigation, assessment, case management, and other activities in light of this new thinking. This study documents how child welfare agencies in five communities are attempting to integrate domestic violence concerns into their services. By examining current and developing CPS practice around domestic violence, we highlight many of the challenges, advantages, and disadvantages of different strategies. Some of the lessons learned will apply to other communities in similar circumstances, others will not. One message is clear — the need for more information in this area is great and demand for it growing as more and more agency staff and directors appreciate the benefits of new approaches. Through this study we have attempted to fill some of this information gap.

Five communities were selected for this study because they were making changes within their child welfare agencies that went beyond simply training staff about domestic violence. In each of these communities, the primary impetus for innovation and linkage came from within the child welfare agency and was directed to its own case practice. Massachusetts and Michigan were included because of their relatively long history in this area.

In Massachusetts, the Department of Social Services (DSS) began meeting regularly with battered women's organizations in 1987 and hired its first in-house domestic violence advocate in 1990. Since then, DSS has developed and adopted a domestic violence protocol and established a domestic violence unit consisting of in-house domestic violence specialists who assist DSS social workers on specific cases and conduct extensive training.

Michigan incorporated a domestic violence component into its family preservation program, Families First, in 1993. In conjunction with the Family Violence Prevention Fund, the state developed and instituted a training curriculum for family preservation workers and created a program to provide family preservation services to at-risk families in battered women's shelters.

Three other sites were selected for study on the basis of various factors such as state versus local involvement in fostering linkages between child welfare and domestic violence agencies, the availability of additional funds and/or staff, the strength of the court system connection, and the presence of rural or other distinctive populations.

In San Diego County, California, the county child welfare agency — the Children's Services Bureau — and Adult Probation together established a separate administrative unit to handle all cases active in both departments. Cases in the unit include some of the county's most violent families, who are managed by a two-person social worker-probation officer team.

In Hilo, Hawaii, the East Hawaii CPS intake and investigative unit is concerned about domestic violence in its caseload and has established close relationships with the judiciary. East Hawaii has a semi-unified family court that allows the same judge to oversee all cases involving temporary restraining orders, divorce, juvenile justice, and child protection. This judge actively screens restraining order petitions for child abuse and neglect, and refers appropriate cases to CPS.

Oregon's State Office for Services to Children and Families (SCF) is attempting to change case practice throughout the state by cross-training child protection workers and domestic violence workers about the relationship between the two forms of abuse. Oregon also recently ran pilot programs that placed domestic violence advocates in two local SCF offices.

In Chapter I of this study we review the available literature on the overlap of domestic violence and child maltreatment and describe our site selection criteria and procedures. The next five chapters describe efforts to integrate domestic violence concerns into child welfare agency practice in each community visited. The following general themes can be distilled from our fieldwork:

Child welfare agencies have begun initiating changes from different organizational points within their agencies and have taken different approaches to changing case practice. Each starting point has advantages and disadvantages. Agencies need to think through which approach makes sense for them.

Child welfare agencies have experience acting to protect children but are breaking new ground when they attempt to address domestic violence. These agencies cannot make appropriate changes without major and continuing collaboration with community stakeholders who work with domestic violence victims and perpetrators and know the issues involved. There are complicated policy and practice issues that can only be handled appropriately if child welfare agencies work together with people specializing in domestic violence services. Chief among these issues is the need to refrain from actions that increase danger to mothers and their children.

Changes to child welfare agency practice around domestic violence will also benefit from collaborative policy development with police, civil and criminal courts, corrections (probation and parole), the schools, and local clinics and hospitals.

In the report's final chapter we summarize and integrate findings from the site visits and literature review. Reflecting the still early and developing state of the field, we review issues to consider and resolve. We do not provide a definitive resolution or "right" approach. The chapter looks at approaches to changing case practice within child welfare agencies including where within the agency to start; how to expand; issues of staff motivation, understanding, and commitment; and issues of resources and tools internal to the agency. We then turn to the community context and the need to coordinate with other agencies and service providers. In the case of organizations experienced in working with victims of domestic violence, such collaboration is essential for shaping changes in child welfare agency policy and practice. Other cross-agency collaborations are critical for ensuring that new approaches to the co-occurrence of domestic violence and child maltreatment are successful, including approaches that leverage the investigative powers of the police or the enforcement powers of courts and corrections. The chapter concludes by reviewing several complex policy issues for child welfare agencies, including whether or not child protective services (or other mandated reporters) should screen families affected by domestic violence for child abuse and neglect; how to consider children who witness their mother's abuse; and what to do when actions to protect a child conflict with what is necessary to protect the mother. Many of these complexities reflect the challenges involved in balancing multiple goals: helping battered women help their children, holding perpetrators of domestic violence responsible for their actions, and working with batterers who continue to be involved in children's lives.

Chapter I

Background and Overview

Rationale for the Study

This report focuses on recent efforts by child welfare agencies to take account of battering experienced by mothers in cases of child abuse and neglect. These efforts are in their infancy. The oldest of them, in Massachusetts, dates back only about six years, and others are still more recent. A few model programs have been developed (Schechter 1994), and several states have already embarked on training activities for child welfare workers. In many cases these training efforts have been supported by federal grants from the Office of Community Services' Family Violence Prevention and Services Program in the Department of Health and Human Services. Because the field is so young, far more questions than answers exist regarding what to do, where to start, how to proceed, and even what the goals of the effort should be.

A common goal of many studies is to describe "best practices" so that others interested in pursuing similar activities may profit from these experiences. The same motive prompted the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) and its partner agencies, the Office of Community Services and the National Institute of Justice, to undertake this study, though they recognize that definitive findings must wait until the field is more developed. The issues are of great importance to children's well-being and to child welfare agencies' ability to protect it. Many child welfare agencies are beginning to understand this importance and are looking for guidance before undertaking significant changes in their policies and case practice. ¹ This report helps provide some of this guidance.

The study's goal is to document what child welfare agencies in five state and local communities are doing in attempting to integrate domestic violence ² concerns into their agency routines, and to identify and highlight issues that a child welfare agency would do well to consider before proceeding with similar efforts. This report should be read with the understanding that it presents few answers or "best practices." It focuses instead on raising issues that, on the basis of fieldwork, seem critical for child welfare agencies to consider as they make changes to address the problem of domestic violence among families in their caseloads.

The rest of this chapter examines (1) the evidence for the co-occurrence of woman-battering and child abuse and neglect, and (2) the areas of potential involvement for child welfare agencies that guided the fieldwork of this study. It also describes our site selection criteria and procedures. Subsequent chapters (II through VI) describe the different approaches agencies have taken in the five sites visited and the community context in which these efforts operate. The responsibility for addressing family violence is shared by many and how child welfare agencies address domestic violence is strongly affected by the availability and quality of other services and supports in the community. The final chapter of this report summarizes our findings and presents implications for child welfare agencies.

Background

Until recently, programs and policies for family violence or abuse have responded to its two forms — child maltreatment and woman battering — through two entirely different service systems, child protective services and domestic violence programs. This separation is due, in part, to differences in when these service systems were established and how they developed over time. The child welfare system is by far the older, dating back to early in this century. Child welfare agencies have tended to view the mother's role in child abuse perpetrated by a male partner as "failure to protect" the child, rather than acknowledging that the child's safety might depend on addressing a situation that endangers both mother and child. Emergency shelters and other services for battered women first emerged in the mid- and late 1970s. Their focus has been on helping battered women. Services directed specifically toward the children who accompany their mothers into these shelters are very recent and remain limited in many communities. Relations between the two systems have at times been strained, since a primary focus on helping the mother and a primary focus on protecting the child have not always been seen as compatible. Working out mutually supportive relationships between the systems is an important part of the effort to change child welfare practice around issues of domestic violence.

Evidence of Overlap Between Child Maltreatment and Domestic Violence

Before a public agency undertakes any major change in orientation or practice, it needs evidence that such a change is warranted. The degree of overlap between domestic violence and child maltreatment can be documented by population surveys or case record reviews. Early efforts to examine the prevalence of child maltreatment and domestic violence within the same family, summarized by Magen and colleagues (1995), confirm that the overlap can be substantial, whether approached from the point of view of the child or that of the mother. Between 11 and 45 percent of children who are abused or neglected have a mother who is being abused, and between 37 and 63 percent of abused women have children who are being abused or neglected. The studies on which these ranges are based differ in many ways (by, for example, employing different methodologies and definitions of abuse and looking at different populations of interest), but consistently report a high level of overlap. The data include national population surveys examining family violence, reports by battered women, state child fatality reviews, and studies of child protection cases.

Reviews of case records completed before an agency made any explicit effort to build screening for domestic violence into case practice, reveal that domestic violence is clearly present in a large share of families in need of child protection services. A 1993 annual review of child fatalities in Oregon found evidence of mothers being battered in 41 percent of the case records (Oregon Department of Human Resources 1993, in Schechter and Edleson 1994), even before the state began to focus on the issue of overlap and make a point of recording such information. A similar review of 67 child fatalities in Massachusetts found that the mother had disclosed being abused herself in 43 percent of cases (Felix and McCarthy 1994, cited in Edleson 1995b). This high level of overlap is not limited to child fatality cases. In a review of 200 cases of substantiated child abuse, the Massachusetts Department of Social Services found some mention of adult domestic violence in 30 percent of the case records (Herskowitz and Seck 1990). As in Oregon, this figure is likely to be a substantial underestimate of the true incidence of domestic violence because the review was done before child protection workers were required to ask about it as part of their investigation.

Existing studies of the overlap between domestic violence and child maltreatment are mostly limited to child abuse rather than neglect. This means that we do not have adequate information about the relationship of domestic violence to child neglect. This gap in our knowledge may have implications for child welfare agencies, since neglect is far more prevalent in their caseloads than is abuse.

The dynamics of violence within families can be very complex. Drawing on a national survey of more than 6,000 American families, Straus and Gelles (1990) found that half of men who frequently abuse their wives also frequently abuse their children, and the more severe and frequent the violence against the woman, the more likely it is that the children are also being abused. Children need not be the primary target of a father's violence in order to get hurt. Blows directed at the mother may land on children, and children may be harmed when trying to intervene or defend a parent. Similarly, a mother may endure blows from her partner in an effort to deflect his attention from the children (McKay 1994).

Knowing which partner in a domestic violence situation is the perpetrator of abuse against the children can help guide child welfare agency decision-making. According to the American Humane Association, close to half (44.1 percent) of reported child abusers are men (1988), despite the fact that men spend far less time with children than women do. Reviews of other studies suggest that children are more likely to be physically abused by their fathers than by their mothers and that the most severe forms of child abuse are committed by men (McKay 1994; Pecora et al. 1992). On the other hand, the Giles-Sims' (1985) study of battered women found that over half (56 percent) of the women sampled recounted having been violent toward their child(ren). These women also reported that 63 percent of their battering partners had been abusive toward their children, and that the abuse of children by these men was six times more frequent than that by the women themselves. Battered women are much more likely than their violence-free counterparts to abuse their children. In their national study, Straus and Gelles (1990) found the rate of child abuse by mothers who were beaten to be "at least double that of mothers whose husbands did not assault them" (p. 409).

These findings confirm those of earlier studies documenting the relationship of domestic violence to child abuse, but fail to capture many of the complex interconnections between various forms of family violence. As McKay (1994) explains:

...battered women are not a homogeneous group.  They range from women of great
strength and coping capacity to women who experience a wide spectrum of mental
health difficulties.  Given the stress associated with a violent household, therefore,
abusive behaviors by mothers are likely to emerge from those at risk of such reactions. 
In the context of domestic violence, the battered women may view themselves as being
more in control of their anger and the level of punishment of their children than their
partner.  In reality, their frustration with their situation combines with the stresses of
parenthood to set the stage for physical abuse of children.  Finally, some battered women
are so fearful of their partner's response to the children that they overdiscipline them in
an effort to control their behavior and protect them from what they perceive as even
greater abuse.  (p. 30)

Clearly, no single pattern can account for the co-occurrence of domestic violence and child abuse (and neglect) within a family. The overlap takes many different forms and involves different family members as offender and/or victim.

Witnessing Domestic Violence

Simply witnessing violence may be detrimental to children, but "witnessing" abuse has many dimensions. Children who do not see their mother being abused may hear screams, crying, degrading language, or objects being thrown and broken. Children may also witness the aftermath of an abusive incident, including blood, bruises, torn clothes, broken glass, a police officer's presence, or an arrest. Finally, most children sense tension in the home and their mother's fear or apprehension when the abuser enters a room (National Center on Women and Family Law, n.d.). While studies of the effects of witnessing violence are very limited and the exact effects examined vary considerably (McCloskey, Figueredo, and Koss 1995), effects on children may include a host of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive problems. Children who are both abused and witness their mother's abuse generally have the greatest variety and most intense symptoms. Finally, there is some evidence to suggest that children raised in violent homes are more likely to become perpetrators and victims of violence as adults, although more research is needed in this area. For reviews of the limited number of studies of the effects on children of witnessing violence, see Kolbo, Blakely, and Engleman (1996), Petchers (1995), and Edleson (1995b).

Although the number of children who witness domestic violence is not known, some researchers have tried to estimate this figure by using national surveys of the number of women who are beaten (or severely beaten) in a given year (Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz 1980; Straus and Gelles 1990) and the expected number of children in these women's homes. Depending on how domestic or family violence is defined, this approach suggests that between 3.3 million (Carlson 1984) and 10 million (Straus 1991) children witness domestic violence each year. Even if only half of these children are themselves abused, as some studies suggest, the numbers would be high.

Child Welfare Services

This report focuses on child welfare services offered to children and their families to protect children from abuse and neglect. Services are provided to strengthen families, enable children to remain safely in their homes, remove children temporarily from parental custody if there is imminent risk to them, or pursue termination of parental rights if the custodial family cannot be preserved without serious risk to the child(ren). Many states and child welfare professionals use the term "child protective services" to include only the intake, investigation, initial assessment, and referral functions of the child welfare system, whereas others use the term more broadly and include in-home protective services, foster care, and adoption. Unless specified otherwise, we use the term "child protective services" to include the wider array of services. ³

As a way to develop an appropriate set of questions to explore during site visits, we reviewed the available literature on domestic violence issues in child welfare practice and spoke with experts on the overlap of child abuse and domestic violence. We also conducted a series of informal interviews with child welfare administrators around the country to further develop our focus and to identify potential sites to visit. As would be expected with a very new field, most of the available literature is more normative than empirical, discussing issues and problems rather than presenting implementation experiences, case practice, or effectiveness data. In the following section, we provide a summary of the issues that the literature and our initial phone conversations prompted us to examine during our site visits.

Mission and Goals

The child protection system exists both to ensure the safety of children and to promote improved family functioning (Pecora et al. 1992). The overall mission is to protect children from harm, but keeping children with (or returning them to) their families is preferable to placing and maintaining children in foster care if their safety can be reasonably assured. Addressing domestic violence in a family may make the difference in achieving this end. For example, in an evaluation of 62 families in Indiana known to have a child re-entering foster care, Hess, Folaron, and Jefferson (1992) found "violence between adults" to be a contributing problem to disruption of the family's reunification in 35 (or 56 percent) of the cases. In many of these cases, child protective services failed in its initial case planning to identify the violence between adults in the family or to provide adequate resources to address the problem, and thus may have made the wrong decision in allowing children to return home.

Many liken the current situation of CPS agencies and domestic violence to where the field was ten years ago on the subject of child sexual abuse. Acceptance is spreading that child protection agencies would serve children better if they were able to handle situations involving domestic violence, but many professionals are still searching for the best ways to do so. Because domestic violence is a complex issue in its own right, and most communities have people and agencies with experience in helping its victims, child welfare agencies can benefit from working with these services. Often a community's domestic violence specialists and child protection specialists have operated in mutual ignorance, and sometimes in mutual hostility stemming from a lack of understanding of the roles and priorities of each. Both types of agencies, along with other community stakeholders, can gain from sharing their respective knowledge bases and coordinating their agencies and service delivery systems to protect children and serve families more effectively.

Domestic violence services usually take the mother's well-being and safety as their primary concern, while child protection agencies are legally obligated to focus on the child's safety and well-being. These goals need not be incompatible. Keeping the mother and child together and safe from the batterer often may be a better solution for both than removing the child. Removing children from their home traumatizes most children and families. If the child's mother is also being battered, such a move can further isolate and endanger her (Stark and Flitcraft 1988, in McKay 1994). If the child's father or mother's partner is abusive, it should be possible to remove him from the home. Holding him accountable for his actions rather than charging the mother with failure to protect is also more likely to change his behavior and less likely to victimize her further. Most important, the mother and child(ren) may be more likely to remain safe over the long term (DePanfilis and Brooks 1989). Protecting the mother from further abuse may also help her to become a more effective parent (Bograd 1990, in McKay 1994). Identifying domestic violence as soon as possible within a family that comes to the attention of CPS will help workers plan appropriate interventions.

Child protective workers may be the first outside service providers with access to a family experiencing domestic violence (Cummings and Mooney 1988). Batterers often isolate their immediate families from other family members, friends, and supports. Because CPS is often involved with families in which the woman does not otherwise seek services on her own, a child protection investigation can provide the mother with her first opportunity to confide about the battering and learn about the domestic violence services and shelter(s) in the community (Cummings and Mooney 1988). CPS workers cannot assume that the domestic violence will be addressed or identified through avenues other than CPS intervention, and can build assistance to the mother into plans designed to assure the child's safety.

Investigations

Given its dynamics of secrecy, fear, and control, domestic violence often goes undetected by traditional CPS assessment methods (McKay 1994; DePanfilis and Brooks 1989; Whitney and Davis 1992). Massachusetts, for example, discovered that 70 percent of cases referred to a high-risk assessment unit involved domestic violence but that intake and investigations workers had identified this problem in less than half of these referrals (Schechter and Edleson 1994).

Many standard methods used in child protection investigations may be inappropriate for families experiencing domestic violence. If a protective services investigator interviews a child's parents together, for example, the mother is not likely to disclose that she is being battered. To begin to identify the presence and effects of domestic violence in their caseloads, child welfare agencies may need to change case practice in a number of ways. New screening tools, including specific questions to ask, effective ways to ask them, and easy access to civil and criminal history records and police reports, are necessary to do a better job of identifying domestic violence in families already active in the CPS system.

It is also important to develop methods to investigate allegations of child abuse that do not further victimize or endanger a mother who is herself in an abusive situation. Threatening to remove a child or charging a mother with failure to protect does not empower the mother, nor does it help her change her situation or place the responsibility for the abuse on the perpetrator.

Finally, workers need knowledge regarding domestic violence in order to assess risks to a child more accurately. Decisions regarding whether to remove (or return) a child should be made with as much information as possible, including knowledge regarding the potential for further violence in the home. Proper training of workers, on-site domestic violence advocates, and knowledge of community resources enable workers to be more confident that when domestic violence is present in a family, appropriate plans are in place to protect the child.

Services

Once an investigation has determined that risk to the child exists, that domestic violence is present, and that the case warrants intervention, case managers' awareness of domestic violence dynamics is critical if they are to recommend appropriate services and interact with family members in safe and effective ways. Some family interventions may be inappropriate when CPS must work with both adults in the abusive relationship. Use of family or marital therapy involving both parents simultaneously is generally considered inappropriate in cases of domestic violence because it does not take into account the power differential between the victim and the abuser (Bograd 1984, Erickson 1988, and Goldner 1985 in McKay 1994). Some child welfare agencies routinely use joint meetings with all family members to discuss how the family can reach agreed-upon goals for child safety. These meetings may also include members of the family's support network. This approach may be appropriate for some families. When there is domestic violence, however, the family's existing support network may be more supportive of the abuser because the partner often isolates the woman from friends and family, especially those who question his behavior. In these cases, the mother will not have a fair chance of sharing her perspective, and the safety of the mother and child may be jeopardized.

To develop appropriate services for families affected by domestic violence, CPS will need to work closely with other professionals in the domestic violence community. These include local battered women's services, batterer intervention programs, and other agencies involved with victims or perpetrators. By developing relationships with batterer intervention programs or adult probation, for example, case workers can better assess perpetrators' compliance with CPS case plans.

Finally, it is essential that foster care and adoptive homes be adequately screened for domestic violence. This is especially critical when CPS is considering placing a child with the offending parent's relatives, who might allow the offender unauthorized access to the child or work against the mother's efforts to protect the child. Child welfare agencies and workers may want to develop new interventions or alter existing ones when working with families for whom domestic violence has been identified. Or, agencies might change case practice to be safe for all families under the assumption that domestic violence exists in many families and is often undetected.

Worker Safety and Burnout

Promoting the safety of workers and reducing staff stress and turnover is an important concern for child welfare agencies. Cases involving domestic violence can severely strain workers' personal resources. In the extreme, these cases can place workers directly at risk of violence from the abuser when, for example, they deny the abuser contact with a child or a partner as part of a safety plan. With proper training, child welfare workers are more likely to understand the dynamics of domestic violence and refrain from actions that place mothers, children, and themselves at risk. Trained workers may feel more comfortable working with each member of an abusive family, even in the family's home. Family preservation workers generally spend as much as 10 to 20 hours in a family's home and are on call 24 hours a day. These workers may find themselves in potentially dangerous situations or may be called by an abused mother at a time of crisis. Workers who see family members primarily in an office setting may also receive threats or have direct personal confrontations with violent partners. In addition, partners may try to manipulate the worker, deny abuse, and paint the mother as mentally ill or out of control. For their own safety and that of mothers and children, workers need to know how to recognize and respond to both manipulation and to a volatile, or potentially volatile, situation.

Complexities

Any recommendations for changing case practice must take into account the reality and complexity of the child welfare caseload. Families affected by domestic violence and child maltreatment are not a homogeneous group. Many factors other than the violence itself may also impact a child's safety. Severe substance abuse by either or both adults is prevalent and complicates CPS's ability to work with families. The mother's batterer may or may not be the father of the child and may or may not be living in the home; and the father of the child may or may not be interested in remaining involved in the child's life. The father may attempt to use visitation or custodial decisions to intimidate and control the mother. In order to ensure a child's safety at home, CPS must work with anyone likely to be involved in that household. CPS could, for instance, use the power of the courts to require the batterer to attend appropriate treatment services, and could work with other agencies in the community to hold him accountable for his actions. If these elements are incorporated into CPS's safety plan, further violence within the family may be reduced.

In some families, battered mothers may also be abusive or neglectful of their children. Sometimes this behavior may stem, at least in part, from the abuse perpetrated against them. Even when a mother's abusive behavior is the primary basis for CPS's involvement, workers should screen for domestic violence. If domestic violence exists between the mother and her partner, it may also pose risks for the children. "It is impossible to assess a mother's true capacity to care for her children while she is being battered or experiencing posttraumatic stress from the abuse" (Bograd 1990, cited in McKay 1994). Once an accurate assessment of the family is made, caseworkers can proceed to work more effectively with the family.

Domestic violence victims involved with the child welfare system may differ from women traditionally served by domestic violence shelters. CPS is usually involved with women who have not sought services on their own. While many CPS families have "voluntary" service plans, CPS is traditionally an uninvited presence in the lives of most families it serves, and the possibility of the children's removal is always present. While experience indicates that the abuse of children is frequently what precipitates a request for shelter or a protection order, not all women are able or willing to leave their batterer even when their children are endangered (McKay 1994). Shelters may restrict access for families with active substance abuse issues, serious mental illness, large numbers of children, or older boys; these restrictions limit the ability of some women to leave their batterer. A woman may be financially dependent on a partner because he has not allowed her to work or he controls the household finances. Concerns regarding how she will support her children are well-grounded (DePanfilis and Brooks 1989). Other women remain committed to their relationship with the batterer and may believe that he will change his behavior. Finally, for many battered women, leaving a partner poses additional risks — threats of serious or lethal violence often increase after separation (American Psychological Association 1996). A woman may feel that she is being more protective of herself or her children by staying, and that she is in the best position to determine the risks that leaving poses given her particular situation (DePanfilis and Brooks 1989). Recommendations for changing case practice need to allow workers space for flexibility and creativity to work with each family safely and effectively.

Working with Other Agencies

It is also important that child welfare agencies work with other community agencies in addressing domestic violence issues. Child welfare professionals do not work alone with families but interact with a number of other community players such as law enforcement, juvenile court, other community service providers, and sometimes the criminal justice system (for sexual abuse and severe physical abuse cases). When families also have domestic violence issues, different organizations or agencies may already be working with the family and can offer access to additional services. Effectively serving such families requires that all agencies involved think about this overlap and reexamine their treatment approach and service delivery in light of it. In addition to child protection agencies and domestic violence programs, many groups may be involved in a community's coordinated response to domestic violence (Clark et al. 1996). These include family preservation service systems and private child welfare programs. They also include religious and civic organizations and agencies or organizations working in social services, family services, medicine, mental health, education, prosecution, law enforcement, the judiciary, probation, substance abuse treatment, and employment and training.

It will be helpful for child welfare agencies to work with this larger community for several reasons. When a batterer is removed from a home, it is not CPS's responsibility to keep him away from the premises. Rather, law enforcement and the criminal justice system must respond to his criminal behavior. Child welfare workers should be aware of community resources and legal avenues for the battered woman and assist her in accessing them (McKay 1994). Child welfare agencies are unlikely to have the in-house resources or experience to address domestic violence issues by themselves. In working through an individual family's situation and in making broad agency policy, many opportunities exist for CPS to consult with battered women's advocates, batterer intervention programs, and domestic violence experts, as well as other community agencies with specialized expertise.

Shelters and other domestic violence programs may also be interested in working with CPS to offer more effective help to families in which both mother and children are victims of violence. Currently, domestic violence programs reach only a small proportion of women in need. By collaborating with CPS agencies, battered women's service providers may reach an important and sizeable pool of women who would otherwise remain unserved. The importance of reaching these women is great, both because they have children at risk and because they may be more isolated (and in greater danger) than many of their non-CPS counterparts who already reach domestic violence programs on their own.

Selecting the Five Communities for Study

We identified potential sites for this study through contacts with federal representatives in the offices of the Administration on Children and Families (ACF) and the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN), national advocacy organizations, state and local officials known for their work in this area, and through calls to individual states and communities. The major criterion for selection was that the primary impetus for innovation and linkage come from within the child welfare agency and be directed to its own case practice. This eliminated as potential sites any efforts that came primarily from within domestic violence programs or hospitals to address the overlap between domestic violence and child abuse and neglect among their clients. Massachusetts and Michigan were included because of their long history in this area. The Massachusetts Department of Social Services began meeting regularly with battered women's organizations in 1987 and hired its first in-house domestic violence advocate in 1990. Michigan incorporated a domestic violence component into its family preservation program, Families First, in 1993.

Three other sites were selected to provide variation on the following characteristics: state versus local involvement in fostering linkages between child welfare and domestic violence agencies; the availability of additional funds and/or staff; the strength of the court system connection; and the presence of rural or other distinctive populations. In addition, the potential site had to be willing and able to host a site visit within the study's timeframe.

The three additional communities were San Diego County (California), Hilo (Hawaii), and the state of Oregon. In San Diego County, the county child welfare agency — the Children's Services Bureau — and Adult Probation together established a separate administrative unit (the Family Violence Project) to handle all cases active in both departments. Cases in the unit include some of the county's most violent families, who are managed by a two-person social worker-probation officer team. In Hilo, the East Hawaii CPS intake and investigative unit (the East Intake/Crisis/Investigative Unit) is committed to addressing domestic violence within its caseload and has established close relationships with the judiciary. The community has a very proactive judge who hears all temporary restraining order, divorce, juvenile justice, and child protection cases. (The state of Hawaii is distinctive in that all cases affecting a family can be combined within a single family court.) East Hawaii has a semi-unified family court; all family cases other than criminal cases are heard in a single court. The judge in this court actively screens restraining order petitions for child abuse/neglect and refers appropriate cases to CPS. Finally, Oregon's State Office for Services to Children and Families (SCF) is attempting to change case practice throughout the state by cross-training child protection workers and domestic violence workers about the relationship between the two forms of abuse. Oregon also recently ran pilot programs that placed domestic violence advocates in two local SCF offices, continues to encourage local-level dialogues on these issues throughout the state, and recently received continuation funding of its federal grant to expand its pilot efforts.

Individual descriptions of each of these five sites are presented in Chapters II through VI. Chapter VII reviews many of the crosscutting issues that arose out of these site visits, and presents the study's conclusions and policy implications.

Chapter II

Family Violence Project Children's Services Bureau, San Diego County, California ⁴

Introduction

With a population of over 2.6 million, San Diego County is the fourth largest county in the nation and the second largest in California. The county covers a very large geographical area (over 4,000 square miles) and includes the city of San Diego and 17 incorporated cities ranging in size from small coastal towns to larger coastal cities such as Oceanside. The city of San Diego has been growing by about 22,000 residents a year since 1980. With an estimated population of 1.2 million, it now ranks as the sixth largest city in the country and the second largest in the state. The eastern region of the county is largely rural. To the south, the county shares a border with Mexico. Because of its geographical remoteness, the northern portion of the county is often administratively distinct from the rest of the county.

Close to 10 percent of San Diegans are Asian/Pacific Islander, about 7 percent are African American, one percent Native American, and the remainder white. About one-fifth of the population is of Hispanic origin. San Diego County's large size also means that the populations in need of social services within the county vary from one region to another. Several contacts described geographic differences in the racial/ethnic characteristics of residents as well as the types of illegal drugs that are common. The metro region of the county is predominantly black, the southern portion of the county is predominantly Hispanic, and the eastern portion of the county is predominantly white. In regard to drug use across San Diego, cocaine and rock cocaine/crack are most prevalent in the "metro region," heroin in the southern portion of the county, and crystal methamphetamine, also known as "crystal meth" or "ice" in the county's eastern part. (San Diego County has the dubious distinction of being the crystal-methamphetamine production capital of the country. Many people commented that it is an especially harmful drug that has greatly complicated the work of social service providers in the community.) Contacts within the Children's Services Bureau, the courts, and the treatment provider community often mentioned that most or almost all of the cases they now see involve substance abuse problems.

San Diego has a long tradition of public and private interagency coordination, and the county's primary social service agencies enjoy good working relationships. With encouragement and support from the County Chief Administrative Office and the County Board of Supervisors, most of the county's managers and administrators are sold on the idea of collaboration. ⁵ Rather than narrowing their focus and becoming less flexible in the face of fixed budgets, many agencies are trying to "maximize services [to families] through collaboration" and Ado more with less." This extends beyond the civilian agencies. The Navy's Family Advocacy Center which provides families in San Diego's large Navy community with education, counseling, and referrals, also offers group sessions for "children who witness violence" and connects families with other support services as needed (Center staff are also mandated CSB reporters). ⁶

The county has a very active Domestic Violence Council, a quasi-political nonprofit umbrella organization established in 1989. Among the Council's achievements are the development or establishment of: a law enforcement protocol (adopted by the San Diego Police Chief's and Sheriff's Association in 1990); a domestic violence protocol for medical facilities; standards for treatment of domestic violence perpetrators (adopted by the San Diego City Attorney, District Attorney, and Probation Department in 1991); a domestic violence training curriculum for teachers; a Domestic Violence Information Guide; and a domestic violence telephone information line. Over 200 agencies are members of the Council and work together on a variety of fronts. In addition to three geographical task forces, the Council has 12 working committees addressing a wide range of areas including law enforcement, shelter and support services, medical, legal action, child abuse/domestic violence collaborations, ethnic concerns, treatment and intervention, grants and data collection, and education and prevention.

The court that hears domestic violence cases varies depending on the severity of the offense (misdemeanor versus felony) and whether the offense occurred in the city of San Diego or elsewhere in the county. In general, municipal courts have jurisdiction over civil cases, misdemeanor cases, and some criminal cases (up to $25,000) within a given geographic municipality (and the judges are elected within this municipality). The superior court, however, has unlimited jurisdiction throughout the county and is responsible for all juvenile cases, probate and family law cases, and any criminal case. The court handles all felonies (but not misdemeanors) and has unlimited jurisdiction over civil cases.

Brief Overview of Child Welfare Services

Child welfare services in California are administered at the county level. In San Diego County child protective services are the responsibility of the Children's Services Bureau (CSB), a division of the Department of Social Services. CSB currently receives 8,000 emergency referrals each month and investigates over 58,000 child abuse and neglect cases annually.

Data on the average monthly activity during fiscal year 1994-1995 reveal that CSB received an average of almost 5,100 reports alleging the abuse or neglect of close to 6,600 children. Of these children, 2,600 (or 40 percent) were deemed to be low risk and were not assigned for investigation. The cases of another 3,600 children (54 percent of the original 6,600) were closed after investigation or the provision of short-term services. The families of 182 children agreed to receive voluntary services, and petitions were filed on behalf of 218 children (of which 203 were substantiated). Finally, an average of 192 children were removed from their homes each month of fiscal year 1994-1995.

In addition to its monthly activities associated with intake, CSB provided ongoing services to 8,100 children: 5,800 children in out-of-home placements and 2,300 children at home. Almost half of the children who were out of home were staying in a non-relative's home, another 40 percent were in a relative's home, and just under 15 percent were in a group home. Among children receiving in-home services, 49 percent were receiving court-ordered services and 51 percent voluntary services.

The Children's Services Bureau has a separate family preservation unit. Several years ago some attention was devoted to domestic violence issues among families in their family preservation program, but the head of the unit explained that domestic violence is not now part of the program's curriculum: "It was decided that domestic violence is a treatment issue, not a behavioral modification issue." One unit supervisor estimated that about half of the families they serve have some form of (non-severe) violence within the family. The vast majority (over 90 percent) have drug abuse problems which often contribute to neglect. Many of the parents they serve have never parented, or have never parented sober.

Child Welfare Agency Approach to Domestic Violence

The main linkage between child welfare and domestic violence in CSB is through the Family Violence Project, a distinct administrative unit (with dedicated staff) that bureaucratically bridges CSB and Adult Probation. The unit is staffed by social workers and probation officers who jointly oversee cases that are active within both departments. Cases are referred to the unit from line workers in both CSB and Adult Probation. According to the deputy director of CSB, there is widespread support for linking child welfare and domestic violence. Events such as the O.J. Simpson trial have raised many people's awareness, including CSB staff. Unlike efforts underway in San Diego County, little has been done at the state level to address the overlap between child abuse/neglect and domestic violence. State officials are just beginning to think about the linkage and are more focused on welfare reform and child welfare wrap-around services.

The goal of the Family Violence Project is "to better protect victims of family violence by enhancing and coordinating case management activities between probation and Children's Services Bureau staff." The project is staffed by five CSB social workers and two probation officers. The maximum caseload for social workers is 33 cases (each child is counted as a separate case) and for probation officers, 40 cases (each probationer is considered a case). ⁷ Although two different sets of case records are kept (one for CSB and one for probation), there is much communication and information sharing. The social workers and probation officers manage cases as a team and the workers report that this collaboration works well. In its first year of operation, from November 1994 until October 1995, the project served 201 children (in 66 families).

Although the Family Violence Project serves only a small share of all CSB cases, these tend to be the hardest-to-serve cases and the project is having a broad impact throughout the Children's Services Bureau. New domestic violence training (including advanced training on investigations involving battered women) has been made mandatory for all workers who handle cases and their immediate supervisors. Family Violence Project staff have developed a Domestic Violence Protocol (similar to one being used in Massachusetts) for all CSB workers. They are also reexamining their confidentiality rules and questioning whether these rules are hindering the work of CSB rather than protecting children's interests.

The deputy director of the Children's Services Bureau feels the need for both a dedicated unit and more broad-based education and training, and that Family Violence Project staff are meeting both of these. While CSB has considered expanding the Family Violence Project and doing so would require taking staff from other parts of CSB, the County Board will not approve additional staff. ⁸ CSB is exploring other creative ways to enhance the project such as applying for grants and other sources of support.

The link between child protection and domestic violence in San Diego began in 1992 with a case that received a great deal of media attention. A mother and child who had been referred to CSB and were receiving voluntary services were murdered by the mother's live-in boyfriend. CSB later learned that the boyfriend had been on probation for domestic violence and that CSB caseworkers had not known this. The department then wondered how many other families in their caseload were in similar situations. They ran a computerized cross-check and saw a large overlap between the two systems. The heads of both (county-level) departments — adult probation and CSB — decided they needed to do something about this. They drafted and signed a memorandum-of-understanding establishing a "marriage" between adult probation and CSB.

San Diego County has approximately 19,000 probationers, 85 percent of whom are managed through large bank (automated) caseloads of 500 or more and the remaining of whom are in one of several intensive service programs. In addition to the Family Violence Project, these specialized programs include programs for sex offenders, gang members, violent offenders, and probationers in recovery. Normally, the probation department provides intensive services through one of these programs over a nine-month period and then moves probationers into the bank caseloads. Cases remain with the Family Violence Project, however, for about one year. The probation department's philosophy is to hit probationers hard early on and effect a crisis, then get them moving along the system (staff prefer the term "case flow" to "case work").

Clearly the number of all CSB cases that involve domestic violence is much greater than the number being served by the Family Violence Project. What limits the share of cases eligible for the Family Violence Project is the small number of families with an adult who is on felony probation for a domestic violence or related offense. ⁹ The vast majority of the roughly 5,000 domestic violence cases handled by the San Diego County District Attorney's Office are at the municipal/misdemeanor level. The Family Violence Project draws its cases from the much smaller pool of felony cases.

The probation department and CSB have different service provider lists (providers to whom the agency can refer clients). Family Violence Project staff can use providers from either list. The collaboration also allows the two-person team to take advantage of the comparative strengths each of them brings to the case. For example, while a perpetrator may not respond to the CSB worker's primary weapon — removing the child from the home — he may comply with the orders of a probation officer who could incarcerate him if he were to violate the terms of his probation (that require him not to be violent). A juvenile forensics mental health specialist, who works closely with the Family Violence Project, characterized the teaming of CSB social workers and probation officers as an effective balance between the firm, masculine, lay-down-the-rules side of probation and the more nurturing, feminine, we'll-work-with-you side of social work. One interesting advantage in working with perpetrators in the Navy is that they are directly accountable to their commanding officers, and that repeat offenses and failure to participate in recommended counseling may result in administrative or disciplinary actions.¹⁰

Difficulties in cross-screening cases (learning about the probation status of domestic violence perpetrators and the domestic violence behavior of probationers) are part of the reason the Family Violence Project was established. It took heroic efforts to get a probation officer to look at a social services computer screen. In addition, CSB staff are not authorized to access criminal history information/records. Since Family Violence Project probation officers do have access to this information, regular CSB case managers frequently call upon them to provide critical information on their cases. CSB staff also have several contacts at the City and District Attorneys Offices who are generous in providing them with important information.

Another interesting feature of linking these two particular programs is that while CSB traditionally gets involved early on in the life of a case, shortly after law enforcement is involved, probation is typically involved at the tail end of the process, after conviction. From probation's perspective, cases are staying in the program longer than they would otherwise (primarily because they need to satisfy two courts), but from CSB's perspective, cases are exiting the system faster than they might otherwise. Family Violence Project statistics suggest that, even though it is serving some of the "worst" cases, the program is exceeding regular CSB standards with respect to the number of children leaving care and returning to at least one parent.

Family Violence Project staff are clearly advanced in terms of their understanding and awareness about domestic violence. In fact, one of the advantages of having a dedicated unit is that staff become quite knowledgeable about key issues. Over time, the movement of staff in and out of the unit also ensures that this knowledge properly penetrates the rest of the agency. All Family Violence Project staff sit on various subcommittees of the local domestic violence council. They have developed expertise and receive professional journals. Family Violence Project staff also make themselves available as a resource to the rest of CSB. They field daily calls on questions about restraining orders, how to handle challenging cases, and other issues.

CSB has provided "lots of domestic violence training" to its staff. Some line workers reported having received domestic violence training recently while others had not. An up-to-date domestic violence training session has been developed and will soon be delivered to all CSB staff. ¹¹ The training is mandatory for everyone who carries a case and their immediate supervisor. The training has benefited by input from both law enforcement and service providers in the community who will also help the supervisor of the Family Violence Project and another Family Violence Project staff person deliver the training.

Perspectives of Other Community Service Agencies and Organizations

The head of the Family Violence Project was very committed to building linkages with many different members of the community. As she explained, Awe cannot protect children alone." The role of the police in uncovering and reporting child abuse/neglect when they respond to emergency domestic violence calls varies widely across San Diego County. Police response to domestic violence calls, the types of cases that are referred to CSB, and the manner in which CSB responds to these referrals all vary by individual officer, police district, and local CSB office or unit. Some jurisdictions, such as the cities of San Diego and Chula Vista to the south, are very active in addressing domestic violence. While the county as a whole has adopted model policies concerning arresting and prosecuting domestic violence cases, there are still problems with enforcing warrants when perpetrators fail to follow through with treatment. ¹²

The San Diego City police department is very active in domestic violence issues. Its members sit on several multi-agency domestic violence groups along with CSB. One group was formed to examine the system of referrals of domestic violence cases from the police department to CSB investigation and in-take. A second group meets biweekly to review and consult on very difficult cases. Representatives from the District Attorney's Office, City Attorney's Office, and domestic violence shelters are also part of this team.

Currently, two police departments (in the City of San Diego and in Chula Vista) refer all domestic violence cases in which children are present to CSB. This has doubled the number of domestic violence-related referrals to CSB's hotline. California law requires the police to make a report on all domestic violence incidents, even those not involving injury or other signs of physical violence (A137-30 cases"). CSB is now refining which cases should be referred to them by the police and which should not. Not referring 137-30 cases (as the lieutenant in the San Diego police department thinks is appropriate) would reduce the police department's referrals to CSB by about 20 percent. ¹³

Internally, the San Diego police department is "just getting into" the area of overlap between child welfare and domestic violence. Currently, when responding to a report of domestic violence, officers do not routinely ask if there are/were any children present or ask to speak directly with children if they know them to be present. The Family Protection Center within the police department consists of the Domestic Violence Unit and the Child Abuse Unit. The Child Abuse Unit staff have received some domestic violence training but their focus is primarily on the abuse of children (under age 14). There is some overlap between the two units but not much. The lieutenant explained that this is because "they are two separate crimes involving different patterns and causes" and that children are seldom found to be victims in domestic violence situations.

The San Diego police department uses a protocol developed by the Domestic Violence Council, called the Domestic Violence Operations Manual. It includes a one-page description of "Some Effects on Children Living With Violence." The packet also includes points made in a lecture that explicitly mentioned the importance of children in the household and the high overlap between domestic violence and child abuse/neglect. However, most step-by-step instructions for investigations of domestic violence cases primarily treat children as potential witnesses to domestic violence incidents.

The police department in Chula Vista provides office space for an in-house domestic violence advocate. The advocate, who is bilingual, reviews all domestic violence police reports and tries to contact all victims to provide them with information about their rights and about support services and programs in the community. The advocate is a staff member of South Bay Community Services, a private community service agency located across the street from the Chula Vista police department.

Among the family violence prevention and intervention services offered through South Bay Community Services are crisis intervention and counseling, victim support and case management services, children's services, court-certified batterer intervention groups, prevention education, and confidential scattered-site emergency shelters. ¹⁴ Other programs are devoted to community development, family housing and support, and children, youth, and family services. The domestic violence advocate and other staff from the agency also sit on the South County Domestic Violence Task Force, part of the San Diego Domestic Violence Council.

As of several years ago, there were major gaps in services in San Diego County, especially services for children affected by domestic violence. There was also a dearth of high-quality programs appropriate for battered women (many therapists who work with victims are not properly educated about domestic violence). The Children's Services Bureau issued a community-wide bulletin to solicit efforts to begin to fill these gaps, and the community has responded well. There is some controversy in the community about the circumstances surrounding services for battered women. One prominent treatment provider was philosophically opposed to mothers being ordered/coerced (by CSB or the courts) into treatment because "battered women have been pushed around enough." Other providers, however, were not opposed to requiring abused mothers to seek treatment. One battered women's shelter worker, for example, thought CBS's involvement with mothers and children made her work easier by reinforcing the types of changes needed to keep them safe and secure.

The Family Violence Project has no formal linkage with the domestic violence community. The program does, however, interface informally and extensively with the battered women's services community. Family Violence Project staff looking at ways to improve program policy and procedure are planning to develop this area. CSB, for example, has become much more involved with the Domestic Violence Council since a Child Abuse and Domestic Violence Subcommittee was established about a year ago.

Battered women who decide to leave their abusive partners can choose to participate in an intensive assistance program (also called the Family Violence Project) that is modeled on Boston's AWAKE program. The San Diego program serves about 120-140 mothers and 350 children a year. It has kept a relatively low profile because staff cannot handle a high volume of cases. When serving a mother who is part of an active case within CSB, program staff work closely with the CSB caseworker. The success of this collaboration depends on the individual CSB caseworker.

Comments from various members of the domestic violence community about CSB's role with families affected by both domestic violence and child abuse/neglect were quite varied. Several contacts thought that CSB had improved in recent years and commended the work being done by the Family Violence Project. A few contacts, however, reported that the quality/knowledge-level of CSB caseworkers (and children's attorneys) was hit-or-miss and that they had not seen any noticeable improvements over time. ¹⁵ Among the specific criticisms raised by domestic violence community representatives were that CSB does not know what to do with reports of situations in which children witness domestic violence, CSB staff are too quick to remove children from homes, victim-blaming attitudes and practices are still prevalent within CSB, more safety planning for mothers and children is needed, domestic violence training needs to be ongoing because of the high turnover within CSB, and CSB needs to reexamine kinship placement (if domestic violence is present, staff should not place children with the father's parents).

A lack of communication and coordination at the court level is an ongoing problem in the county. In fact, the county juvenile court was recently divided into several smaller regional courts, further fragmenting the system. There is very little communication between family and juvenile court and conflicting court orders are not uncommon. One interesting development is the establishment of a semi-unified domestic violence court in the South Bay region of the county. The South Bay region, with a population of about 400,000, housed a family court and a superior court for the first time in 1992 and 1993. Since the civil domestic violence work did not require a full-time judge, the county established a single domestic violence court handling criminal cases in the morning and civil cases in the afternoon. The domestic violence court primarily interfaces with CSB through its family court services program.

All children involved in San Diego County juvenile court are provided publicly-funded legal representation through the Child Advocacy Division of the Public Defender's Office. The division's staff of 17 lawyers and 13 investigators monitor cases and make at least one home visit with each child during the six-month interval between hearings. At any given point in time, lawyers carry a caseload of about 200 children, and investigators (who investigate and monitor cases between hearings) are responsible for 250 children. The director of the Child Advocacy Division estimated that more than half of the children they see are affected by domestic violence.

The division's staff all have some background working with children, including social work, pediatric nursing, education, and counseling. Child Advocacy Division lawyers maintain close contact with CSB social workers, therapists, and other service providers on particular cases, but their relationship with CSB workers can be quite tense. Social workers see these lawyers as looking over their shoulders and criticizing them in court.

While there is lots of training in San Diego County, including two bar-wide training sessions a month in addition to in-house training, there is no court-mandated training for lawyers on domestic violence. Child Advocacy Division lawyers have been trained by Family Violence Project and shelter staff.

Outcome and Evaluation Issues

A very limited assessment of the Family Violence Project — based on information extracted from 30 Family Violence Project case files — is being done by the Family Research Group, with oversight from San Diego State University's School of Social Work and grant monies from San Diego Children's Hospital.

The outcome measures they are using come directly from the Family Violence Project's own stated goals and outcome indicators. The goals include: each family having a case plan and service goal that are shared by the probation officer and the social worker assigned; referring perpetrators to therapy or counseling within 30-45 days of referral to the supervising probation officer; and enhancing the protection of victims of family violence through the coordinated response to new threats to victims in violation of court orders. These goals are measured using the following indicators: (a) number of coordinated responses, (b) number of recurrences of family violence, (c) number of perpetrators removed from family contact or rearrested to protect other family members, (d) number of families who achieve case plan goals, and (e) whether or not uniform methods of recording case information have been developed. One important limitation of the study, noted by the lead researcher, is that the cases under study are among the very first involved in the Family Violence Project. More recent cases may differ because the Family Violence Project now gets involved much earlier on in the life of a case.

There are serious barriers to the CSB data system's ability to support more general evaluation efforts. Most California CSB cases involving domestic violence cannot be identified. The statewide computer system only allows one problem/cause to be coded, so domestic violence is only indicated if it is the only problem presented by the family. Since the number of referrals or cases with domestic violence present cannot be determined (short of manually reviewing all case narratives), there is no way of assessing whether such cases differ from non-domestic violence cases in terms of recidivism and other factors of interest.

Conclusions

In many ways, linking adult probation and child protection for those families active to both systems, as is being done by the Family Violence Project, makes a great deal of sense. From the perspective of child protective services, this model takes advantage of the offending parent's existing probation status to hold him accountable, something which most CPS agencies are unable to do effectively, in large part because their only real sanction is removing a child from his or her home. Linking services with adult probation also has the important advantage of dealing with some of the CPS's hardest-to-serve and most violent families.

An important limitation of this linkage, however, is that only a small share of CPS cases affected by domestic violence are likely to be eligible for the program. Clearly, if the CPS is serious about addressing domestic violence among families in its caseload, it will need to go beyond a narrowly focused unit such as the Family Violence Project. San Diego's Children's Service Bureau is trying to do this by building on the internal expertise and knowledge that Family Violence Project staff have acquired, to develop training curricula and protocols for all case workers in the agency. Staff also train other workers directly and consult with workers on cases involving domestic violence. This model of establishing a specialty unit with the view to modifying case practice throughout the entire agency is an interesting alternative to trying to change case practice immediately through agency-wide training alone.

The Family Violence Project's supervisor also noted how important it is to build community-wide forums of communication and trust. Several managers noted that while every social service agency/organization has its own mandate and vision, there is often much overlap and it is important to find this common ground. CSB's relationship with the larger domestic violence community is quite mixed. Some of this may reflect the newness of CSB's efforts in this area and the fact that the Family Violence Project serves only a small share of all CPS cases affected by domestic violence. But successfully linking child welfare and domestic violence will also require a change in perspective by battered women's advocates and service providers. In San Diego, this process is just beginning.

For others interested in establishing a similar program, the Family Violence Project supervisor suggested setting things up at the administrative level and then immediately bringing line workers together. She also cautioned that one should expect to have to make initial changes in staffing levels and to help workers overcome long-held stereotypes. Ongoing training of all staff is also critical. The supervisor attributed much of the program's success to staffing the project well (with client-sensitive probation officers and skilled social workers) and having the top-most agency leadership committed to the effort. This commitment helps infuse a culture throughout the agency down to the line staff, and means that the project need not depend on the good will of individuals in order to be successful. The supervisor emphasized the importance of creating a team spirit among the staff and ensuring that they do not get polarized. The unit's specialty status means that staff view it as a plum assignment and as a group they feel pride and ownership over the project.

Chapter III

Intake/Crisis/Investigative Unit Department of Human Services, East Hawaii, Hawaii ¹⁶

Introduction

The East Hawaii branch of the Family and Adult Services Division (which includes child protective services) of the Department of Human Services in the state of Hawaii serves the eastern half of the county of Hawaii. Hawaii County covers the island of Hawaii, also known as the Big Island because it is the largest of the state's islands. East Hawaii includes the small city of Hilo (population just under 40,000) as well as outlying rural areas. Though small by national standards, Hilo is the largest city on the Big Island and is the second largest city in the state next to Honolulu (which is located on the island of Oahu).

The residents of Hawaii County include a diverse and complex mix of ethnicities, races, and cultures. Seventy percent of the population of Hilo is Asian or Pacific Islander, 27 percent is white, and 8 percent is Hispanic. The county at large has a higher proportion of whites (40 percent) and lower proportion of Asian and Pacific Islanders (57 percent). In addition to the Native Hawaiians, who have been on the islands for many centuries, the Asian and Pacific Islander population includes many cultures such as Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, and Samoan. Native Hawaiians are disproportionately poor relative to the rest of the population. Many of the whites have migrated to the island from the mainland United States and settled in the rural areas on the southeast side of the island near the town of Pahoa. In this area, developers are subdividing large tracts of land and selling plots that often lack running water and electricity. Residents of these subdivisions are both poor and middle income, and their homes range from makeshift shacks to large houses. The dirt roads and lack of addresses greatly complicate the work of the Child Protection Services, police, the courts, and other service providers in the community. Reaching them for home visits can be very difficult and making contact by mail or telephone impossible.

The County of Hawaii bears a disproportionately high share of the social, health, and mental health problems in the state. The county has the highest rate of confirmed cases of child abuse and neglect and the highest rate of births to mothers age 15 to 17. In 1993, 40 percent of the 2,118 births in the county were nonmarital, the highest rate in the state. The county also has the lowest per capita income ($13,169) and the highest rate of unemployment (4.6 percent). ¹⁷ In 1995, the number of temporary restraining orders against perpetrators of domestic violence was up 5 percent from 1994, and is almost three times the rate found on the island of Oahu. Total cases in family court were up 8 percent from 1994.

Increasing levels of distress in the community are coinciding with severe cuts in state funding. The number of confirmed abuse and neglect cases increased by 20 percent in the past year, while the same number of workers have fewer service providers to call upon. Most of the community's social service agencies, including private providers, enjoy good relations and open communication, but all agencies and organizations are constrained and many are overwhelmed by the workload in relation to state budget cuts. The county has lost over $3 million in human service contracts in the last year alone.

Brief Overview of Child Welfare Services

The child protective services (CPS) system in Hawaii is administered by the state office in Oahu. The island of Hawaii is broken into two service districts, East Hawaii and West Hawaii. While West Hawaii has several subunits, all of East Hawaii is run out of Hilo. The East Hawaii CPS includes one intake and investigation unit, two case management units, and one foster care and licensing unit. The East Intake/Crisis/Investigative (EICI) unit has one supervisor, five investigators, one intake worker, and two case aides. The case management units each contain one supervisor, six case managers, and three or four case aides.

In 1995, EICI received 1,053 calls and investigated 515 of the reports. Of the 402 cases confirmed as abuse or neglect, EICI registered 188 as new cases, reopened 139 closed cases with new intake information, and added intake information to 74 existing open cases. Hawaii state law allows CPS to take protective custody if a child is being physically or psychologically harmed due to abuse or neglect, or is at risk of such injury. While each branch has free rein to accept cases at all levels of risk within this framework, due to increasing reports and caseloads the East Hawaii unit is unable to serve those who are at the less severe end of the spectrum. It was suggested that growing caseloads are due to both an increased awareness of the issue of child abuse and neglect and more stringent reporting laws, as well as an increase in the use of crystal methamphetamine and a resurgence in the use of heroin. One worker stated that several years ago, the unit would receive a report of only one baby per month who was born with drugs in its system. Now they investigate an average of one per week. The use of crystal methamphetamine is particularly problematic for CPS because its users become tense and often violent when they come down. In general, the severity of injury and abuse has been increasing among the families CPS serves. Finally, CPS workers in East Hawaii cover a large geographical area, including many rural communities. Investigators drive a minimum of 30 or 40 miles a day, and 100 miles in a day is not uncommon.

At least 95 percent of cases that are transferred into the case management unit are under the jurisdiction of the court and fall into either Family Supervision, where children remain in the home, or Foster Custody. Families in both types of cases are required to follow a service plan. Case managers carry caseloads of approximately 22 families each. Of these, the supervisor believed that, on average, five families had domestic violence as their primary reason for referral, and another five as their secondary issue.

Child Welfare Agency Approach to Domestic Violence

The primary linkage between child protection services and domestic violence exists through the criminal justice system. Child welfare workers have access to the criminal histories of the perpetrators of abuse and to a list of all active temporary restraining orders (TROs). The family court judge oversees child abuse and neglect cases as well as petitions for TROs. The judge has access to all former and current criminal and civil family court case records involving the perpetrator and other family members. The judge actively questions TRO petitioners about the well-being and whereabouts of their children, and if the children appear to be (or have been) in danger, he refers the case to CPS. CPS workers often attend the afternoon TRO hearings to report back to the judge regarding cases he has referred to them. CPS often assumes cases referred to it by the judge, suggesting that he screens them well.

Judges in Hawaii are able to combine all family cases into one family court. In Maui, for example, all family cases — including criminal and civil cases, divorce proceedings, child protection, and juvenile justice — are seen in the same court. In East Hawaii, all family cases other than criminal cases are seen by the family court. ¹⁸ One full-time judge oversees the family court with the help of one part-time judge. When the full-time judge was appointed in 1989, he created a third family court in the state and appropriated all divorce, temporary restraining orders, juvenile justice, and child protection cases. All civil and criminal non-familial cases and criminal family cases are seen in the district court. Only a small portion of family cases involve criminal proceedings including sex abuse, physical abuse, and domestic violence. The judge would like to include criminal family cases but is unable to do so because of his caseload. If the family court expands to two full-time judges as expected in the future, the court will begin to hear the criminal cases as well.

The family court judge routinely tries to gather as much information as possible about the families he will see in court. His staff check the court files and pull up all cases in which the perpetrator and/or family have been involved. When a family is active in several different types of judicial proceedings within his court, the judge may hold the hearings back to back (or simultaneously); this is not only convenient for the parties involved, but allows for maximum consistency in rulings. Since many probation office staff are housed in the same building as the family court, and CPS staff familiar with the family are often at court for other cases, the judge calls on these individuals during hearings. This system allows for more flexibility and ensures that families will receive a consistent message with coordinated orders. While all of the judges have easy access to all case records involving a particular party, only the family court judge routinely reviews the former cases of a particular family or perpetrator. This judge considers himself to be making very critical decisions in these families' lives, and therefore acknowledges a need for as much information as possible.

The family court judge reviews all petitions for TROs on Tuesday mornings. The application that a victim must complete in order to petition for a TRO includes questions pertaining to any threat or actions taken to harm her children. A TRO can also be requested on behalf of a child. The judge reviews the application and questions both parties in court about the existence of children, their whereabouts during the particular incident, and their general safety. Because the judge is aware of the overload of cases within CPS, he acts as a screener to determine the level of safety of the children. In 1995, he referred just over 6 percent of his TRO cases to CPS. Generally, the judge refers to CPS only those cases where a child has been hurt or is at serious risk of harm by his/her parents' fighting, or if the child is very young, has been active to CPS previously, or has been exposed to continual domestic abuse. If a child appears to be in danger, he requires that CPS staff submit a report or appear in court at the TRO follow-up hearing to recommend whether the court should obtain jurisdiction over the child. These return hearings on civil protection orders, which are held regardless of CPS involvement, are essential to obtain the perpetrator's cooperation. Any violations of TROs, however, are sent to the district court.

When the intake/investigative unit receives an allegation of child abuse, through the judge's TRO calendar or any other source, the investigator accesses the criminal history (reflecting both arrests and convictions) of the alleged perpetrator through the Hawaii Criminal Justice Data Center. In 1995, EICI requested criminal histories on all new cases accepted into the unit — roughly half of all intakes that were investigated. This compares with an overall state rate of request for criminal histories of 17 percent of all investigations. One worker thought that almost half of her cases involved at least one parent with a criminal record. The criminal history provides a picture of the family environment — how often the perpetrator has been in prison and for how long, whether a perpetrator has been violent in the past and to whom, whether the violence is escalating or shows other patterns, whether drugs are a major problem in the household, and whether the perpetrator is on probation. In addition, a list of the names of both petitioners and respondents for every active TRO is reviewed. If a TRO exists, the intake worker notes the presence of the TRO (and the court case number) on the file, and the investigation worker assigned to the case later accesses police reports and court records related to the TRO.

The intake desk also checks the state CPS system to find out about previous state involvement with the family, and checks the Hawaii Automated Inquiry System to determine whether a family receives AFDC. The state CPS data system allows the EICI unit to input the name of the perpetrator to find out whether he (or she) has been involved in CPS cases with other families. When a child abuse report is made, the intake worker checks the names of all persons involved in the case.

CPS investigation workers are given much freedom in how they carry out their initial visit. How they address domestic violence, therefore, varies across workers. At least one worker always spoke with the children separately in order to gain a broader picture. Whether she spoke with the mother separately from the father depended on the situation. If the perpetrator remained in the home and there was concern for the child's safety, the child would be removed. The workers considered witnessing domestic violence a serious issue and very harmful for the children involved. However, investigators lacked specialized protocols or procedures for routinely screening for abuse between the parents.

The CPS workers we spoke with were aware of and concerned about domestic violence as an issue that needed to be addressed in order to ensure the safety of the child. However, it was not clear how well that translated into also making the safety of the mother a priority. In part, this translation was hampered by a lack of tools to use in aiding mothers directly, and a lack of broader community services for CPS workers to draw upon. If the domestic violence was so severe as to place the children in danger, the workers explicitly informed the mother that if she did not leave the batterer, she risked losing her children. One client with whom we spoke stated that the choice between her partner and her children was given to her and that CPS supported and encouraged her to choose her children. The intake supervisor acknowledged that the obligation to protect the mother was not as great once the children had been removed. If it is safe for the children to remain in the home, however, they monitor the situation. They noted that the mother does not leave her partner (or even if she leaves, she returns or enters into another equally unhealthy relationship) at least 80 percent of the time.

The case managers have devised ways to help mothers leave their batterers by identifying a safe haven, making contingency plans, developing self-esteem, breaking dependency, and getting the mother into school. Case managers also draw upon what is usually a large extended maternal family as a resource to help support a victim of domestic violence.

The case managers were very concerned about the lack of services in the community to serve both perpetrators and (child and adult) victims of domestic violence. Alternatives to Violence was, until recently, the only program offering treatment services. Another program had recently been established, but had not yet developed many links with CPS. Unfortunately, there are few private therapists experienced in the issues of domestic violence to draw upon. An additional problem is that many of the psychologists who do work on the island are very reluctant to accept CPS clients because Medicaid reimbursement rates are very low.

Some native Hawaiian families request a form of traditional Hawaiian therapy known as Ho'oponopono ("to make things right"). While CPS allows families to receive Ho'oponopono, supervisors also include Alternatives to Violence in the service plan because they do not feel that Ho'oponopono alone successfully addresses abuse issues. Several service providers explained that Ho'oponopono was an acceptable supplement to — not substitute for — standard treatment approaches. Ho'oponopono involves working with the entire family together, which is often not appropriate for families affected by domestic violence.

Domestic violence is only one of many issues confronting case managers and families. Many parents must cope with substance abuse problems. Approximately 80 to 90 percent of CPS cases involve drugs, especially crack cocaine or crystal methamphetamine. Substance abuse problems also contribute to many control issues over money. Addicted fathers often beat a child's mother in an effort to get her welfare money. Some case managers said they tried to work through the substance abuse issue prior to resolving the domestic violence.

In the past two years, the Department of Human Services in Oahu sponsored two day-long domestic violence training sessions for their East Hawaii Branch staff. This training was mandatory for all line workers but not their supervisors, though several attended. Each of the two training sessions was delivered by an Oahu-based organization — one by the Family Peace Center and the other by the Domestic Violence Clearinghouse. A third domestic violence training (sponsored by Hilo's Domestic Violence Interagency Taskforce) was held in spring 1996. All Intake Unit staff and several case workers from other units attended the day-long session devoted to coordinated community efforts to prevent family and domestic violence. One supervisor explained that it was expected that workers would approach their work differently as a result of these training sessions, but she was unsure that they actually did. She also noted that no agency-wide policy changes grew out of these training sessions.

A primary benefit of the link between CPS and the justice system is that decisions about families made by CPS workers and the judge are based on greater knowledge about the family's situation. Furthermore, the greater the communication between the various agencies and players, the more difficult it is for the perpetrator to manipulate the system. It is also hoped that families with children at risk or harmed because of domestic violence are being seen by CPS earlier and/or more often because the judge questions parents about children during the TRO hearings. The primary disadvantage of this approach is that it has not been able to foster the development of adequate treatment and follow-up services, a key part of helping families and children once they have been identified.

Perspectives of Other Community Service Agencies and Organizations

Hilo has an ongoing and active Domestic Violence Interagency Taskforce (DVIAT) that has been meeting every month or so since 1994. Prior to this most recent effort, other interagency groups met on and off over the preceding decade. The ongoing work of these groups has allowed for open communication lines and positive relations to be built within the domestic violence community. The taskforce includes Child Protection Services, Alternatives to Violence (see below), the crisis shelter, the prosecutor's office, law enforcement, adult probation, the Children's Advocacy Center, family court, district court, the local medical center, and private therapists. Most recently, the taskforce has focused on legal procedures, education and public awareness, and prevention activities.

Overall, the community displayed a widespread desire to cooperate and work together to help children affected by domestic violence. Unfortunately, services — particularly for children — are extremely limited. For example, there are no support groups for children who have witnessed domestic violence. Also, the Department of Education, the Department of Health, and the medical community are noticeably absent from community coordination efforts. Nonetheless, it appeared that at the individual level of service delivery, some cooperation with these agencies did occur.

Alternatives to Violence

Alternatives to Violence (ATV) is the main program providing batterer intervention services and support groups for battered women. ATV also provides women applying for a restraining order with an advocate to help them through the application and court process. Over the last two years, ATV has changed directorship and is recovering from a recent period of mismanagement. It lost many of its resources but is slowly building them back up. Within the last six months, ATV started a new batterer intervention program but it is not well-known or widely used by CPS workers or others with whom we spoke.

Approximately 95 percent of the participants in ATV's batterer intervention program were court mandated. The counselors let the prosecutors, CPS, and probation know when a client misses several weeks in a row. As part of its program, ATV conducts a monthly check with the female partner to ensure that she is safe and to determine whether her partner is continuing threats or violence or has begun to change his attitude and behavior. If he has acted out, the counselor raises this within group session (directly if the woman believes it is safe or indirectly through role playing). If a violation of a TRO has occurred, ATV staff encourage her to report it. If it is apparent that children are in danger, the ATV workers, being mandated reporters, will encourage the woman to self-report to CPS and will do so themselves if she does not.

Over half of the women in the domestic violence support groups are court mandated, primarily through family court. ATV has mixed feelings about this policy — they feel it revictimizes women, but understand that some of them need to be compelled into treatment and that often abusive men may not allow their partners to attend unless it is required. For those families active with CPS, the frequency of communication between ATV and CPS depends a great deal on the particular CPS worker.

ATV feels that it has a positive relationship with CPS that is stronger now that CPS staff are taking domestic violence more seriously. Women were often blamed, regardless of the existence of spousal abuse, prior to the increase in education and awareness among child welfare workers. However, ATV disagrees with CPS about the extent to which their goal should be keeping the family together. While ATV has not trained CPS workers, it has conducted in-service training for a private family support service agency that serves CPS families.

Hale 'Ohana

The Hale 'Ohana Crisis Shelter has only been open since July 1995. The shelter is supported by the same government contract that for many years supported ATV's Family Crisis Shelter (ATV continues to run a shelter by the same name in West Hawaii). Within its first week of operation, the shelter's budget was cut by 30 percent and the shelter was immediately forced to let go of its domestic violence advocate, child behavior specialist, and volunteer recruitment coordinator. The shelter director believes that recent budget cuts have brought the community to a very critical point in its history, but the cuts have also caused community members to draw closer together.

The shelter works with CPS when they have a family in common. The relationship between the two is good, and many years earlier the shelter director worked as a case manager for CPS. She felt that CPS was doing what it could with limited staff, but that identifying domestic violence at earlier stages in their cases would be worthwhile.

Children's Advocacy Center

In 1986 the Hawaii State Legislature provided operating funds to establish the first Children's Advocacy Center (CAC) under the state judiciary. In 1989 funding was provided to establish similar centers statewide, and the East Hawaii CAC opened in November 1990. The CAC focuses on the needs of children who have been severely abused. In East Hawaii, the CAC spearheaded a widespread community effort to respond more effectively and sensitively to children who have been sexually abused. The center provides a child-friendly space for police and CPS staff to conduct joint, videotaped interviews so that child victims and witnesses do not have to be interrogated multiple times unnecessarily. The CAC coordinator also sets up multidisciplinary coordination meetings for children and families involved in both civil and criminal court proceedings.

The center is available for cases other than sexual abuse, and has begun to reach out more aggressively for physical abuse cases. The CAC coordinator is also an active member of the Domestic Violence Interagency Taskforce. While not actively involved with serving children primarily affected by domestic violence, the CAC director was certainly open to becoming more involved. CACs across the state had recently surveyed private providers to gather information about their areas of expertise (including domestic violence). Although the survey results were originally intended for distribution among the judiciary alone, the CAC director was very enthusiastic about sharing the information with CPS and others.

Prosecutor's Office

The Prosecutor's Office primarily coordinates with CPS on cases that involve severe physical or sexual abuse of a child. The staff we spoke with did not fe

issues

sectors

places

people

urban institute

Efforts by Child Welfare Agencies to Address Domestic Violence

The Experiences of Five Communities

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Chapter I

Background and Overview

Chapter II

Family Violence Project Children's Services Bureau, San Diego County, California ⁴

Chapter III

Intake/Crisis/Investigative Unit Department of Human Services, East Hawaii, Hawaii ¹⁶

issues

sectors

places

people

urban institute

Efforts by Child Welfare Agencies to Address Domestic Violence

The Experiences of Five Communities

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Chapter I

Background and Overview

Chapter II

Family Violence Project Children's Services Bureau, San Diego County, California 4

Chapter III

Intake/Crisis/Investigative Unit Department of Human Services, East Hawaii, Hawaii 16

Family Violence Project Children's Services Bureau, San Diego County, California ⁴

Intake/Crisis/Investigative Unit Department of Human Services, East Hawaii, Hawaii ¹⁶