Differential Response and Indian Country

1. Differential Response and Indian Country 2012 Indian Child Welfare Summit Tribal State Justice to Strengthen Indian Families Jackie Crow Shoe

2. Goals for this Session • Describe Differential Response (DR), find & its movement throughout United States & into Indian Country • Discuss Core Elements of DR • Discuss Six Principals of Partnership • Share correlation between Native values & those of DR • Provide arena to gain greater awareness about DR & foster opportunities for networking & developing supportive connections among participants

3. What is Differential Response? Photo Courtesy of Jackie Crow Shoe • Alternative(s) to child protection investigative response • Sets aside fault finding • Usually applied to reports that do not allege serious imminent harm • Focuses less on investigative fact finding & more on assessing & ensuring child safety • Seeks safety through family engagement & collaborative community partnerships • Allows & encourages agencies to provide services without formal determination of abuse or neglect

4. On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being “I’ve had no exposure” and 10 being “I am directly involved with the work”, please rate your level of experience with Differential Response.

5. Murky Waters: What makes it so difficult to understand Differential Response? • Different terminology • Different definitions • Different models • Different services • Different service providers • Continuous evolution of practice • Limited & growing presence in Indian Country

6. History of Child Welfare and Purpose of Differential Response

7. Purposes of Differential Response and Child Protection Photo Courtesy of • CPS was established to respond to all reports of suspected child maltreatment, but numbers overwhelm available resources • Systems either screen out or do not open for services more than half of reports, & in so doing, many children are vulnerable

8. Purposes of Differential Response in Child Welfare • Investigatory practice is often adversarial & alienates parents • DR: way to respond to reports (screened in) at earlier stage by engaging families in non-adversarial process of linking them to needed services

9. Acknowledging the historical legacy of Child Protection System intervention • Historical experiences have resulted in distrust & oppression – boarding schools, loss of languages & homelands. • Disproportional number of Native children in child welfare system • Doing to, rather than doing with. • DR is based on doing with Photo Courtesy of Jackie Crow Shoe

10. Core Elements of Differential Response

11. Core Elements of Differential Response • Use of two or more discrete responses to reports of maltreatment that are screened in & accepted • Assignment to response pathways determined by array of factors • Original response assignments can be changed • Ability of families who receive non-investigatory response to accept or refuse to participate in differential response or to choose investigatory response

12. Core Elements of Differential Response • Establishment of discrete responses codified in statute, policy, protocols • After assessment, services are voluntary for families who receive non-investigatory response (as long as child safety is not compromised) • No substantiation of alleged maltreatment & services are offered without formal determination that child maltreatment occurred • Use of central registry is dependent upon type of response

13. Six Principles of Partnership • Everyone Desires Respect • Everyone Needs to be Heard (and Understood) • Everyone has Strengths • Judgments Can Wait • Partners Share Power • Partnership is a Process

14. On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being “no Core elements are currently used” and 10 being “all eight of the core elements are currently and consistently used”, please rate the level in which the eight core elements are being used in child welfare work in your community.

15. Comparing Investigatory Child Protection Models and Differential Response

16. Differences between Differential Response and Investigatory Response • Focus on establishing safety not blame • Safety through engagement of family strengths & community resources • Parent as partner using collaborative practices • Non-judgmental, honest & attentive responses • Child safety addressed within context of family well-being • Services not surveillance [Loman, 2005]

17. Factors Determining Response • Statutory limitations • Each county or tribe can determine criteria • Severity of allegation • History of past reports • Ability to assure safety of child • Willingness & capacity of parents to participate in services

18. Similarities between Differential Response and Native core values Differential Response Native shared core values, beliefs & behaviors Move from agency expert driven compliance approach to safety focused partnership with families & communities Focus on securing child safety through family engagement Recognizing & applying family & community strengths & resources; honoring family wisdom about their circumstances, strengths & needs, as well as culture Consistent with ICWA Autonomy & respect for others Cooperation/group harmony Child-rearing/extended family value. Children are at the center of community Generation of age/wisdom/tradition

19. Differential Response and Casework Practice Protecting Children From Harm Building Safety Around Children Photos Courtesy of Jackie Crow Shoe

20. Differential Response and Casework Practice • Engagement practices: • Communicate with families strategically • Avoid surprise visits • Ask parental permission to see children • Stay separate from law enforcement or partner as needed • Be transparent in purpose & process • Honor family decisions unless they compromise safety

21. Differential Response and Indian Country

23. Differential Response: Minnesota Minnesota • State supervised county administered system • More than 11 years of implementing Differential Response or Minnesota refers to it as Family Assessment Response • 87 Counties 11 Tribes • ICWA initiative began in 2005 with legislative approval for two Tribes White Earth & Leech Lake to provide services to tribal children. In 2011 Tribes were providing differential response at 85% & 80% • In 2011, 69% of all CP cases statewide went to Family Assessment Response

24. Minnesota Tribes Lessons learned to date: • Active family involvement is crucial in partnering, & driving service planning & decision making • Community partnerships are most effective ways to protect children • Families & community stakeholders need to be engaged early in process • Communication among/across jurisdictions is vital–establish vehicles for regular contact • Assessment is ongoing & cumulative as trust builds –this needs to be recognized & honored • Evaluation is important, & should begin as soon as possible • Gathering information for evaluation should be mindful of existing “data collection systems” in Indian Country. Increasing capacity in this area is critical.

25. St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Akwesasne, New York • State of New York passed Legislation in 2007 to allow FAR (Family Assessment Response) • St. Regis applied for FAR training through statewide initiative & was accepted in Phase 2 • Began implementing Family Assessment Response in 2009 • Mission: To strengthen, support, & protect Akwesasne families in all stages of life for seven generations.

26. Montana Tribes: Crow, Ft. Peck, &Northern Cheyenne • Initial training on DR in 2010 • Developed policy statement for demo projects • Addressed major issues: • Intake/referrals, • Assignment of cases to response, • Assessment process • Coordinating resources • Detailed next steps

27. Montana Tribes: Lessons Learned to Date • Work with what you have & build on it, as each program & each tribal community is distinct • DR can be tailored to fit your community, rather than your community needing to be tailored to fit DR • Adapting to change takes time for staff & community, which is important consideration in implementation planning • Identify barriers & address them • Obtain commitment of supervisor, staff & resources to work together • Celebrate all steps toward DR implementation, no matter how small Photo Courtesy of

28. On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being “no changes would be needed” and 10 being “the whole system needs to be overhauled”, please rate the level of reform that would need to occur in your system if your community chose to offer Differential Response.

29. Presenter Contact Information • Jackie Crow Shoe: crowshoe@q.com (952) 486-2730