Forgey, Mary Ann

Orenstein, Hank

English

Fordham University School of Law

Fordham Law Review Volume 70 Issue 2 Article 7 2001 Report of the Case Management Working Group Mary Ann Forgey Hank Orenstein Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr  Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Mary Ann Forgey and Hank Orenstein, Report of the Case Management Working Group, 70 Fordham L. Rev. 363 (2001). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol70/iss2/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact tmelnick@law.fordham.edu. Report of the Case Management Working Group Cover Page Footnote This report was co-authored by Mary Ann Forgey (co-facilitator) and Hank Orenstein (reporter). The other members of the working group were Eve Robinson (co-facilitator). Nina Allen-Jackson, Rolando Bini, Sandra Carr, Steve Cohen, Marguerite Dingle, Jill Gerson, David Glenwick, Carmen Goris, Debbie Heiser (student secretary), David Lansner, Amy Liszt, Bonni McCoy-Williams, David Megley, Lisa Parrish, Gloria Sosa-Lintner, and Lynn Vogelstein. This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol70/iss2/7 REPORT OF THE CASE MANAGEMENTWORKING GROUP'CHARGEWhat should the Conference recommend to social workers andcaseworkers in all segments of the child welfare system to betterachieve justice for parents in child welfare cases?INTRODUCTIONThe working group was composed of attorneys who representparents, service providers, parents, a Family Court judge,academicians, a psychologist, and representatives from the City's childwelfare agency, the Administration for Children's Services ("ACS"),the Special Child Welfare Advisory Panel, the National Association ofSocial Workers, and other advocacy groups.The Case Management Working Group facilitators used acceptedcase management functions2 as a way to help the working groupidentify and prioritize case management issues that are related tojustice for parents in the New York City child welfare system. Thecommon functions identified were: (1) outreach/access; (2)assessment/intake; (3) goal-setting and intervention planning; (4)formal/informal resource identification, (5) referral to formal/informalresources; (6) counseling; (7) therapy; (8) advocacy; (9) monitoring ofservice provision; and (10) interagency coordination. The facilitators1. This report was co-authored by Mary Ann Forgey (co-facilitator) and HankOrenstein (reporter). The other members of the working group were Eve Robinson(co-facilitator), Nina Allen-Jackson, Rolando Bini, Sandra Carr, Steve Cohen,Marguerite Dingle, Jill Gerson, David Glenwick, Carmen Goris, Debbie Heiser(student secretary), David Lansner, Amy Liszt, Bonnie McCoy-Williams, DavidMegley, Lisa Parrish, Gloria Sosa-Lintner, and Lynn Vogelstein.2- See, e.g., NASW standards for soc. work case mgmt. 1-10 (Case Mgmt.Standards Work Group, Nat'l Ass'n of Soc. Workers 1992) (providing standards forsocial work case managers such as "to intervene at the client level to provide andtorcoordinate the delivery of direct services" and "to ensure the client's right toprivacy"); Jack Rothman & Jon Simon Sager, Case Management: IntegratingIndividual and Community Practice 23-38 (2d ed. 1998) (describing the steps typicallytaken to implement case management and the interrelation among these functions);Stephen M. Rose & Vernon L. Moore, Case Management, in Encyclopedia of SocialWork 335-40 (Richard L. Edwards et al. eds., 19th ed. 1995) (discussing the "role ofcase managers," management issues and functions and "common concerns in thefield").FORDHAM LAW REVIEWdeveloped and distributed a proposed framework based on thesefunctions before the Conference to help members prepare for thediscussion. This framework achieved the purpose of gettingparticipants to think about the range of services potentially availableto families involved, or at risk of involvement, with the childprotective service system, resulting in the formation ofrecommendations addressing the different phases of child welfarecases.The Case Management Working Group recommendations weredivided into five service areas: (1) preventing involvement with thechild protective service system; (2) screening and investigating reportsof abuse/neglect; (3) preventing foster care placement; (4) servicesprovided to children while in foster care; and (5) services providedonce families are reunified.I. RECOMMENDATIONSA. Prevention/Access IssuesThe group recognized that not enough is being done to preventfamilies from becoming involved in the child protective system. Thegroup identified practical ways of providing prevention services upfront. The group recognized that the problem is not always a lack ofservices, but is sometimes a lack of knowledge about what servicesexist for families. The group recommended that, as ACS becomesmore community-based, its local neighborhood offices take on thisinformation and referral function (i.e., clearinghouse) for parentsseeking services and for professionals seeking knowledge aboutservices for their clients.The group also recognized that most parents often only get accessto services as a result of a report of abuse/neglect. More universalpreventive services, such as parent education and home visitation ofnewborns, should be developed to support all parents in fulfilling theircare-taking role. Making preventive services available to all parentswould decrease the stigma associated with these services. More workalso needs to be done to educate "mandated reporters" about servicesso that they can be more helpful to parents in accessing preventiveservices before a report seems necessary.Some challenging ideas were raised about the mandatory reportingsystem itself. Some group members supported eliminating mandatoryreporting, and instead favored subjecting the decision to report to thediscretion of the professionals in accordance with their ethical codes.Others believed this was an issue at least worthy of further study.3. The group did not hold an actual vote on each of the recommendationsdiscussed. The facilitators assessed the level of consensus in the group and decidedwhich proposals to put forth as recommendations to the entire Conference for a vote.364 [Vol. 70CASE MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUPOther factors identified as necessary to improve parent access to, andthe quality of, preventive services included: (1) the need for workersto be more aware of cultural differences and to learn how to workeffectively with any differences and (2) the need to include parents inresearch studies focused on improving services.B. Screening/Investigation IssuesSome group members expressed their view that individualcaseworkers tend to make judgments based on personality and seemto remove children, and provide or withhold services, arbitrarily.Others spoke of the reality that while workers conduct childprotective investigations, it is the managers who make the decisions.It was also suggested that New York's child protective paradigm,.which drives the process, is fundamentally flawed and should bereplaced by alternatives that are showing promise in other states. Thedual track approach, for example, which has been successfullyimplemented in Missouri, places abuse and neglect reports into eitheran investigation or family assessment track, depending on theseriousness of the allegation. The overall goal is to engage familieswith the services they need as quickly as possible. This model has ledto better outcomes for children, families, and workers, both in termsof safety and satisfaction.6The group discussed the lack of focus on family strengths-how thesystem tends to focus on "catching" families doing something wrongThis list of recommendations was then sent to the case management group via e-mailfor comment. Some changes were made to the recommendations based on feedbackfrom the group. For example, one member of the case management group inrevieving the proposed recommendations felt strongly that the elimination ofmandatory reporting should be a recommendation rather than a proposal for furtherstudy. In response to this request, a vote was put out via e-mail to the members of thegroup. Only one member responded to the vote request and voted in favor. As aresult, the recommendation was included. Based on this process, however, it is notclear if there was consensus on the part of the group for this proposal to be a casemanagement recommendation.4. New York responds with a standardized investigation, regardless of theseverity of the alleged child maltreatment.5. See Stephen M. Christian, Nat'l Conference of State Legislatures, NewDirections for Child Protective Services: Supporting Children, Families andCommunities Through Legislative Reform 25-30 (July 1997) (describing Missouri'slegislative reform of Child Protective Services ("CPS"), including embracing family-centered assessments involving voluntary, time-limited services as an alternative tonarrowly focused investigations, eliminating the labeling of caretakers, andencouraging collaboration between CPS and communities); see also Schuyler Ctr. forAnalysis and Advocacy, A Different Front Door: Essential Reforms in ChildProtection Services, SCAA Reports, Spring 2001, Vol. 1, No. 3, at 5-7 (describingreforms in Missouri's child welfare system).6. See, e.g., Schuyler Ctr. for Analysis and Advocacy, supra note 5, at 6 (notingthat when families and children received services sooner, these services were moreresponsive to their needs, families were more positive about the intervention, and thenumber of subsequent reports decreased).2001]FORDHAM LAW REVIEWand "rescuing" children, rather than offering help and proactivelyaddressing the families' problems. One practical way suggested tochange the focus of the system from deficiencies to strengths is torevise the Uniform Case Record to reflect more of an exploration ofthe strengths of the parent and family. The group also recommendedthat the risk assessment instruments should address not only the riskof the children remaining in the home, but also the risk involved inplacing the children outside the home.The group expressed support for greater professionalization of childwelfare services-in particular, utilization of more master's levelsocial workers ("MSWs") during the investigation phase. However,even MSWs in front-line positions are limited in the use of theirknowledge and ideas, since managers and supervisors without MSWsoften do not support the use of the MSWs' professional knowledgeand skills. The group recommended that case managers, who areultimately responsible for the decision to remove a child, should berequired to go to court when necessary to answer questions about thisdecision. The group recognized the challenges inherent in newpolicies trickling down to the level of front-line practice. For example,while there was support for ACS's Family-to-Family initiative,7 somedoubted whether it is being implemented at the practical level.sThe group also recommended that as New York moves toward aneighborhood-based system, the function of screening reports ofabuse or neglect should also be moved to the neighborhood offices.This would enable the local professional staff doing the screening tomake the screening decision with an understanding of the communityculture and context, which would include knowledge about serviceproviders within that community. This understanding of thecommunity may serve to increase the accuracy of the screening, whichis quite low at present, as evidenced by the extremely high number ofreports screened in that are ultimately determined to beunsubstantiated. 97. The Family-to-Family Initiative consists of four core strategies: (1) communitypartnership and neighborhood-based services; (2) data utilization and evaluation; (3)team decision-making; and (4) foster parent recruitment and retention. See N.Y. CityAdmin. for Children's Servs., A Renewed Plan of Action for the Administration forChildren's Services 67-82 (July 2001), available at http://www.ci.nyc.ny.uslhtml/acs/pdf/reform-plan_01.pdf (last visited Sept. 18, 2001) (outlining new reform in ACSresulting from a two-day planning conference that was held in March 2001). A keyaspect of Family-to-Family is that foster families should be partners with families tofacilitate reunification.8. One participant expressed strong doubts about the ability of the system tosuccessfully implement new policies and recommendations because she has observedthat existing policies and laws are often not followed. This tension pervaded theworking group discussion. One member decided to leave the group at the beginningof the second day because this member did not have any hope that the system couldchange and did not support any of the group's incremental change recommendations.9. In the calendar year 1999, nearly two-thirds (62.5%) of reports of abuse and[Vol. 702001] CASE MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP 367C. Placement Prevention/Foster Care PlacenentlReunificationThe group then focused on justice for parents whose children areplaced in foster care. The system needs to be oriented towardshealing families rather than punishing the parents. Parent strengthsshould be emphasized throughout the process, with the goal ofshortening the amount of time children spend in foster care.As to recent policy changes, more effective communication isneeded to ensure that policies are actually implemented at all levels.For example, because not all workers know the new ACS policies onparental visits, they often err on the side of a more limited visitingschedule. The group recognized the critical role that parents visitingtheir children in foster care plays in the reunification process. Visitsshould not be treated as "perks" for parents but rather as aresponsibility that workers should support. The group suggested, as apractical matter, that the term "visitation" be changed since it conveysa certain formality that may be contributing to the rigiditysurrounding the visiting process.The group agreed that one way to prevent unnecessary foster careplacements is to hold more conferences before placement. Presently,there is a greater emphasis on holding conferences immediately afterplacement.The support of parent advocates who have been through the systemis critical. For example, the seventy-two hour Child SafetyConference can be traumatic for a parent who has just had a childremoved. Including parent advocates at conferences could providesupport to other parents. To promote parent advocacy, it wassuggested that a career track for parents be developed within ACSand contract foster care agencies. This would institutionalize parentalinvolvement.CONCLUSIONWhat emerges is the need for a change in the culture and context inwhich the various case management functions occur. To achievejustice for parents, attention must be paid to language and how it isused. Thinking must be shifted to an individualized and respectfulresponse to families, which understands family culture and strengths.This, of course, has implications for training and the "tools of thetrade," including the design of assessment and planning forms and thedevelopment of greater knowledge of how to access communityresources.Another key change needed in the system's culture is a shift to aneglect were unsubstantiated. N.Y. City Admin. for Children's Servs., Progress onACS Reform Initiatives: Status Report 3, at 20 (Mar. 2001), available athttpi/wiviv.cLnycny.us/hnillacs/pdf/status..report3lpdf (last visited Aug. 25, 2001).FORDHAM LAW REVIEWconsumer-oriented system. This includes consideration of parents'input in designing and evaluating services and establishment of a rolefor parents in the training of child welfare professionals. Overall, thegroup recognized the need for greater accountability to parents.The Case Management Working Group did not discuss issuesrelated to linking parents with specialized service providers such asthose for mental health, substance abuse, and domestic violence.Some of the issues include parents' access to these services, paymentfor these services, and evaluation of the quality of the services towhich parents are referred. Unfortunately, the specialized providersof these services that were asked to be in the case management groupwere unable to attend. This is an area that needs further attention.The group also grappled with some particularly controversialproposals for change. Some examples of these more controversialproposals are the elimination of mandatory reporting, 0 thedecentralization of the screening process, and the shortage of federaldollars due to the constraints federal regulations place on the localsystem.Many of the ideas and recommendations generated by the workinggroup could benefit from further discussion. There is a need forongoing dialogue, further brainstorming, and exploration of potentialsolutions to the challenge of improving systems and methods of casemanagement within child welfare.10. See supra note 3.[Vol. 70

Report of the Case Management Working Group

bepress Legal Repository

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3753&amp;context=flr

Report of the Case Management Working Group

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Fordham University School of Law

bepress Legal Repository