Partnership in Early Childhood Education and Services (Colorado PIECES)

Needs Assessment Report {Part I} Child Welfare, Early Intervention, and Head Start Director Surveys October 2012 Funded through the U.S. DHHS, Children’s Bureau Early Education Partnerships to Expand Protective Factors for Children in Child Welfare

Colorado Division of Child Welfare Denver, Colorado

Prepared by The Butler Institute for Families Graduate School of Social Work University of Denver

Introduction Young children involved with child welfare need greater supports to ensure their readiness for school and long-term healthy development. Despite having higher-than-average rates of developmental delays, behavioral and emotional concerns, and family and community risks (U.S. DHHS, 2005), just one-quarter of 0 to 5-year-olds investigated for maltreatment nationally are enrolled in an early childhood development program, such as Head Start (Ringeisen, Casanueva, Smith & Dolan, 2011). Research shows that accredited and high-quality child care and education lead to better outcomes for children, but that child welfareinvolved children are “far less likely” to attend accredited child care compared with other children (Dinehard, Manfra, Katz, & Hartman, 2012; Zhai, Waldfogel, & Brooks-Gunn, 2011). One way to increase children’s access to early care and education among maltreated children is to strengthen links and collaboration between agencies. This includes child welfare, Early Intervention, Head Start and Early Head Start, family and centerbased childcare, and in Colorado, Early Childhood Councils, which serve as coordinating bodies for early childhood service systems. A review of over 200 studies of strategies to coordinate services shows that having structured relationships between service providers is the most commonly effective strategy to achieve both client satisfaction and positive health outcomes (Powell Davies et al., 2008). Structured relationships include strategies such as having co-located staff, multi-disciplinary teams, case management, and prioritizing certain clients for services. Researchers found that multi-type strategies were consistently more effective than single-type strategies, for example providing staff training or coaching alone.

Child welfare-involved children are “far less likely” to attend accredited child care programs compared with other, similar children (Dinehard et al., 2012)

In a 2011 study, children in Head Start were more likely to have early learning materials in their home— puzzles, books & musical instruments—and were less likely to experience neglect, spanking, and child welfare referral at age 5 compared with other children (Zhai et al., 2011)

This report provides the results of a statewide needs assessment conducted in Colorado concerning child welfare and early childhood services collaboration. Views of child welfare, Head Start/Early Head Start and Early Intervention directors are provided. Additional results, from surveys with directors of Early Childhood Councils and focus groups with directors of agencies serving Latino families, are provided in a separate report. The purpose of the needs assessment was to describe the current landscape of collaboration in Colorado, as a first step in a design and development approach to intervention (Rothman & Thomas, 1994).

2

What is the Colorado PIECES project? In 2011, the Colorado Division of Child Welfare was awarded a 17-month infrastructure-building grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, Children’s Bureau (Award #90CO1060). Eight projects were funded across the country. The purpose of the grants was to foster strategic collaboration between child welfare and early childhood systems to maximize enrollment, attendance, and supports of infants and young children (ages 0 to 5), who are in or at risk of foster care, into high quality early care and education programs. Colorado PIECES—Partnership in Early Childhood Education and Services—involves three overarching components: three local sites implementing Strengthening Families through Early Care and Education (Center for the Study of Social Policy, 2004) state-county partnership in building on strategies and goals that are consistent with the Colorado Practice Model^ and the Early Childhood Colorado Framework, and statewide needs assessment, overall and local evaluation provided by the Butler Institute for Families. El Paso, Fremont, and Jefferson counties in Colorado are participating in the PIECES project. A spotlight on their work is provided in Evaluation PIECES, a bulletin available at the Butler Institute for Families (University of Denver): http://www.thebutlerinstitute.org/.

Overview of the Statewide Needs Assessment This report presents a summary of results from the initial statewide assessment of child welfare and early childhood services collaboration across the state. The assessment sought to answer key questions: (1) what formal collaboration mechanisms exist? (2) what are referral mechanisms for child welfare-involved children to access Head Start and Early Intervention, including screening and capacity? (3) to what extent is there collaborative service planning at the family-level? (4) what do results suggest about training and professional development needs? and

Participants Surveys were sent to all Directors of Child Welfare, Early Intervention (Community Centered Boards), Head Start/Early Head Start, and Early Childhood Councils across the state. The following chart shows the response rate to the online survey. Of the 154 Directors, 92 completed surveys (60%), representing a large portion of Colorado’s 64 counties. Participation rates are shown in Table 1.

3

Table 1. Survey participants Agency Child Welfare Head Start/EHS^ Early Intervention Early Childhood Council

No. of Agencies Surveyed 57 47 20 30

Total Agencies Responding 36 23 13 20

% 63 49 65 67

^Early Head Start

The mean length of time Directors had been in their current position was 6.5 years. Most Directors have a master’s degree (55%), and 32% have a bachelor’s degree. Over three-quarters (78%) are female and most are white (86%). Twelve percent indicated Latino, Hispanic, or Spanish ethnic origin.

I. What formal collaboration mechanisms exist? In 2010, the Office of Head Start and the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families issued a Joint Information Memorandum indicating the ongoing commitment of both constituents to strengthening partnerships to ensure that maltreated children receive optimal early educational care and intervention (ACF-IM-HS-10-O4). Changes to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) and the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) nearly a decade ago (2003-2004) also required child welfare and Early Intervention provider agencies to improve processes to refer children ages 0 to 3 to early intervention services when maltreatment is substantiated. What is the landscape of early childhood-child welfare (CW) collaboration in Colorado today? Early Intervention and Head Start directors were asked to rate whether 12 different formal collaboration mechanisms exist between their agency and their local CW agency. Items were drawn from strategies recommended in the above-mentioned Joint Information Memorandum, and from previous research (e.g. Landsverk et al., 2003; Stahmer, Thorp Sutton, Fox, & Leslie, 2008). In addition, Head Start agencies were asked about whether policies exist in their agency to prioritize children involved with child welfare for enrollment, and about their agency’s capacity to offer enrollment to eligible children (available “slots”). Finally, Early Intervention and Child Welfare directors were asked about the benefits and challenges to the 2003-2004 CAPTA and IDEA amendments. Figure 1 presents the most common formal collaboration strategies reported by Head Start directors.

Figure 1. Most common collaboration mechanisms reported by Head Start directors (%) Priority enrollment-children in OOH care^

96

Priority enrollment-other CW-involved children

86

Intake protocol asks about CW involvement

70

Designated staff to facilitate collaboration

48

Standardized referral process

43

0 ^Out-of-home care

20

40

60

80

100 4

As shown, nearly all Head Start directors surveyed indicated using priority enrollment for children in out-of-home care (OOH; 96%), as well as other children with known child welfare involvement (86%). Agencies accomplish this by either putting these children at the top of the waiting list, or by assigning higher risk points to the children. Head Start Directors reported that, on average, enrollment is able to be offered to children in OOH care about 80% of the time, while among other CW-involved children, enrollment is available about 63% of the time. Other common collaboration mechanisms among Head Start agencies include: Intake Protocol that asks about child welfare involvement (70%), having a designated staff person or staff role to facilitate CW coordination (48%), and standardized referral processes (43%). Directors infrequently reported Memoranda of Understanding with child welfare (27%), clearly shared values between agencies (36%), co-located staff (14%), and policies or protocol on joint family service planning (9%). Nearly all Head Start directors report prioritizing enrollment for children in out-of-home care and other children involved with child welfare. Just 32% indicated that additional funding was available to prioritize or provide services to children in foster care. One-quarter (27%) indicated having additional funding to support prioritization and services for other children involved with child welfare.

Early Intervention (EI) directors also rated the extent of formal collaboration mechanisms. Figure 2 presents the most common collaboration mechanisms reported EI directors.

Figure 2. Most common collaboration mechanisms reported by Early Intervention Directors Joint participation on interagency group

92

MOU/Interagency agreement

77

Standardized referral process

62

Clearly shared values between agencies

Many EI Directors report interagency groups (92%) and MOUs with the local child welfare agency (77%).

46 0

20

40

60

80

100

Similar to Head Start directors, very few EI directors reported co-located staff (8%), policy or protocol on joint family service planning (15%), and jointly-developed programs (15%).

5

Benefits and drawbacks to collaboration Participants in collaborative networks in public and nonprofit services will have expectations about the benefits and drawbacks of collaboration (Provan, Veazie, Staten, & Teufel-Shone, 2005). Not all collaboration is perceived as useful, nor productive in accomplishing goals. While building partnerships, it is important to assess and minimize drawbacks, while maintaining benefits. Child welfare and EI directors were asked to rate eight benefits and challenges to the CAPTA and IDEA amendments of 2003-2004 that were aimed to increase partnership and referrals of children with substantiated maltreatment to EI services. Items are based on Provan and colleagues’ (2005) Network Data-Collection Instrument. The scale ranges from (1) Strongly Disagree to (6) Strongly Agree.

Figure 3. Child Welfare and Early Intervention director reports of benefits and drawbacks to CAPTA and IDEA legislation of 2003-2004

Benefits

Drawbacks

More children in need have access to EI and other specialty services

Staff training and development needs

Strengthened agency relationships

More challenging families (EI) or casework (CW)

Staff understanding of each agency's services

Increased need for data and data system capability

Clearer roles and responsibilities of each agency

Missed timelines for evaluations (EI) or investigations (CW)

As shown in Figure 3, EI and CW directors reported similar benefits to the federal policy, including: (1) that children have greater access to early intervention and other specialty services, (2) strengthened relationships between agencies, (3) greater understanding among staff of the other agency’s services, and (4) clearer agency roles and responsibilities. Drawbacks most highly rated were: (1) increased need for staff training and professional development, (2) more challenging families for EI or more demanding casework for CW, (3) data and data system needs, and (4) missed timelines for evaluations or investigations. Results showed little endorsement that the legislation had strained agency relationships, or strained work relationships internally. However, there was higher variability in responses on the “drawback” items overall, suggesting that there may be 6

local variation in the extent to which drawbacks are an issue in implementation. Still, for agencies wanting to strengthen collaboration, results clearly show that directors perceive service benefits for children, but also experience increased challenges in the areas of staff development and data capacity. Both agencies’ results indicate that “new” or “different” client-level challenges are being presented; for EI, being able to make assessment deadlines and engaging challenging families, and for child welfare, managing the expanded casework related to the need for greater collaboration related to the required mandate. (see Appendix A for full results).

II. How do child welfare-involved families access Early Intervention and Head Start? To understand how children access Head Start and Early Intervention while involved with child welfare, directors were asked how common each of 12 referral mechanisms are among children with known child welfare involvement. Results are shown in Table 2. Among Head Start agencies, the most common referral sources reported are foster parents, relative caregivers (e.g. grandparent), and human services such as WIC or Child Care Assistance. For Early Intervention agencies, medical providers, child welfare workers, and relative caregivers were listed as the most common referral sources. That CW workers were the most common referral mechanism reported among EI directors but not Head Start directors may reflect the impact of the mandated referral policies of CAPTA and IDEA (2003-2004), which targets CW and EI, but not Head Start, collaboration.

Table 2. Head Start and Early Intervention director reports of the most common referral mechanisms among child welfare-involved children Mechanism

Common referral sources for child welfare-involved children

EI Directors report

Head Start

Early Intervention

an average 39%

Child welfare worker

√

√√

increase in referrals from CW and an

Foster parent

√√

√

average 16%

Relative caregiver

√

√

Early Intervention

√

Human services such as WIC

√

Community mental health services

√

School district

√

Medical provider

√

increase in eligible children since CAPTA and IDEA amendments in 2003-2004.

√At least two-thirds of Directors reported that the mechanism was “Common” or “Somewhat common” √√Most common referral mechanism 7

What Screening Tools are Used? Developmental screening is a primary method to identify young children who may need extra care and support. Broadly defined, screening is “a systematic process by which a large number of asymptomatic individuals are tested for the presence of a particular trait” (Bergman, 2004). Screening is different from assessment, which then aims to define particular problems among individuals expected to have some type of concern. Screening is meant to identify children needing further evaluation, not to provide a diagnosis or plan of action. Colorado’s Early Childhood Colorado Framework identifies ongoing screening and assessment of children’s development as one of fifteen strategies for action toward early childhood goals. Yet, there is a lack of understanding around ensuring that all children are screened (equity), that children are screened adequately and without duplication (efficiency), and that service providers share and use results to inform service planning or ensure that children receive the next step of evaluation (effectiveness). While the current needs assessment did not address all of these topics, directors were asked a series of questions regarding developmental screening coordination. Table 3 shows developmental screening tools used by the agencies surveyed.

Table 3. Developmental and social-emotional screening tools used^ Instrument

Number of agencies^^ Child Early Head Welfare Intervention Start (n=36) (n=13) (n=23)

Developmental Screening Ages and Stage Questionnaire (ASQ)© Denver Developmental Screening-II (DDST)© CWESI Early Screening Inventory (ESI)(ESI-R)© Child Development Inventory (CDI) Developmental Indicators for the Assessment of Learning (DIAL-2 or 3) Developmental Assessment of Young Children (DAYC) Hawaii Early Learning Profile (HELP)© Other Do not screen Social-Emotional Screening Ages and Stages Questionnaire-Social Emotional (ASQ-SE)© Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA) Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA)© Do not screen

10 2 1 2 0

11 3 1 3 0

13 2 9 0 4

0 0 2 19

2 3 2 0

0 1 4 0

14 3 0 1 18

11 2 0 1 0

14 1 12 1 0

^ PLEASE SEE THE REFERENCE LIST on pages 21-22 for authors and citations of all screening tools. ^^Figures may not total 100% because more than one screening tool may be used.

8

As shown, all EI and Head Start directors reported conducting developmental and social-emotional screening. Among CW agencies, 19 of 36 directors surveyed reported conducting screening (53%) and 18 reported conducting social-emotional screening (50%). Among all directors, the most common screening tools were the Ages and Stages Questionnaires (ASQ) and its social-emotional version (ASQ-SE; Squires, Bricker, & Twombly, 2002). Many EI and HS directors use multiple developmental screening tools, including the Denver Developmental Screening II (DDST), and the Early Screening Inventory (CWESI). Over one-half of Head Start directors reporting using the DECA for social-emotional screening (n=12).

Screening coordination Children involved with multiple providers may be screened multiple times, if providers don’t communicate about screening results. Directors were asked the extent to which they coordinate with other community providers to reduce screening duplication: (1) never, (2) hardly ever, (3) sometimes, (4) most of the time, and (5) always. Results show that the majority of Head Start and EI directors indicate they collaborate with other community providers to reduce screening duplication at least some of the time (61%). Roughly one-third of Head Start directors report sharing screening results with child welfare (39%), while 61% of of EI directors reported sharing results with child welfare.

Most Head Start & EI directors collaborate with other community providers to reduce screening duplication (61%). EI directors more commonly reported sharing screening results with child welfare.

All of the CW directors who reported conducting screening indicated that results are shared with EI and HS, and 48% indicated that they collaborate with other community providers on screening.

Referring children to child welfare: Head Start and Early Intervention experiences Early childhood agencies and child welfare intersect in many ways, including when a child is enrolled in Head Start or receiving early intervention or child care, and a teacher or worker is concerned that the child is being maltreated. It is important to assess this vantage as it likely influences many dynamics: the impression that families have of the coordinated system, workers’ ability to respond adequately to the situation, and the comfort-level of staff in making future referrals. Head Start and Early Intervention directors were asked about how often their organization makes maltreatment reports. Directors were then asked about benefits and challenges to the report process. The following table details some of the challenges described by Head Start and EI directors. As shown, by far, the most common challenge expressed was staff feeling concerned about their relationship with the child and family when a report is made. Directors expressed having discussions with staff around their worries and concerns about (1) whether to make a report (does the situation warrant a referral?), and (2) family-staff relationships following the report. This may be an area to partner more closely 9

through training, and to build capacity in early childhood settings to support direct care staff encountering maltreated children.

Table 4. Challenges to early childhood staff reporting maltreatment, from the perspective of Head Start and Early Intervention Directors Challenge

Example

Conflict regarding their roles as a family supporter verses a mandatory reporter

(Staff) don't want to alienate their families or feel they betrayed them.” “Maintaining a good working relationship with the parents since we have to work with them daily and do home visits with them after reports are made is a challenge.” “We work hard to make sure there is no damage to that relationship after the report.”

“Disconnectedness” regarding what happened after making reports

“It would be nice to be able to receive support from the child welfare agency, sometimes we aren't sure if the situation is abuse and would like to be able to consult with child welfare before making an actual report.”

Collaboration

We’re not always “viewed as partners” and its difficult to collaborate on cases once we make referrals. We’re sometimes “out of the loop”.

III. Ongoing Service Planning Family-centered service planning is a goal of child welfare agencies, and a long-standing principle of both Head Start and Early Intervention services. Many child welfare agencies use family-centered meetings to aid placement, safety and service decisions. Models include Family Group Decision Making, Team Decision Making, and Family-Centered meetings. Including early childhood constituents in such team-based strategies, such as having the EC provider present or consulted for the team meetings, and including their input in service planning is one way for services to be coordinated, facilitating including CW and early childhood-related goals for children and families. Child welfare directors were asked whether their agency uses one of four family-based decision making strategies, and if so, whether Head Start and EI providers are involved in such meetings. Results are shown in the following table (Table 5) and figure (Figure 4).

10

Table 5. Percentage and number of child welfare agencies using one or more of the following family engagement strategies (n =36) Service

Percent (Count)

Family Group Decision Making

50% (18)

Team Decision Making

72% (26)

Family Team Conference

25% (9)

Red Team (Differential Response)

19% (7)

Roughly three-quarters of CW directors surveyed report using 1 or more familycentered decision making strategies.

Overall, roughly three-quarters of child welfare agencies report using at least one type of family decision making model, including FGDM (50%), Team Decision Making (72%), Family Team Conferences (25%), and Red Team (19%). Directors were next ask the frequency of involvement of EC providers (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Child Welfare Director reports of early childhood involvement in family-centered service models used by the CW agency

Head Start

8

19

50

19

4

Never Hardly ever Some of the time Most of the time

Early Intervention

6

0

36

20

30

40

60

15

80

12

Always

100

As shown, there is a fair amount of involvement in family-centered services by early childhood agencies surveyed. Among Head Start directors, just 20% reported that they are “never” or “hardly ever” involved in family-centered meetings. One-half report being involved some of the time, and 23% reported being involved most or all of the time. Among EI directors, over one-half reported being involved in family-centered meetings at least some of the time (57%). Over one-third (36%) reported being involved “hardly ever” and 6% reported never being involved. According to these results, early childhood involvement in family-centered meetings that are commonly used in CW may be more frequent among HS, compared with EI, providers. Notably, just one-half of HS agencies in Colorado are represented in the study, which may influence results. 11

Child Welfare Reports of Service Concerns among 0 to 5-year-olds involved with the agency Child welfare agencies focus, first and foremost, on keeping children safe from maltreatment. This includes intervening to prevent and reduce exposure to maltreatment, and ensuring that children are placed in stable, permanent living situations, should they be unable to remain safely at home. Child welfare agencies face many demands, and the needs of young children referred to CW vary considerably from those of older children. For example, national data show that 0 to 2-year-olds are more likely to be referred to CW for exposure to domestic violence and substance abuse compared with older children (Casanueva, Smith, Dolan, & Ringeisen, 2011). They are also rated by caseworkers as having experienced the most severe level of harm and risk (Casanueva et al., 2011). In an effort to understand service needs, child welfare directors were asked to rate their level of concern about 14 child outcomes in the areas of safety, permanency, and well-being. Please note that these are perceptions, and should not be considered actual (administrative) data. The scale ranges from 0 (not a concern for my agency) to 10 (a high concern for my agency). Table 6. Child Welfare Director reports of concern for 14 outcomes among 0 to 5-year-olds Concerns

Mean

Std. Deviation

Number of children placed out of county

6.94

3.694

Number of placement moves

6.82

3.335

Length of stay in out-of-home care

6.80

3.16

Family engagement

6.68

3.207

Poor child mental health or behavior

6.43

2.581

Poor developmental prognosis (delays, school performance, peer relationships) Number of children placed

6.29

3.01

6.15

3.457

Re-entry to placement

6.12

3.621

Case re-involvement (re-reports)

5.70

3.312

Number of fatalities and/or extent of severe maltreatment

5.48

4.177

Abuse in kinship care

5.21

4.052

Abuse in foster care

5.03

4.027

Poor child health

5.00

3.114

A lot of high-need, low risk cases

4.97

3.067

12

As shown, the greatest levels of concern related to permanency: the number of children placed out-ofcounty (M = 6.94), the number of placement moves experienced (M = 6.82), and length of stay in out-ofhome placement (M = 6.80). Notably, family engagement was listed with the 4th highest concern-level (M = 6.68). Directors reported the lowest levels of concern regarding abuse in out-of-home care, poor child health, and the number of lower-risk cases. Fairly high standard deviations for some of these items, however, indicate variability, either because some responses were concentrated at the very high or low ends of the scale, or because the full range of responses was used (0 through 10).

IV. Training and Professional Development Training provided to child welfare Thirty percent of Head Start agencies and 17% of EI agencies indicated that they provide training to child welfare agencies in their community. For both agencies, these trainings included; application and referral processes, eligibility requirements, services and early childhood development. Additionally, EI directors reported providing training on disabilities, evaluation and screening procedures. Table 7. Child Welfare Director reports of training received by child welfare staff (% yes) Topic

Head Start

Early Intervention

How and when to refer to the EC agency

73

73

Vision, mission and goals of the EC agency

36

41

Eligibility

65

70

Experiences of maltreated children and families in the EC setting

42

45

Curriculum, types and structure of services of the EC agency

30

54

How to work collaboratively with the EC agency

49

61

Child welfare training provided to Early Intervention and Head Start Forty-four percent of Child Welfare agencies indicated that they provide training to Head Start and Early Head Start, and 11% provide training to Early Intervention. These trainings included CCAP (Child Care Assistance Program) eligibility, and Child Abuse and Neglect mandated reporting. Table 8 shows the proportion of EI and HS directors who reported receiving different types of child welfare training for their staff. Directors indicated each type according to what is received by new and ongoing workers.

13

Table 8. Head Start and Early Intervention Director reports of child welfare training received by staff (% yes) Topic

Early Intervention

Head Start

New Worker

Ongoing

New Worker

Ongoing

How and when to make a report (mandated reporter training)

85

64

100

100

Vision, mission and goals of child welfare

23

9

26

26

Legal aspects to a family’s child welfare involvement

46

27

35

48

Experiences of children and families, such as what foster parents experience, what a permanency plan is, and how reunification may be experienced by young children

23

18

22

22

Developmental and social-emotional topics related to maltreatment such as rates of developmental concerns, trauma, and attachment

31

27

64

65

How to work collaboratively with child welfare

39

36

48

52

As shown, all HS directors reported that all staff receive training in how to make CW referrals, and 85% of EI directors reported this for new workers, with less frequency among ongoing (existing) workers (64%). All other types and nature of training were fairly infrequently endorsed, including child and family experiences, legal aspects of children’s CW involvement, and the vision, mission and values of child welfare. What types of training would be helpful? When asked the types of training and professional development that would be useful for the CW organization to receive related to early intervention and Head Start/Early Head Start, child welfare agency directors shared that training on referral is adequate, but others felt that training beyond this was needed. Primarily, CW directors reported that they would like training on eligibility requirements for EI and Head Start, and resources and services available to families. Figure 5 presents the results of analysis of the training needs reported by all respondents.

14

Figure 5. Director reports of training and professional development that would be helpful

Child Welfare

Head Start

Early Intervention

•Some reported that training on EC referral is adequate •Eligibility requirements •Resources and services available

•Information sharing and guidelines about sharing at the family-level •Basic overview of the CW system and responsibilities •Social-emotional topics and impact of maltreatment/placement on children •More communication between CW and HS about training

•How families receive services and what services CW can offer to families •Goals of child welfare •Legal aspects of CW involvement •Child and family experiences

Early Intervention and Head Start agency directors reported similarly concerning their interest in additional training. One director noted, “It would be helpful to receive training on how families receive services and what services child welfare can offer to families.” Other training topics of interest to EI directors were the goals of child welfare, legal aspects of child welfare, experiences of children and families, and developmental and social-emotional topics. What is the extent of early childhood expertise in child welfare agencies? Finally, child welfare agency directors were asked their perceptions of the extent of early childhood expertise and capacity at their agency. Three items were asked: (1) is there an early childhood specialist at your agency, (2) does your agency have at least one staff member who is clearly skilled in child development, and (3) does your agency have at least one staff member who is knowledgeable about early childhood systems and services? Directors who reported having an early childhood specialist were asked how the person was staffed. Results are shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Child Welfare director reports of early childhood expertise at the agency (% yes) Early childhood specialist at the agency

14

At least 1 staff clearly skilled in child development

70

At least 1 staff knowledgable of EC systems & services

86 0

20

40

60

80

100 15

As shown, approximately 14% of CW directors indicated that they had an early childhood specialist at the agency, and for 60% of these agencies, the specialist was employed staff. In contrast, nearly threequarters of directors (70%; n=20) indicated that have at least one staff member clearly skilled in child development, and 86% indicated that they have at least one staff member knowledgeable about early childhood systems and services.

V. Summary This report covered a number of topics concerning the relationship between child welfare and early childhood services in Colorado, concentrating on the public child welfare agency, Head Start, Early Head Start, and Early Intervention services. Directors were asked about formal collaboration mechanisms, referrals and access, ongoing service planning, and training and professional development. Results suggest a number of strengths to the collaboration landscape. First, there is clearly priority enrollment to Head Start and Early Start for children involved with child welfare. In addition, Early Intervention directors report standardized and coordinated referral processes, in addition to common use of MOUs and participation in local interagency groups. Head Start directors report being able to offer enrollment to many child welfare-involved children, and EI directors report many benefits to the federal policies of CAPTA and IDEA, including that the mandated referral policy has increased children’s receipt of early intervention services. Estimates of the increase in referrals to EI are 39%, with an approximate 16% increase in the number of children eligible for EI services since the mandate according to these results. This is remarkably similar to figures that were projected based on national data in 2008 (Derrington & Lippitt, 2008). These authors estimated a 44% increase in EI referrals, and a 22% increase on average in the number of children receiving EI servcies nationally. This suggests that there has been a substantial increase in the number of children receiving needed EI services following CW contact nationally over the past decade. There are also areas for improvement in collaboration according to the results. Challenges include the need for more staff development in the areas of understanding each agency’s values, roles, and goals, as well as the services that can be provided or facilitated by each organization. Early Intervention directors reported significant challenges engaging families to complete developmental evaluations, and in some instances, difficulty meeting required timelines for evaluations due to having more challenging families and coordinating with the local CW agency. Head Start directors reported wanting more guidance in case-level sharing and understanding family experiences when involved with child welfare. In some communities, ongoing, coordinated service planning may not occur consistently for children involved with both child welfare and early childhood systems. Early childhood directors report sometimes knowing when major events occur in children’s lives such as being reunified (39% of EI directors) and others report feeling “out-of-the-loop” in CW services (and vice versa—CW directors report feeling disconnected from EC services). Just 15% of HS directors report policy or protocol on joint family service planning. These results indicate that while initial service linkages for children are strong, ongoing service coordination and communication are challenges. 16

Appendices Appendix A. Formal collaboration mechanisms reported by Head Start and Early Intervention directors Mechanism with the local child welfare agency

% Head Start

Early Intervention

Memorandum of understanding (MOU) or interagency agreement

27

77

Standardized referral process

43

62

Intake protocol asks about child welfare involvement

70

38

Co-located staff

14

8

Designated staff role or staff to facilitate CW coordination

48

31

Policy or procedures for joint family service planning

9

15

Data sharing agreement

23

31

Joint participation on local interagency group

36

92

Clearly shared values related to children and families

36

46

A Director or other visible leader has previous work experience in public child welfare services

32

46

Jointly developed program(s) to meet needs of families involved with both services

27

15

17

Appendix B. Child welfare and Early Intervention reports of benefits and drawbacks to the CAPTA and IDEA amendments (2003-2004) Mean score (SD) Benefits More children in need have access to EI services Strengthened agency relationships More children in need have access to social-emotional or behavioral services Our staff understand and know more about (the other agency’s) services Clearer roles and responsibilities of each agency Services are more coordinated Family follow-through with recommended services has improved Shared resources and shared accountability Drawbacks Increased need for staff training or professional development More challenging families (EI) or more demanding casework (CW) Missed timelines for evaluations (EI), investigations or assessments (CW) Increased need for data and data system capability Strain on staff time and resources Lack of reimbursement for services such as evaluation Strained agency relationships Strained relationships within my own organization

EI

CW

4.8 (.725) 4.3 (1.32) 4.3 (1.01) 4.2 (1.48) 4.3 (1.03) 3.8 (1.07) 3.5 (1.27) 3.2 (1.24)

4.6 (1.00) 4.6 (1.08) 4.5 (1.15) 4.5 (1.25) 4.2 (.97) 4.3 (1.06) 3.9 (1.14) 3.7 (1.19)

3.9 (1.44) 4.0 (1.78) 3.7 (1.65) 3.6 (1.04) 3.5 (1.51) 3.4 (1.61) 2.5 (1.51) 1.9 (.90)

4.2 (1.05) 3.5 (1.42) 2.4 (1.29) 3.9 (1.59) 3.5 (1.21) 3.3 (1.48) 2.3 (1.03) 1.9 (.89)

18

Appendix C. Sources of referral to Early Intervention among child welfare-involved children Referral mechanism to EI

Common Mechanism

Somewhat Common

Uncommon

Phone call or other direct contact from a child welfare worker

23.1%

30.8%

15.4%

Phone call or other direct contact from a foster parent

46.2%

23.1%

30.8%

Phone call or other direct contact from a relative caregiver such as an aunt or grandparent

7.7%

76.9%

15.4%

Community-based agency that provides child welfare services such as a contracted provider of in-home services

15.4%

7.7%

76.9%

School district personnel

38.5%

30.8%

30.8%

Legal system such as a court-appointed special advocate

0%

23.1%

76.9%

Medical provider such as a pediatrician or nurse

46.2%

38.5%

15.4%

Head Start/Early Head Start

30.8%

23.1%

46.2%

0%

38.5%

61.5%

Community mental health , health, or substance abuse center

15.4%

30.8%

53.8%

Military affiliated services

7.7%

0%

92.3%

Specialized organization such as Latino family services.

7.7%

15.4%

76.9%

Human services program such as Child Care Assistance or WIC program

19

Appendix D. Sources of referral to Head Start among child welfare-involved children Referral mechanism Head Start

Common Mechanism

Somewhat Common

Uncommon

Phone call or other direct contact from a child welfare worker

43.5%

30.4%

26.1%

Phone call or other direct contact from a foster parent

56.5%

34.8%

8.7%

Phone call or other direct contact from a relative caregiver such as an aunt or grandparent

56.5%

26.1%

17.4%

Community-based agency that provides child welfare services such as a contracted provider of in-home services

43.4%

13%

43.5%

School district personnel

43.4%

21.7%

34.8%

Legal system such as a court-appointed special advocate

8.7%

34.8%

56.5%

Medical provider such as a pediatrician or nurse

8.7%

34.8%

56.5%

Early Intervention

39.1%

34.8%

26.1%

Human services program such as Child Care Assistance or WIC program

47.8%

30.4%

21.7%

Community mental health , health, or substance abuse center

26.1%

47.8%

26.1%

Military affiliated services

4.3%

0%

95.7%

Specialized organization such as Latino family services.

17.4%

21.7%

60.9%

20

References Briggs-Gowan, M.J., & Carter, A.S. (2002). Brief Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (BITSEA) manual, version 2.0. New Haven, CT: Yale University. Bergman, D. (2004). Screening for behavioral developmental problems: Issues, obstacles, and opportunities for change. Available from the National Academy for State Health Policy Web site: http://www.nashp.org. Casanueva, C., Smith, K., Dolan, M. & Ringeisen, H. (2011). NSCAW II Baseline Report: Maltreatment. (OPRE Report #2011-27c.) Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Center for the Study of Social Policy (2004). Protecting children by strengthening families: A guidebook for early childhood programs. Washington, DC: Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. Derrington, T.M. & Lippitt, J.A. (2008). State-level impact of mandated referrals from child welfare to Part C Early Intervention. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28, 90-98. Frankenburg, William K.; Dobbs, J.B. (1967). The Denver Developmental Screening Test. The Journal of Pediatrics, 71, (2), 181–191. Glascoe, F.P. (2003). Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status: How well do parents’ concerns identify children with behavioral and emotional problems? Clinical Pediatrics, 42, 133-138. Landsverk, J., Kelleher, K.J., Burns, B.J., Leslie, L.K., Hurlburt, M.S., Slymen, D.J., et al. (2003). Overview, design, and field experience of “Caring for Children in Child Welfare”, a national study of the impact of organization and financing policy on mental health service provision. Unpublished manuscript. LeBuffe, P. A., & Naglieri, J. A. (1999b). Devereux early childhood assessment user’s guide. Lewisville, NC: Kaplan Early Learning Company Publishing. Mardell-Czudnowski, C; Goldenberg, D. S. (2000). A New Test for Assessing Preschool Motor Development: DIAL-3. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 17, 78-94. Meisels, S.J., Marsden, D.B., Wiske, M.S., & Henderson, L.W. (1998). The Early Screening Inventory·Revised (ESI·R). New York: Pearson Early Learning. Parks, S. (1992-2006). Inside HELP – Administration Manual (0-3). Palo Alto, CA: Vort Corporation. Powell Davies, G., Williams, M. A., Larsen, K., Perkins, D., Roland, M., & Harris, F. M. (2008). Coordinating primary health care: An analysis of the outcomes of a systematic review. The Medical Journal of Australia, 188(8), s65-s68. Retrieved from https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2008/188/8/coordinating-primary-health-care-analysisoutcomes-systematic-review. Provan, K.G., Veazie, M.A., Staten, L.K., & Teufel-Shone, N.I. (2005). The use of network analysis to strengthen community partnerships. Public Administration Review, 65, 603-613. Ringeisen, H., Casanueva, C., Smith, K. & Dolan, M. (2011). NSCAW II Baseline Report: Children’s Services. (OPRE Report #2011-27f.) Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 21

Rothman, J., & Thomas, E. J. (Eds.). (1994). Intervention research: Design and development for human service. New York, NY: Haworth Press. Simonian, S.J., & Tarnowski, K.J. (2001). Utility of the Pediatric Symptom Checklist for behavioral screening of disadvantaged children. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 31, 269-278. Squires, J.,Bricker, D. & Potter, L. (1997). Revision of a parent-completed developmental screening tool: Ages and stages questionnaires. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 22, (3)313-328. Squires, J., Bricker, D., & Twombly, E. (2002). Ages and Stages Questionnaires, Social-emotional. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Stahmer, A.C., Thorp Sutton, D.T., Fox, L., & Leslie, L.K. (2008). State Part C agency practices and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA). Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28, 99-108. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). National Survey of Child and Adolescent WellBeing (NSCAW): CPS sample component Wave 1 data analysis report. Washington, DC: Author. Voress, J. K., & Maddox, T. (1998). Developmental assessment of young children. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Zhai, F., Waldfogel, J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (in press). Estimating the effects of Head Start on parenting and child maltreatment. Children and Youth Services Review.

22