Safe and Together

Shifting the paradigm where domestic violence, child maltreatment and child welfare meet

Posts Tagged child welfare decision making

Stories from the 2010 Florida Dependency Summit

Aug 31

Posted by David Mandel in Safe and Together Florida, Safe and Together Model

By Kristen Selleck, MSW

National Training and Consultation Director

I attended the 2010 Florida Dependency Summit and, along with David Mandel and Bridget Reilly, met with various leadership staff from DCF and other agencies that’ve been trained in the Safe and Together model. There were excellent stories from these sites about their implementation, the changes in practice and case outcomes.

Workers and managers alike shared stories about the success for families of the implementation of the Safe and Together model. There were stories about how workers had begun intervening with domestic violence perpetrators to reduce the risk to children. There were stories about children who did not have to be removed from their mothers’ care because of assessing survivors’ strengths. In addition, managers talked about how their workers trained in Safe and Together advocated for maintaining children in the care of domestic violence survivors when other staff (not trained in the model) suggested removal. There were stories about how the assessment skills learned in the Safe and Together training helped DCF maintain the safety of children in cases that had the potential to end tragically.

Here are some of those stories:

  • Several managers discussed their strategies for implementing the Safe and Together model. In Jacksonville, FL, they’ve brought in David Mandel &Associates for additional training for their staff and they do monthly meetings of staff trained in the Safe and Together model to discuss cases and the adherence to the model.
  • In Monroe County, the community based care providers began reviewing all case plans and safety plans to ensure that the language of these documents was in line with the principles of the Safe and Together model. They found that many case plans asked domestic violence survivors to end their partner’s abuse (over which survivors have no control) and made changes to how staff writes these plans to avoid putting the responsibility on survivors to end their partner’s abusive behaviors.
  • One attorney discussed a situation in which they reopened a case that was about to end in the termination of parental rights of a mother. When examining the case it was clear that the mother was a survivor of domestic violence and she’d been alienated from the children by her batterer’s family. By reexamining the case through the Safe and Together lens, DCF was able to reopen the case and establish visitation between the children and their mother to support the healing nature of that relationship and their bond for the sake of the children.
  • One manager discussed a tragic case in which historically DCF would have been very “hard” on the domestic violence survivor. Instead, however, a supervisor trained in Safe and Together partnered with the client and was able to learn important assessment information, safety planning information and information that will shape the case plan to protect the child in the future.
  • And finally, a manager and an attorney discussed a case in which the Safe and Together training and the direct case consultation by Bridget Reilly led to the attorney returning to court and amending the case plan to put in interventions for the batterer who was not biologically related to the child in the home. These interventions were a unique approach that can work to protect the child in the future and to support the domestic violence survivor in caring for her child.

There were many success stories that we heard while at the Summit. The entire experience was, honestly, inspiring for me. To hear the stories of good practice and to think how many children have already been kept safe and their well-being accounted for is more than exciting, it’s heartwarming. It was encouraging and informative for me to also hear the creative and innovative ways in which Safe and Together Florida sites have strategized to maintain the momentum of the Safe and Together training as well as find ways to monitor the implementation and ongoing practice.  It supports my confidence that our collective work is really benefiting families and maintaining the safety and well-being of children every day.

Tags: , , , ,

No Comments

Creativity Aids in the Application of the Safe and Together Model

Aug 4

Posted by David Mandel in Safe and Together Model

By Kristen Selleck, MSW

National Training and Consultation Director

In order to maintain the safety and well-being of children with limited resources and  following policies and statutes which weren’t necessarily developed with domestic violence cases in mind, child welfare workers need to be creative or think outside the box.   This skill can assist child welfare workers in their application of the Safe and Together model . Workers committed to intervening with perpetrators and partnering with survivors can develop innovative strategies to achieve child safety.  In recent months, I’ve seen this creativity in action in several states currently using the Safe and Together model.

In Florida, attorneys recommended keeping domestic violence survivors’ safety planning information and confidential disclosures separate from the rest of the case record. This is a creative solution to an issue of survivors’ disclosures being provided to batterers in case plans. Because of the work of this group of attorneys, their colleagues along with case managers and supervisors now have better resources for maintaining the confidentiality of survivors which can directly enhance the safety of children.

In Ohio, a child welfare manager discussed ways to create separate case plans for domestic violence survivors and perpetrators. Currently, families receive one case plan which creates expectations of survivors to end the domestic violence. Because domestic violence survivors do not have the power to change the perpetrators’ behaviors, these plans are inaccurate and set up survivors to fail if their partners choose to continue behaving in an abusive manner. The proposed changes are a creative way to ensure that domestic violence perpetrators are clear on the expectations set for them as well as ensuring survivors are not given the responsibility for ending his abuse. Beyond that, this change can be a creative way of enhancing the children’s safety by ensuring that perpetrators don’t have access to interfering with survivors’ case plans.

In Connecticut, the Department of Children and Families (DCF) has found ways to use the criminal justice system to intervene with perpetrators or find other ways (including subpoenaing perpetrators who are not biologically related to children to juvenile court proceedings or testifying in family court on behalf of the safety needs of the children). These interventions allows DCF to connect perpetrators to services or have court orders in place that assisted in protecting children. In addition, there have been numerous examples of how DCF has partnered with survivors to find creative ways to get children into treatment, to use resources and kin networks to maintain safety for children in the care of the domestic violence survivor.

In each of the above cases, child welfare professionals made significant advances in the practice of partnering with survivors or intervening with perpetrators without having to resort to changes in policy or statute.    So I pose the following questions to the child welfare professions reading this blog: What kind of changes can you make in your practice or the practice of your staff today that will lead to stronger partnerships with domestic violence survivors and/or stronger interventions with perpetrators?  What out-of-the-box actions can you take today that will enhance child safety and well being in cases where domestic violence is a factor?  You don’t need to wait for policy or statues to change in order to make real changes that lead to real improvements in safety and well being.

Tags: , , , , ,

No Comments

10 item checklist about the intersection of domestic violence, substance abuse and mental health issues

Mar 9

Posted by David Mandel in Children Exposed to Batterer Behavior, Safe and Together Model, Trauma Exposure Reaction

by David Mandel, MA, LPC

Domestic violence frequently co-occurs with mental health and substance abuse issues.   A batterer may be diagnosed correctly or inappropriately with mental health issues.  A domestic violence survivor may also have a substance abuse problem.  A child who has been exposed to batterer’s behaviors may have mental or behavioral health issues. Frequently our response to these issues are “siloed,” meaning we prioritize one over the other or even completely ignore one issue to focus on another.  For instance substance abuse and mental health counselors may not screen for domestic violence or if domestic violence perpetration  is identified as an issue it may seen as a symptom of the substance abuse.  A survivor’s recovery plan may be developed without consideration of how the perpetrator might try to sabotage her recovery.   Or a child’s behavioral health issues are not evaluated in the context of historic and current domestic violence.

The following is a 1o item checklist to help begin the conversation about the intersection of domestic violence, substance abuse and mental health issues.  I share this list with the idea that raising our awareness by asking questions about the connection between different issues can be huge step forward in our ability to help families.

  1. What is the relationship between domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health issues?
  2. How have the batterer’s behavior created or exacerbated mental health/behavioral health and/or substance abuse issues for the adult survivor and/or child?
  3. What is the relationship between the batterer’s abusive behavior and any of his mental health and/or substance abuse issues?
  4. How is the batterer interfering with/supporting the treatment and recovery of family members?
  5. How are family members more vulnerable to the batterer because of their mental health and/or substance abuse issues?
  6. How is child welfare and others assessing for domestic violence when the presenting issue is adult or child behavioral/mental health/ substance abuse?
  7. What are important case or treatment plan steps when domestic violence is co-occurring with substance abuse and/or mental health issues?
  8. What are skill level/policy/practices of substance abuse and mental service providers regarding assessing for domestic violence, safety planning and the integration of co-occurring issues into their treatment plan?
  9. What information do mental health and substance treatment providers have access to regarding the domestic violence?
  10. What is the training and skill level of mental health or substance abuse evaluators/assessors regarding domestic violence in general and more specifically regarding the co-occurrence of domestic violence with substance abuse and/or mental health issues?

Tags: , , ,

1 Comment

Domestic violence training for supervisors produces some positive results

Sep 29

Posted by David Mandel in Safe and Together Model

by David Mandel

“In child welfare cases involving domestic violence, supervision plays a critical role in determining the quality and consistency of case practice.   The expectations of supervisors and managers, as expressed through their questions and directives, determine workers’ priorities and areas of focus. Supervisors and managers make the critical decisions regarding case substantiation, transfer and removal.   In domestic violence cases,  it is the supervisor who decides whether a worker’s assessment of the domestic violence perpetrator’s threat to a child safety is complete. It is the supervisor who reviews the worker’s discussion with the survivor regarding safety planning and the children’s well-being.  It is the supervisor who often decides whether a case will be opened and transferred. And managers are frequently involved in cases, providing feedback and direction.” (excerpted from Supervising Domestic Violence Cases: A Training for Child Welfare Supervisors and Managers by David Mandel)

Starting in June 2008, I’ve been delivering targeted day long trainings for CT’s Department of Children and Families’ supervisors and managers entitled “Supervising Domestic Violence Cases.”   And as a follow up to the training,  I surveyed the participants regarding changes in their supervisory practice and their perception of the training is changing outcomes for families. The results are promising.

  • 66% of the respondents identified specific positive changes in their supervisory practice including (1) improved and increased utilization of the Domestic Violence Consultants; (2) greater understanding of the dynamics of coercive control and its impact on the family; (3) increased understanding of survivors’ strengths and safety planning; and (4) more specific questions and directives to workers.
  • 62% indicated positive change in their workers’ practice as a result of their training in the Safe and Together model including 1) workers were more empathetic and supportive to domestic violence survivors; 2) improved assessment and information gathering and 3) improved utilization of the Domestic Violence Consultants.
  • 50% of the respondents indicated positive changes in outcomes for families as a result of the training including 1) increased ability to maintain children safely in the home resulting in fewer out of home placements 2) referrals better tailored to the needs of the family 3) more support for domestic violence survivors and 4) greater accountability for the domestic violence perpetrator.
  • 69% of the respondents indicated continued positive or improved utilization of the Domestic Violence Consultants. For example, one supervisor reported an 80% increase in referrals to their Area Office Domestic Violence Consultant and other supervisors indicated workers were better prepared for the consultation process.

To read the full report on the training and the survey click here.


Tags: , , , ,

1 Comment

Trying to change child welfare’s response to domestic violence? Then support the supervisors!

Apr 29

Posted by David Mandel in Safe and Together Model

by David Mandel

In the Q & A after a recent conference keynote, an administrator from a child welfare community provider agency posed the following to me: “We’ve trained all our staff in better identification of domestic violence and better case practice but we are not seeing the practice changes that we expected? What are we missing?”   The question excited me because he was speaking directly to the central question of my work:  How do we make sustainable real change in a child welfare system that has a historically poor overall track record in partnering with survivors and intervening with domestic violence perpetrators?

In my experience, lots of things can contribute to training non translating into consistent practice change. While the right policies and resources are obviously critically important, most recently I’ve centered my system change work on the role of child welfare supervisors. It is the supervisors through their directives and expectations that determine the focus and the quality of much of the social work practice. The supervisors are the ones giving workers written or verbal instructions to either “Go out there and get have her sign a safety agreement that she won’t let him back into the house” (usually not recommended) or “Go out there and engage her in a conversation about what will make her safer.” (better)  The supervisors are the ones who review the information that comes from the worker and guides the case through their follow up questions.  It really matters if the supervisors ask their workers questions like “What did you learn about the father’s pattern of coercive control?” or “How does the father interfere with or support mom’s parenting?” It is the supervisors who have the final say in most cases about who the child welfare agency is going to find or indicate for child abuse and/or neglect. And it is the supervisors who convey to new workers that it is good child welfare practice to have partnership with the domestic violence survivor as key objective.

Supervisors don’t operate in vacuum. What they do and say is highly influenced by their supervisors and their agency policy. But here is an important fact: much of what supervisors do is not a matter of policy but practice. And in many agencies supervisors do not get specific training on supervision in general and rarely do they get training on specifically supervising domestic violence issues. Why should we expect supervisors to do a good job with these cases, many of which are complex and high risk, with support and training? So in Connecticut I’ve spent the last year training supervisors and administrators on how to better supervise domestic violence cases. These trainings begin by  having them identify their concerns about their workers practice in domestic violence cases.  I then outline how to apply the Safe and Together model to supervisory practices including how to a) give better, more specific directives to workers, b) evaluate the quality of information a worker presents, and  c) identify and address workers’ thinking errors.

A recent survey of supervisors and managers who participated in the training indicated that that some supervisors have made changes to their daily practice. These supervisors report that they are now asking more specific questions about coercive control and expecting workers to be more explicit in their descriptions of the batterer’s behavior. Some of the supervisors report that the changes in their practice have resulted in fewer removals of children from domestic violence survivors, less victim blaming and more batterer accountability. These changes are consistent with the Safe and Together model and what I had hoped to see when I developed the training. So for child welfare agencies who want to take the next step in improving their response to domestic violence cases, ask yourself  “What can we do to improve the focus and quality of the supervision our workers get in domestic violence cases? What values and expectations are our supervisors transmitting to their workers through their questions and directives?”

Tags: , , , ,

1 Comment

Empathy for victims isn’t the answer (but it’s important)

Apr 21

Posted by David Mandel in Safe and Together Model

by David Mandel

During Safe and Together trainings,  I often hear some version of the following statement from child welfare workers:  “I can be empathetic to a victim to a point, and I don’t want to revictimize her but my bottom line is the safety of the children.”   The main implication is that empathy towards victims  is inherently in opposition to child safety.  Victim advocates often also focus on the importance of greater empathy on the part of child welfare, believing that greater empathy will lead to less punitive decisions.

I’ve found that the empathy framework is not the most useful construct when it comes to the intersection of child maltreatment, domestic violence and child welfare decision making. The most useful framework is how a comprehensive assessment of survivor’s strengths is essential to good child welfare decision making. It is an assessment of a survivor’s strengths based on the full spectrum of a survivor’s efforts to promote the safety and well-being of her children (the 3rd critical component in the Safe and Together model) that creates a foundation that leads to positive outcomes.   Social workers who can see a survivor’s efforts to buffer the children from the worst emotional impact of the violence, redirect a batterer away from children, placate a batterer, keep the children’s routine as normal as possible or calm him down all as part of her active efforts to protect the children are more likely to be successful in keeping children safe and in their own home than social workers who limit their assessment of protective capacity to “Did she call the police? Will she get a protection order? Is she going to end the relationship/leave?”

Why?  A social worker who has a more comprehensive view (the third critical component in the Safe and Together model) can:

  • Validate the survivor’s strengths.Validating her efforts can provide tremendous relief from the guilt, shame and blame she’s likely to be feeling.   This identifies the social worker as someone who understands the survivor’s efforts, won’t blame her for the batterer’s behaviors, and doesn’t believe she is a bad mother.
  • Gather more comprehensive information about child safety.  Validating survivor’s strengths is more likely to lead to disclosures and collaboration.
  • More efficiently develop more effective safety plans based on better information and an understanding of what a survivor has already tried.
  • Maintain more children in their homes based on more comprehensive assessment of protective factors.

One of the core principles in the Safe and Together model is that partnering with domestic violence survivors is the main way to keep children safe.   And this partnership starts with a social worker’s attitudes.  I tell social workers to always assume the survivor has been safety planning for themselves and their children before we show up to investigate.  This attitude helps them identify the ways she is actively engaged in trying to protect her children which is the foundation of that collaborative partnership.  Where social workers often trip themselves is when they start believing that seeing her strengths is the same as 1) saying that the batterer isn’t harming the children and 2) saying that we don’t have to communicate to the survivor our concerns about the children, work collaboratively with her to increase the safety of the children and in some extreme cases remove children.   And it is the erroneous belief that their choice is between victim empathy or child safety that leads to this lapse in thinking.

When it comes to child welfare agencies, victims don’t first and foremost need our empathy.  They need our educated assessment of their strengths, grounded in a recognition that actively working to keep children safe looks different in different households and communities.  Using a framework based on a comprehensive assessment of strengths versus greater empathy allows child welfare to remain compassionate even when the batterer’s behavior requires extreme emergeny actions.  For instance, even when the survivor has done as much as is possible for her to protect her children, the children may be at such risk for physical harm that a child welfare worker will need to say—”I see how hard you’ve worked to protect your children, and we’ve tried everything we can to intervene with him and we remain very concerned that your partner will hurt them.”  Skillful assessment of strengths leads to empathy for the victim and good decision-making related to child safety. The two are not in opposition.  In reality they flow from the same source.

Tags: , , , , , ,

No Comments