Introduction

Oregon's legislature requested a review of the Children's Services Division (CSD) by a national consulting firm. The Edwin Muskie Institute from the University of Southern Maine was awarded the contract to assess the strengths and weaknesses of CSD. The report from Southern Maine suggested that CSD change practice to achieve a more "family focused" approach to providing services to abusive and neglectful families. This approach aims to empower families by relying on family strengths and community resources. The initiatives generated from Southern Maine report are collectively known as "Focus 90's."

The Focus 90's effort has changed child welfare in Oregon: The focus 90's initiatives consist of three major changes.

In addition, these initiatives require that community partners such as law enforcement personnel, school systems, the courts, mental health and health practitioners, foster parents, and contracted providers play a greater role in planning and service provision for each child and family. Together, these changes reflect CSD's goal of employing a more "family centered" approach, relying less on foster care to resolve family problems, having more community involvement, and being more effective serving children and family problems.

Methodology

The Focus 90's evaluation was conducted by the Child Welfare Partnership and the Regional Research Institute at Portland State University, and the University of Southern Maine. Researchers reviewed a random sample of two client populations served by CSD. The two populations include families served in-home (Remedial Protective Service) and Out-of-Home case records which opened during the first three months of 1991 and 1994. Remedial Protective Service cases involve child abuse/neglect allegations where the child remains at home. Out-of-Home cases involve situations where a child has been placed in shelter care, foster care or a residential treatment facility.

Over 1,000 Remedial Protective Service cases were reviewed; five hundred and ninety cases from 1991 and four hundred fifty-three opened in 1994 were reviewed. For the Out-of-Home population, six hundred fifty-two cases from 1991 and seven hundred forty-one from 1994 were reviewed. Case information was gleaned from the case record for six months after provision of service (Remedial Protective Service) or entrance into care (Out-or Home). Information was collected regarding the type and severity of abuse, parents' and children's problems, service provision and attendance, whether the child was returned home, and whether the child was later re-abused or placed in out-of-home care.

Key Findings

Out-Of-Home Care

The Out-of-Home Care population in 1994 was composed of more vulnerable children from families exhibiting more problems than was the case in 1991:

The most vulnerable children represent an increasing proportion of the Out-of-Home population. A "Level of Vulnerability " system was developed in order to identify those children most in need of child welfare services. Cases are ranked according to a child's vulnerability to abuse and neglect, Level 1 cases being the most vulnerable and Level 7 cases being the least. The following changes in the client population were noted between 1991 and 1994:

Families with children entering Out-of-Home care in 1994 had more problems than families in 1991.

The "Threshold of Removal" increased significantly between 1991 and 1994:

Previous research has established that the existence of some parental problems or "Factors" increases the likelihood of a child being placed in substitute care. Factors can be weighted accordingly to their associations with removals and Family Factor scores can be generated for each family. The average score for the Out-of-Home population represents the "Threshold of Removal." The Threshold of Removal increased 20 - 25% between 1991 and 1994. In other words, many children who would have been removed from home in 1991 are being served in their own homes in 1994. In addition, Children's Services Division has changed their screening practices and now serve only the most difficult families.

Family Unification efforts were less successful in 1994 than in 1991:

The Return Home Rate decreased from 60% to 53% between 1991 and 1994. This decrease in return rate was expected considering the more difficult families and more vulnerable children being served. The return rate for level 1 children is less than 40% in the six months following their removal; approximately 50% of level 2 and level 3 children return home in the six months following their removal. If CSD served the same client population in 1994 as they served in 1991, you would not expect to see any change in the return home rate. In other words, change in return home rate is attributable to the changing client population. There are many reasons why children do not return home, three of the more common reasons why children do not return home include parental drug/alcohol involvement, family dysfunction, and chronic neglect.

increased from 2% to 4.6% between 1991 and 1994. The percentage of children who returned home and were subsequently removed also increased from 13% in 1991 to 17% in 1994.

Remedial Protective Services (RPS)

The Remedial Protective Services population in 1994 was composed of more vulnerable children and families burdened by more problems than those served in 1991

The most vulnerable children represent an increasing proportion of the RPS population.

The percentage of children classified as being the most vulnerable (Levels 1-3) increased from 36% to 46%.

Families receiving Remedial Protective Services had more problems in 1994 than in 1991.

The average Family Factors score for the population being served in-home increased 35%. Many children who entered out-of-home care in 1991 were served in-home in 1994.

Family Preservation and Unification efforts were less successful

The percentage of children who were abused within 6 months after services began or after being returned home increased between 1991 and 1994. In addition, the percentage of children who were removed from their homes within 6 months after services began also increased. These increases may reflect the more difficult and dysfunctional client population now being served.

Conclusion

The 1994 client population was composed of younger, more vulnerable children and families exhibiting more severe problems than the population served in 1991. There were significant increases in the percentage of families with severe drug problems. The prevalence of homelessness and parental mental illness also increased significantly. The number and magnitude of family problems make it more difficult to re-unite families; if re- unification does occur, preventing re-abuse is more difficult. With decreasing resources, fewer families will be served, more difficult and dysfunctional families are expected, and poorer client outcomes are expected.

The Focus 90's initiatives encouraged caseworkers to remove only the most vulnerable children and return children to their homes whenever possible. Focus 90's also encourages community partners to be involved with case planning and provide services. These Focus 90's efforts encourage good casework practice and promote shared responsibilities between the state and local communities to provide the best services to the most needy Oregonians.