Progress 10/01/14 to 09/30/17
Outputs
Target Audience:The target audience for the project is child welfare professionals and other professionals (e.g., teachers, social workers) who work with children and families who have experienced child maltreatment and/or domestic violence. During the project period, efforts to disseminate information to this target audience included blogs, practice notes, a policy brief, and a research brief that were posted on the Center for the Advanced Studies in Child Welfare (CASCW) website. CASCW is housed at the University of Minnesota School of Social work and it is a Center known for high-quality information dissemination. Information posted on the CASCW site is viewed regularly by child welfare and social work professionals around the state of Minnesota and beyond. Changes/Problems:A focus of the project originally was to explore differential education and health-related outcomes for children who experience direct and indirect family violence. Education outcomes were explored but individual-level health-related data were not available from the state of MN through Minn-LInK during the project period. This lack of data, however, did not diminish the quality of the project. This area of inquiry is grossly ignored in the literature and the dissemination that resulted from this project is a unique and valuable contribution. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?This project was not intended to provide training or professional development opportunities. However, the CASCW Practice Note series not only provides topical information to practitioners, but each Note is required to include a case example and a set of reflection questions. The purpose of these questions is to encourage the reader to engage in professional development and knowledge application, either individually or in the context of supervision. There is no way to know how the readers used the content of the two Practice Notes that were part of this project, but it is likely that these served as tools for professional development in some capacity. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?In the project period, sixblog posts, a policy brief, twopractice notes and a research brief weredisseminated. All products were featuredon the website of the Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare (CASCW) at the University of Minnesota. This website is a go-to source of information for child welfare professionals, social workers, and others throughout the state of Minnesota and beyond. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Research on child maltreatment is primarily focused on the child who has been maltreated (or allegedly maltreated) and does not often account for how other children in the family experience the abuse. It would not be surprising if the occurrence of child maltreatment had a negative effect on all children in the family; however, "no attention has been paid to the potential effects of seeing a sibling being abused by their parental figures" (Howells & Rosenbaum, 2008, p. 203). The primary objective of this project was to fill the gap in knowledge regarding the outcomes of children who are exposed to the physical maltreatment of a sibling. Through the first phase of the project (Year 1-Year 2), Minnesota's county-based procedures for identifying, assessing and providing services to siblings were explored. In the second phase of this project (Year 3), multi-year, child-level data from two state sources (MN Dept of Education and MN Dept of Human Services) were merged to explore differential education outcomes among children who experienced direct physical abuse, children who experienced indirect physical abuse (i.e., the abuse of a sibling) and children who had no history of involvement in the child welfare system (i.e., no known history of maltreatment). As noted in this report, six blogs, two practice note publications, one policybrief, and one research brief have been published. Two manuscripts are currently in preparation and will be submitted for peer-review in 2018. The blogs and practice notes were designed to educate child welfare workers, social workers, and other professionals on exposure to child maltreatment and to encourage inclusion of allegedly non-maltreated siblings in service provision, as appropriate. The policy brief includedinformation on federal and state policies related to siblings in all child welfare services. This thoroughreview of current policy met Objective #1 and the brief included recommendations for policy change (Objective #5). The survey of all 87 county child welfare directors included items focused on how 'sibling' is defined in the county protocol, how siblings are included in family assessments and what services are provided to siblings exposed to child maltreatment. The survey included items also focused on how intimate partner violence (IPV) is included in family assessments and what services are provided for children exposed to IPV. The survey data collection and associated products met Objectives #2, #3 and #5. The policy brief is posted on the CASCW website and includes a portion of the survey results. Full survey results will be included in a manuscript that will be submitted for publication in apeer-reviewed journalin 2018 (in progress; Objective #5). The final phase of the project was focused on examining academic outcomes of siblings exposed to child maltreatment. Individual-level data were taken from the Minnesota Department of Education and the Minnesota Department of Human Services over a period of four years. The focus of this phase was on exploring the education outcomes for children in the child welfare system, with a particular emphasis on exploring direct and indirect child physical abuseaffects outcomes such as standardized reading and math scores, disciplinary incidents in school (expulsions & suspensions) and attendance in school. In the fall of 2016, work was done to develop a sampling frame and data planto mergetwo state datasets for multiple years in order to draw a sample of children associated with allegations of child maltreatment, siblings exposed to child maltreatment, and a matched group of children with no history of child welfare involvement. The data plan and sampling framewas refined in early 2017 and a cohort of children was identified in CPS records provided by the Minnesota Department of Human Services. Accepted maltreatment reports from 2000-2016 were used to identify a statewide population of children who were the subject of or exposed to alleged physical abuse for the first and only time in academic years (AY) 2011-2012 or 2012-2013, when they were 8-10 years old. Children were coded as either having been the alleged victim in a physical abuse allegation or as having been exposed to the alleged physical abuse of another child in the household. A comparison group of similarly-situated children who had never been involved in CPS was created using propensity score matching. The comparison group was matched on gender, race/ethnicity, school district, grade level, receipt of free or reduced lunch, and receipt of special education services.Education records from the Minnesota Department of Education were used to track school attendance and academic achievement over four years (in the AY of the CPS report and three following years). The analyses were completed in2017 (Objective #4). Overall, theattendance and achievement of children involved with CPS decreased at significantly faster rates than those of their peers who were not involved with CPS. Further examination revealed significant differences in attendance patterns for children who were exposed to the alleged physical abuse of another child in the household compared to their peers, and significant differences in math and reading achievement patterns of children who were the alleged victims of physical abuse compared to their peers. The results of this phase include a research brief that will be posted on the CASCW website in 2017 (Objective #5). Additionally, a manuscript, outlining the full results, will be submitted for publication in 2018 to a peer-reviewed journal (in progress; Objective #5). Source: Howells, N. L., & Rosenbaum, A. (2008). Effects of perpetrator and victim gender on negative outcomes of family violence. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 203-209.
Publications
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2015
Citation:
Renner, L.M. (2015, May). Prevalence and behavioral effects of children exposed to child abuse (AES/Sibling Project Series) [blog post]. Retrieved from http://cascw.umn.edu/featured/prevalence-behavioral-effects-of-children-exposed-to-child-abuse-aessibling-project-series/
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2015
Citation:
Anderson, L., & Renner, L.M. (2015, June). Federal policy and exposure to child maltreatment (AES/Sibling Project Series) [blog post]. Retrieved from http://cascw.umn.edu/featured/federal-policy-and-exposure-to-child-maltreatment-aessibling-project/
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2016
Citation:
Anderson, L., Renner, L.M., & Piescher, K. (2016, February). State policy and exposure to child maltreatment (AES/Sibling Project Series) [blog post]. Retrieved from http://cascw.umn.edu/featured/state-policy-and-exposure-to-child-maltreatment-aes-sibling-project/
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2017
Citation:
Renner, L.M., & Anderson, L. (2017, August). Prevalence and effects of childrens exposure to intimate partner violence (Part 1) [blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.cascw.org/featured/ipv-blog-series-prevalence-and-effects-of-childrens-exposure-to-intimate-partner-violence-part-1/
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2017
Citation:
Renner, L.M., & Anderson, L. (2017, August). Discussing intimate partner violence with children and families (Part 2) [blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.cascw.org/featured/ipv-blog-series-discussing-intimate-partner-violence-with-children-and-families-part-2/
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2017
Citation:
Renner, L.M., & Anderson, L. (2017, September). Working with intimate partner violence: Moving forward (Part 3) [blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.cascw.org/featured/ipv-blog-series-working-with-intimate-partner-violence-moving-forward-part-3/
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2017
Citation:
Renner, L.M., Anderson, L., & Barry, K. (2017, Summer). Intimate partner violence in child welfare. Practice Notes Issue no. 29. Available at http://z.umn.edu/pn29
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2017
Citation:
Renner, L.M., Anderson, L., & Barry, K. (2017, Summer). Risk and resilience: Intimate partner violence exposure. Practice Notes Issue no. 30. Available at http://z.umn.edu/pn30
- Type:
Other
Status:
Awaiting Publication
Year Published:
2017
Citation:
Renner, L.M., Piescher, K., & Mickelson, N. (2017). Educational outcomes among children with direct and indirect experiences of physical abuse. (Minn-LInK Brief No. 33).
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2017
Citation:
Renner, L.M., & Anderson, L. Siblings in the Child Welfare System: Implications for Policy and Practice. St. Paul, MN: Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare, University of Minnesota.
|
Progress 10/01/15 to 09/30/16
Outputs
Target Audience:The target audience for the project is child welfare professionals and other professionals who work with children and families who have experienced child maltreatment and/or domestic violence. In this first year of the project, efforts to disseminate information to this target audienceincluded twoblogs that were posted on the Center for the Advanced Studies in Child Welfare (CASCW) website. CASCW is housed at the University of Minnesota School of Social work and it is a Center known for high-quality information dissemination. Information posted on the CASCW site is viewed regularly by child welfare professionals around the state of Minnesota and beyond. Two additional products were started in the first year and were completed in Year 2. These products were a third blog (the final in the series) and a policy brief focused on Minnesota policies related to siblings of children who have been maltreated. The policy brief has been completed but not yet published on the CASCW site. Similarly, a practice note - a 4-page publication focusedhow child welfare professionals can help meet the needs of siblings exposed to child maltreatment was developed and completed in Year 2 and is awaiting final publication on the CASCW website. Toward the end of the first year of the project, information was solicited from the target audience through an online survey. The focus of the survey was on policy and practice related to sibling identification practices, services provided to non-maltreated siblings in families where at least one other child was identified as having been maltreated, and services provided to families who have experienced intimate partner violence. Minnesota's child welfare system is county-based and this survey was sent to all 87 county child welfare directors. Responses were received from directors representing 51 counties. Data analysis began in Year 2 and continues, with the goal of developing a manuscript for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?
Nothing Reported
How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?To date, a series of three blog posts, a policy brief, and a practice note publicationhave been developed. The blogs were posted in May and June of 2015 and February of 2016 on the website of the Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare (CASCW) at the University of Minnesota. The policy brief has been reviewed by an expert in Minnesota child welfare policy and is awaiting publication. The practice note is awaiting final review by the CASCW Director and will then be published. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?To accomplish Objective #4, data will be merged and analyzed. The data includes state level data regarding the education outcomes for children in the child welfare system, with a particular emphasis on exploring how single and multi-type family violence experiences affect developmental outcomes. The data come from Minn-LInK (Minnesota-Linking Information for Kids) - which connects data from three key Minnesota agencies, including the Department of Human Services, Department of Education, and the Department of Health. Data from the state social welfare data system (SSIS) will be merged withstate Education data. These data are already available through Minn-LInK.IRBapproval was obtained in November 2016 and work continues to merge data files and obtain the final sample of children.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Research on child maltreatment is primarily focused on the child who is maltreated (or allegedly maltreated) and does not often account for how other children in the family experience the abuse. It would not be surprising if the occurrence of child maltreatment had a negative effect on all children in the family; however, "no attention has been paid to the potential effects of seeing a sibling being abused by their parental figures" (Howells & Rosenbaum, 2008, p. 203). The primary objective of this project is to fill the gap in knowledge regarding the outcomes of children who are exposed to the maltreatment of a sibling. Through the first phase of the project (Year 1-Year 2) , Minnesota's county-based procedures for identifying, assessing and providing services to siblings were explored. As noted in this report, three blogs, one policy brief and one practice note were developed. The blogs and practice note are designed to educate child welfare workers on exposure to child maltreatment and to encourage inclusion of allegedly non-maltreated siblings in service provision, as appropriate. The policy brief includes information on federal and state policies related to siblings in all child welfare services. This extensive review of current policy met Objective #1 and the brief included recommendations for policy change (Objective #5). The survey of all 87 county child welfare directors included items focused on how 'sibling' is defined in the county protocol, how siblings are included in family assessments and what services are provided to siblings exposed to child maltreatment. The survey included items also focused on how intimate partner violence (IPV) is included in family assessments and what services are provided for children exposed to IPV. The survey data collection met Objectives #2 and #3. The policy brief (currently awaiting publication) includes a portion of survey results and the remaining results will be included in a manuscript (currently in progress). The current phase of the project is focused on examining academic outcomes of siblings exposed to child maltreatment. Individiual-level data are taken fromthe Minnesota Department of Education and the Minnesota Department of Human Services. The focus of this phase is on exploring the education outcomes for children in the child welfare system, with a particular emphasis on exploring how single and multi-type family violence experiences affect outcomes such as on-time grade completion, standardized reading and math scores, disciplinary incidents in school (expulsions & suspensions) and attendance in school. In the fall of 2016, work was done to develop a sampling frame and data plan. Work is currently being done to merge these two state datasets for multiple years in order to draw a sample of children associated with allegations of child maltreatment, siblings exposed to child maltreatment, and a matched group of children with no history of child welfare involvement. Simultaneously, work has been started on the Institutional Review Board application.
Publications
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2016
Citation:
Anderson, L., Renner, L.M., & Piescher, K. (February 2016). State policy and exposure to child maltreatment (AES/Sibling Project Series) [blog post]. Retrieved from http://cascw.umn.edu/featured/state-policy-and-exposure-to-child-maltreatment-aes-sibling-project/
- Type:
Other
Status:
Awaiting Publication
Year Published:
2016
Citation:
Renner, L.M. & Anderson, L. Siblings in the Child Welfare System: Implications for Policy and Practice
- Type:
Other
Status:
Awaiting Publication
Year Published:
2016
Citation:
Renner, L.M., Anderson, L., & Barry, K. Intimate Partner Violence in Child Welfare
|
Progress 10/01/14 to 09/30/15
Outputs
Target Audience:The target audience for the project is child welfare professionals and other professionals who work with children and families who have experienced child maltreatment and/or domestic violence. In this first year of the project, efforts to disseminate information to this target audience have included two blogs that were posted on the Center for the Advanced Studies in Child Welfare (CASCW) website. CASCW is housed at the University of Minnesota School of Social work and it isa Center known for high-quality information dissemination. Information posted on the CASCW site isviewed regularly by child welfare professionals around the state of Minnesota and beyond. Two additional products were started in this first year and will soon be completed. These products are a third blog (the final in the series) and a policy brief focused on Minnesota policies related to siblings of children who have been maltreated. Also in this first year of the project, information was solicited from the target audience through an online survey. The focus of the survey was on policy and practice related to sibling identification, services provided to non-maltreated siblings in families where at least one other child was identified as having been maltreated, and services provided to families who have experienced intimate partner violence. Minnesota's child welfare system is county-based and this survey was sent to all 87 county child welfare directors. Changes/Problems:A significant challenged during the first year of the project. Minnesota's child welfare system came under intense scrutiny for the alleged mishandling of several cases. The governor of Minnesota convened a Task Force to explore the state's system and an independent team investigated and wrote a negative review of Minnesota's largest county's child welfare system. Unfortunately, this occurred two months prior the launch of the online survey. Despite multiple attempts to increase the response rate of the survey, on 56 responses were received and only 39 counties are represented with complete data (although partial data from the remaining counties may be included to address some of the research questions). Despite the challenges of the online survey and the lower-than-desired response rate, the recent events and negative view of the state's child welfare system present the greatest challenge for the second phase of the project - the case record review. Currently, counties are not receptive to this process and based on information received from state experts and the executive director of CASCW, this is not likely to change. As such, the second phase of this project may not be completed as designed and alternative options are being explored (including focusing on the third phase, Goal 4, earlier than anticipated and relying on the survey information as the only source of information to complete Goals 2 and 3). What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?
Nothing Reported
How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?To date, a series of three blog posts and a policy brief have been developed. The first two blogs wereposted in May and June of 2015 on the website of the Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare at the University of Minnesota. The third blog and policy brief arecurrently being reviewed by an expert in Minnesota child welfare policy and is expected to be published soon. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?After data is collected from all 87 counties, a taxonomy will be created to reflect how inclusive or exclusive each county's procedures are for involving siblings at the time of an allegation for child maltreatment and with respect to ongoing involvement in the case.The second part of this project (Goals 2 and 3) was designed to involve a case record review in order to determine how siblings are included in the initial assessment and in ongoing services. Using the taxonomy, three counties will be selected from those whose practices are 'inclusive' of siblings and three counties will be selected from those whose practices are 'exclusive' of siblings. The case record review will uncover how siblings are included in family-based services and yield information on the types of services specifically provided to children in the family who are identified as 'non-maltreated' siblings. The third part of this project (Goal 4)involves analysis of state level data regarding the education and health outcomes for children in the child welfare system, with a particular emphasis on exploring how single and multi-type family violence experiences affect developmental outcomes. The data for this phase will come from Minn-LInK (Minnesota-Linking Information for Kids) - which connects data from three key Minnesota agencies, including the Department of Human Services,Department of Education, and the Department of Health. Data from the state social welfare data system (SSIS) will be merged with Medicaid waiver and state Education data. Children's mental health data will be requested from the Minnesota Medicaid Information System - MMIS), which is housed at the Department of Human Services.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Research on child maltreatment is primarily focused on the child who is maltreated (or allegedly maltreated) and does not often account for how other children in the family experience the abuse. It would not be surprising if the occurrence of child maltreatment had a negative effect on all children in the family; however, "no attention has been paid to the potential effects of seeing a sibling being abused by their parental figures" (Howells & Rosenbaum, 2008, p. 203). The primary objective of this proposal is to fill the gap in knowledge regarding the outcomes of children who are exposed to the maltreatment of a sibling. Through this study, Minnesota's county-based procedures for identifying, assessing and providing services to siblings will be highlighted and various outcomes of siblings exposed to child maltreatment will be known. Information on how IPV within families is identified by child welfare workers and what services are provided will also be collected. Such information can be useful for improving service delivery to families within the state of Minnesota and across the country. The first phase of this project involves the analysis of statewide data from a policy and procedural perspective. The purpose of this phase is to determine how counties work with the siblings of a child who is the alleged victim of maltreatment. The aim of this phase is to understand how siblings are included in each Minnesota county system when not all children in a family are the subject of child maltreatment allegations. Work for on the first project goalincluded a review of federal and Minnesota state policy regarding the inclusion of siblings in cases of child maltreatment that are handled through the child welfare system. Not surprisingly, it was discovered that non-maltreated siblings are not mandated for inclusion inthe front end investigations (i.e., Child Protective Services) but they are more readily included in later stages of the child welfare process when it comes to sibling placements due to termination of parental rights and out of home care. The results of these reviews were summarized in the second and third blog posted on the Center for the Advanced Studies in Child Welfare website. Work on the second and third project goal included the development and delivery of an online survey to the 87 county child welfare directors across Minnesota. It is known that some counties identify siblings as household members but do not investigate the siblings for possible maltreatment. It is also known that some counties identify siblings as potential victims and assess each sibling for possible maltreatment. What is not readily known is which of the 87 counties in Minnesota operate under each model, and what method each county uses to identify siblings (e.g., the child method that bases sibling groups on relationships between children, the mother or father method that bases sibling groups on the basis between mother or father and child, or the household method that bases sibling groups on who was residing in the home at the time of investigation, removal). What is also not known is how each county's decisions to handle maltreatment cases involving siblings are made and how these have changed over time. The survey questions focused on the process that each county uses to identify and focus on siblingswhen a family comes to the attention of the child welfare system - primarily through the allegation of maltreatment associated with a focal child in the family. Specifically, questions focused on: when is information on siblings added to the case file (e.g., at onset, at the time of the report, throughout the process as the case information is collected, at screening, investigation or ongoing case management); what methods are used to identify siblings of the focal child; what are the county rules for inclusion/exclusion of siblings in services; where is information on siblings noted in the social welfare data system (SSIS) case record (e.g., case notes, participant screen, etc.); and what services are offered to siblings of the focal child. Due to the high co-occurrence between child maltreatment and intimate partner violence (IPV), questions were also included to assess the process that each county uses to assess IPV during an investigation and assessment of child maltreatment and how countiesprovideservices to children and families who have experiencedIPV. The survey was created through Qualtrics andapproved by the University of Minnesota IRB. The survey was launched in June 2015 and personally sent to the public email address of each Minnesota county child welfare director. Reminders were submitted in June, July and August. In September and October,non-responding counties were contacted by phone and email in an effort to increase the response rate. Source:Howells, N. L., & Rosenbaum, A. (2008). Effects of perpetrator and victim gender on negative outcomes of family violence. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 203-209.
Publications
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2015
Citation:
Anderson, L., & Renner, L.M. (June 2015). Federal policy and exposure to child maltreatment (AES/Sibling Project Series) [blog post]. Retrieved from http://cascw.umn.edu/featured/federal-policy-and-exposure-to-child-maltreatment-aessibling-project/
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2015
Citation:
Renner, L.M. (May 2015). Prevalence and behavioral effects of children exposed to child abuse (AES/Sibling Project Series) [blog post]. Retrieved from http://cascw.umn.edu/featured/prevalence-behavioral-effects-of-children-exposed-to-child-abuse-aessibling-project-series/
|