A Differential Response for Child Protection
Teresa Grogan, Esq.
I
attended a symposium on the Family Assessment Response (FAR) also referred to as “differential response”
or “alternative response.” The theory behind these
programs, which are being enacted across the country, is
to have child protective agencies respond to allegations of
child protective issues differently than the historical investigative and often adversarial response. New York City’s
Administration for Children’s Services FAR program incorporates many of the different terminology and perspectives
used in other programs. In NYC, if a case is FAR eligible
there is an “assessment,” not an “investigation.” ACS calls
to make an appointment to visit the family but does not
come to the home unannounced. A focus is put on meeting
families in their own environment instead of the ACS offices. If the case is deemed eligible and the family accepts the
program, there will never be a determination of whether
the allegations were unfounded or indicated. The family
is presented with “areas of concern” instead of confronted
with “allegations.” Families are not labeled as “resistant.”
Instead, the caseworker identifies their “anxieties” about
the process. Caseworkers are trained to listen instead of
taking a traditional directive stance. The focus is to capitalize on the strengths of the families instead of repairing
the weaknesses. ACS and the family work as partners and
share the responsibility for the proposed plan of action for
each family.
New York is one of approximately 31 states with differential
response statutes. New York State enacted SSL w§427-a,
“Differential response programs for child protection assessments or investigations”, effective August 1, 2007.
That law was made permanent on June 1, 2011. In June
2012, The Office of Children and Family Services approved
the NYC ACS application for a FAR program. On January 14, 2013, ACS rolled out its program by creating four
Child Protective units in Queens dedicated to FAR. Those
units covered specific neighborhoods and Community Districts in Queens Zone B. In July of 2013, ACS expanded the
neighborhoods/districts covered by the program. On July
29, 2013, however, the number of units dedicated to FAR
was reduced from four to three. As of the date of the symposium, 208 families had been assigned to the FAR program, amounting to 9% of the new cases received by ACS
in the Zone B designated neighborhoods. Out of those 208
cases, 173 successfully completed the program and 35 were
re-routed to the traditional investigative track.
Despite the differences in terminology and perspective described above, one of the caseworkers said that there really is no difference between the traditional child protective work and the FAR work because the focus remains the
same, child safety. She said that the real difference is how
you approach the family. Another worker said he felt that
the FAR training just built on what he had already learned
at ACS and took it to a new level. I also thought it was interesting to hear from one caseworker who was in the unit
and reassigned from FAR back to Child Protective. He said
that he still uses some of the techniques he learned in his
FAR training in the investigative cases and has seen positive results. The caseworkers identified themselves more
as helpful facilitators instead of investigators and prosecutors.
While acknowledging the divergence from the traditional
investigative model, the speakers were all very emphatic
about the continued focus on safety and child protection.
The FAR units are still responding to reports within 2448 hours. The process includes an initial safety assessment. The ideals behind the NYC FAR program were quoted on the four placards standing on each table at the event:
“Family Focused,” “Strengths Based,” “Engagement,” and
“Child Safety First.” When asked what they would do to
change the program for the future, the caseworkers were
unanimous in asking that the criteria be expanded so that
they can take on more cases and expand the program.
Overall, everything presented was very supportive of the
program. It was acknowledged that there is a whole school
of thought which advocates against differential response
programs, but that viewpoint was not presented at this
symposium.
Fall/Winter 2013 CLCNY? 15?