Several decades of research have established that an early response to the problems of child maltreatment, juvenile delinquency, or homelessness, if successful, can head off the problem. To be successful, this assistance must meet the actual (and maybe also perceived) needs of the family, and it must be intense enough and last long enough to make a real difference. However, many sources report that the resources needed to respond to these problems are not growing in proportion to the need. Early intervention is being scaled back to conserve resources for the most serious later-stage cases, which is likely to result in a higher proportion of earlier stage cases becoming more serious cases later.
To the extent that generalizations may be drawn from the available research about early-stage services to prevent the need for placement, it appears that:
• Early intervention or prevention programs can improve child or adult functioning but do not necessarily lower placement or recidivism rates.
• Coordinating many different sources of support (the wraparound approach) helps to reduce the need for more restrictive placements.
• Programs to strengthen parenting skills and support systems work better with older children and with cases involving abuse. They are less effective for
families with younger children and in cases involving neglect, substance abuse, and children with developmental disabilities.
• Services appear to be more effective if they include help with basic necessities such as housing or groceries, instead of relying only on interventions to change the parent’s or child’s behavior.
• Children and parents are less likely to receive psychological help when children remain in the home compared to out-of-home placement, but when those services are received they show positive results. • Certain features may improve the effectiveness of many different program and service types. For
example, parents’ knowledge of child development and actual parenting behaviors can be improved when parents have relationships with teachers, home visitors, counselors, or other consistent persons. Also, the “dosage” (intensity and duration of services) must match families’ needs. This means higher dosage must be provided for those with higher needs.
The lessons from previous research suggest that the quality of staff is as important as the quality of a program or service. It is reassuring that several sources report that Minnesota has less of a problem than many states with burnout and turnover among child welfare workers. This needs to be watched, because studies of front-line staff and their supervisors show that recent increased mandates without increased funding have made the job harder and less rewarding, by increasing the service expectations while also requiring more paperwork and documentation. The next five to seven years will likely see the retirement
the “dosage” of services
must be strong enough
to match the need.
of many seasoned child welfare professionals. Our ability to attract and retain new staff of equal quality and stability will be critical to maintaining the quality of Minnesota’s services to vulnerable families and
children.
The success of the child welfare and juvenile justice systems depend heavily on services provided mainly outside these systems, including housing, education, substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, and behavior or social skills training. Many sources report that some needed services are not adequately available in Minnesota communities. Often reported as lacking are mental health care (especially culturally competent care for children of color and care for children living in greater Minnesota), inpatient substance abuse treatment (especially for women caring for children), and services for those with a combination of mental illness and substance abuse; affordable housing; transportation; respite and crisis nursery care; and follow-up services for families who are reuniting after a child’s placement.
The success of both systems also depends greatly on cooperation with the juvenile courts. While the courts provide vital safeguards, the court process is also sometimes intimidating for families and tends to reinforce adversarial roles. It may also cause delays and rushed hearings due to limited staffing, especially judges, administrators, public defenders, and guardians ad litem.
The way federal funding may be used also influences placement decisions. The majority of federal funds for maltreated children can only be used for out-of-home placement, not for services to prevent the need for placement.
Questions to consider:
• How much of the basic support for families should be left to the families themselves, their
communities, and private charity? What responsibility does the government have to step in when the private sector cannot or does not fill the needs?
• What are the implications of decreasing government resources?
• How can parents of children with special needs get the kinds of support they need without going to court to have the child placed?
• What can be done for a family that needs help but is unwilling to accept it? What would make families more likely to seek or accept help?
• Is it reasonable to have statewide community standards for when and how to intervene with families? What are the alternatives?
• What are the implications of Minnesota’s unusually high reliance on local property taxes to fund child welfare and juvenile delinquency services?