D. Lessons Learned

As explained in this paper, although FP/FS funding enabled child welfare agencies to fund or augment community services, these services remained separate and distinct from child welfare in the vast majority of sites visited for this study. This represented a missed opportunity to lessen the gap between child welfare agencies and the communities they serve.

However, this paper also provided examples from a number of sites that used FP/FS funding to partially bridge this gap. Within these sites, it was evident that staff from both child welfare and community based organizations had reached the following conclusions:

• Each agency was limited in the actions it could take with families: In sites that developed a service continuum, staff from community-based organizations realized their limitations with respect to addressing family environments in which child endangerment was probable. Apart from their lack of authority and expertise on these issues, staff from community-based organizations revealed that becoming too enmeshed in these family dynamics was inconsistent with their agencies’ purposes. Similarly, CPS staff were blunt in their assessment of their own limitations with respect to interacting with families’ in a mutually constructive manner.

• The perspectives of both organizations fulfilled a critical role in approaching families: Staff from both organizations noted instances in which they realized the two agencies efforts could complement one another. Staff in one site jokingly referred to the “good cop/bad cop” routine which staff from child welfare and community-based organizations sometimes assumed with families. However, these staff also revealed a deeper and more complex interaction. For example, Caring Communities staff in St. Louis were trained to engage CPS when abuse or neglect was suspected. In turn, CPS staff relied on Caring Communities staff to help facilitate the investigation in a number of ways. Most immediately, Caring Communities often provided a less threatening environment for children to divulge abusive or neglectful incidents and for CPS staff to question children. Second, by actively participating during interviews with parents, Caring Communities staff could help facilitate arrangements that met the needs of all involved—for instance, a temporary placement with kin. Caring Communities staff could also work with families, in order to alleviate concerns that led to child placement.

• The missions of both agencies were better met when the two agencies collaborated in the development of a service continuum: As noted earlier, the existence of a strong preventive services component with mechanisms for referring families to more intensive services, including CPS when necessary, provided staff with the assurances that all reasonable actions had been taken to attempt to avoid child welfare involvement. Similarly, the ability of community-based services to provide supportive services to families wait-listed for more formalized services such as substance abuse treatment, and as a follow-up upon completion of these services, helped ensure that families received the treatment they needed and lessened the possibility they would relapse once formal treatment ended. Finally, brokering a case plan workable for all involved meant that families were more likely to comply with the requirements specified and permanency could be achieved in a timely manner.

In short, these experiences proved to be a learning experience for staff in both agencies. Staff from child welfare and community-based organizations learned to recognize the expertise of their counterparts. Formalized systems of assessment and referral enabled them to rely upon staff from other agencies, and engage families in needed services when appropriate. By combining their services and expertise, staff noted that their options with families were broadened.