Elizabeth B Lightfoot1, Traci L LaLiberte. 1. University of Minnesota, School of Social Work, 105 Peters Hall, 1404 Gortner Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This exploratory study examines the delivery of child protection services by county child protection agencies involving cases with a family member with a disability. METHOD: Telephone surveys were conducted with the directors or their designees of 89% of the child protection agencies in a Midwestern state. Respondents were asked about the policies and/or procedures for approaching cases involving a person with a disability and the barriers and strengths agencies have in serving people with disabilities. RESULTS: Only 6.7% of respondents reported their agency had a written policy related to serving persons with a disability. There were 18 different approaches to serving clients with a disability within child protection, with the most common being informally teaming for information, dual case assignment, and teaming with an outside consultant. Five counties had specialty workers who were experts in both child protection and disability. Barriers reported varied between rural and non-rural counties, with the most important barriers being lack of resources, lack of knowledge regarding disabilities, systems conflicts, and rural issues, such as lack of providers and lack of transportation. Strengths included accessing and coordinating services, individualizing services, good collaboration and creativity. CONCLUSION: While few county agencies had any written policies, both formal and informal collaboration is happening at the individual level. The lack of standardization in providing services indicates a need for more attention to issues regarding disability within child protection, including more training for workers, the development of models of collaborative case management and the removal of systemic barriers.
OBJECTIVES: This exploratory study examines the delivery of child protection services by county child protection agencies involving cases with a family member with a disability. METHOD: Telephone surveys were conducted with the directors or their designees of 89% of the child protection agencies in a Midwestern state. Respondents were asked about the policies and/or procedures for approaching cases involving a person with a disability and the barriers and strengths agencies have in serving people with disabilities. RESULTS: Only 6.7% of respondents reported their agency had a written policy related to serving persons with a disability. There were 18 different approaches to serving clients with a disability within child protection, with the most common being informally teaming for information, dual case assignment, and teaming with an outside consultant. Five counties had specialty workers who were experts in both child protection and disability. Barriers reported varied between rural and non-rural counties, with the most important barriers being lack of resources, lack of knowledge regarding disabilities, systems conflicts, and rural issues, such as lack of providers and lack of transportation. Strengths included accessing and coordinating services, individualizing services, good collaboration and creativity. CONCLUSION: While few county agencies had any written policies, both formal and informal collaboration is happening at the individual level. The lack of standardization in providing services indicates a need for more attention to issues regarding disability within child protection, including more training for workers, the development of models of collaborative case management and the removal of systemic barriers.