Professor Collins Testifies Before Massachusetts House Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect

Dr. Mary Elizabeth Collins, Associate Professor of Social Welfare Policy, with the School of Social Work, testified on January 30, 2007 before the Massachusetts House Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect on the development of new legislation to reform Massachusetts Department of Social Services practices. Following is her testimony:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today. I appreciate the Committee’s intent to use the case study report for purposes of “constructive inquiry and response” regarding child welfare services.

I would like to begin by stating that I believe the Department of Social Services does excellent work on a daily basis with thousands of children and families in extremely challenging circumstances. To increase the success of this work, we must recognize that the Department does not conduct this work alone. The success of the work with highly vulnerable families requires involvement, cooperation, and attention from numerous public and private agencies as well as individual citizens. The problems facing vulnerable families in Massachusetts are often related to economic, employment, and educational challenges. Cases of child neglect comprise the largest percentage of caseloads and neglect is highly correlated with economic resources. Thus, efforts to assist poor families in Massachusetts will reduce the need for child welfare services, allowing the Department to better focus its resources.

At Boston University School of Social Work we are completing a three-year federally funded study focusing on the evaluation of child welfare training across the country. I would like to highlight some of the conclusions from the study that I believe are relevant:

* Training is an important component of the effective delivery of child welfare services, but it is too often used as the only or primary strategy for improving child welfare. This is a poor strategy as it continues to locate the problem within the individual worker rather than the agency system.

* We need to be very clear about the types of problems that require enhanced training and those problems that require other types of solutions. For example, training will not successfully address problems that are primarily related to a lack of agency resources. Quality foster homes, mental health services and substance abuse treatment are needed to effectively serve children and families.

* Consistently, state agencies give mixed messages to workers about the value of training and do not clearly articulate the importance of training to the workforce. Workers do not receive enough time to attend training, they often bear the costs of training, are called out of training to attend to cases, and the training is not reinforced in the work setting.

* Good training requires well-developed, coordinated, and extensive systems, not one-shot classroom-based training. Preparation for training, sequencing of training, concentrated training, and training follow-up are key elements.

* Good training requires innovative strategies that move training into the work setting, allow practice and feedback of new skills, and engage supervisors and peers in support of the training. This takes considerable time and attention.

* Advanced training should build on the vast amount of knowledge workers already possess. Training is too often implemented within a “top-down” framework, suggesting that an outside “expert” has the answers. Consultative models of training that utilize the expertise of experienced workers and problem-solving application to real cases should receive more attention.

* DSS must be willing to allow evaluation of training in order to assess, and thereby improve, training approaches. This includes: linking training participation of workers to their workplace performance and, possibly, impact on clients. It has not been my experience that DSS is willing to participate in evaluation of its services. As part of a learning culture DSS must allow greater outside access to data, workers, and case files to evaluate both training and services.

* Good training is based on solid knowledge about the best ways to work with families. But, there remains a lot that is unknown about effective services; the evidence base is slim for many of our interventions. More attention should be given to developing knowledge within DSS about what works and does not work. DSS needs to be open to research in order to develop this knowledge.

Finally, making good decisions regarding investigations and substantiations, child removal and reunification, termination of parental rights, etc. are at the heart of the work of DSS. The science of decision-making under uncertain conditions (including risk assessment) is at a beginning level. Therefore, it is not an area that can be assisted much by worker training. Rather, here the focus should be on realistic safeguards that promote mature, sophisticated decision-making processes. These include: team approaches, excellent supervision, ongoing internal reviews of decisions to promote reflection, ongoing external reviews of decisions to promote accountability, adequate time and resources built into the decision-making process, and an open culture to learn from mistakes. Again, having appropriate resources available will assist with good decision-making.

For more information, please contact Dr. Collins at mcollins@bu.edu or at 617-353-3748.