State Policies for Implementing
CAPTA and IDEA Referral Regulations
As part of the CAPTA topic page, NECTAC provides these state examples
DE, MA, MN, NE, NM, OR, SC, SD, UT, VA, All States
New Mexico, Utah, Virginia
At the December 2005 OSEP National Early Childhood Conference, IDEA 2004 Early Identification and Child Find - Part 2, provided examples of how NM, UT and VA have responded to requirements to include interagency agreements, referral and child find policies, training and partnership activities at the state and local levels.
The Massachusetts Early Childhood Linkage Initiative
MECLI report
(DOC: 267kb) examined the referrals from Department of Social
Services to early intervention, parental acceptance of the referrals, the
numbers of referred children who were eligible for early intervention, the
characteristics of those children, and the outcomes of the referrals. In
brief, 540 families were offered a referral to EI by DSS and 70% of them
accepted it. 299 children who had been referred under MECLI had data in EIIS.
Of these children, 211 (71%) had completed evaluations and 161 children (76%
of those evaluated) were determined to be eligible for EI services. The
average age of the children referred under MECLI was one year and three
months. This indicates that children were being referred when they were quite
young, which gives EI a significant period of time to work with these children
before they reach their third birthdays and are no longer eligible for EI. Of
MECLI children who were evaluated, 51% had developmental delays that made them
eligible for EI, an additional 18% were eligible based on at-risk criteria, 8%
were eligible for other reasons, and 24% were not eligible (percentages do not
add to 100 due to rounding). (posted 2/9/06)
Minnesota Alternative Response
This evaluation study is part of a special issue of American Humane's
Protecting Children
(PDF: 1,911kb) (Volume 20, Numbers 2 & 3) on Differential Response in Child Welfare.
(posted on 2/9/06)
Minnesota families who received an alternative response (AR) after being reported for child maltreatment showed more positive outcomes than those who received a traditional investigative response. AR - also called differential response - allows child welfare agencies to focus on family and child assessment and providing needed services rather than on investigation of maltreatment. AR is most commonly used in cases in which children are considered to be at lower risk or when maltreatment allegations are less severe.
Minnesota piloted its alternative response or AR project in 2001, and an evaluation of outcomes in 14 counties is now available in an article by L. A. Loman and G. L. Siegel, "Alternative Response in Minnesota: Findings of the Program Evaluation." Researchers compared 2,860 families who received AR with 1,305 control families who received a traditional CPS investigation; site visits and surveys of CPS workers were also conducted.
A number of findings attest to the success of AR:
- Child safety was not jeopardized in families who received AR.
- Family engagement and cooperation were better among AR families.
- AR families received more services and more types of services.
- AR families were less likely to have a report of maltreatment recurrence.
- Families who received AR were more positive about the services they received.
- A majority of caseworkers expressed positive attitudes toward AR.
- Overall costs were lower under AR than traditional CPS investigation.
Minnesota subsequently expanded its AR program statewide, and AR programs are also being implemented in other States.
Referral for
Disabilities: A New Responsibility for Child Protection (PDF: 1277kb) from the
Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare, Practice Notes(16), 2005, outlines the Minnesota referral
system, which includes referrals of maltreated children to the county Interagency Early Intervention
Committee.
Information primarily on Oregon's Implementation of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) presented at the DEC International Conference 2005, by Dave Allen, CASCADES Project, posted with permission. (posted 10/21/05)
South Carolina, Delaware, Nebraska
At the February 2005 OSEP National Early Childhood Conference, three states (SC, DE and NE) and an OSEP Child Find Project (Cordelia Robinson), presented Implications Of And State Strategies For Addressing The Referral Provisions Of The Child Abuse Prevention And Treatment Act Of 2003 (CAPTA).
PowerPoint Presentations:
- CollaboratingforFamiliesandChildren
(PPT: 76kb) - SC - NECTACCAPTADELAWARE (PPT: 103kb) - DE
- NECTACPanel (PPT: 185kb) - Cordelia Robinson
- CAPTA Presentation (PPT: 2140kb) - NE
Handouts:
- DSS Referral FORM rev (DOC: 110kb) - SC
- SCMOA31mar04 (PDF: 138kb) - SC
- CAPTA Flow Chart (DOC: 34kb) - NE
- CAPTA Roles/responsibilities (DOC: 27kb) - NE
- CAPTA Glossary of Terms (DOC: 34kb) - NE
- Suggestions for Discussions (DOC: 27kb) - NE
- CAPTA Referral Form (DOC: 2kb) - NE
State Laws on Child Abuse and Neglect
All States have enacted laws and policies that define State roles and responsibilities in protecting vulnerable children from abuse and neglect. Issues addressed in statute include mandatory reporting, screening reports, proper maintenance and disclosure of records, domestic violence, and other issues.