|
Project
Homepage
Project Contact
Information
Project
Reports
Curriculum
Protocols
Resources
Links
Crisis Numbers
|
Minnesota Rural Project for Women and Child Safety
August 2001
Authors:
Cindy Anderson, Beth Olson-Hallen, Dorie Eder, and Kathy Hesch
Project Specialists
Rose Thelan
Project Consultant
Table of Contents
The following document provides interim summary information about the
Minnesota Rural Violence Against Women / Child Victimization Enforcement
Project Grant. A grant was received by the Minnesota Coalition for
Battered Women (MCBW) along with collaborating agencies through the
Minnesota Crime Victim Services (MCCVS), a division of the Minnesota
Department of Public Safety. The project began in March 2000 and will
continue until June 2003 under a grant renewal received in the fall of
2001.
For further information about the project, contact Sandy Davidson,
MCBW, 1821 University Avenue W., Suite S-112, St. Paul, MN 55104, (Tel:
651-646-1109).
Return to the Top
After discussion among grant collaborators and with Praxis rural
grantee consultants, a decision was made to limit protocol development
to areas of overlap among abused children, child protection and domestic
violence agencies to be able to manage these effectively and assure that
unintended harm to battered women did not result. Community Specialists identified key decision makers and met
separately with representatives of county and reservation child
protection, abused children's and battered women's agencies to:
- provide them with an overview of the project
- enlist their willingness to participate in the project
- conduct needs assessment interviews
Compiled results of needs assessment into document, titled
County and Reservation Community Needs Assessment
Results. Met with representatives from child protection, abused children
and battered women's programs, in order to:
- Explain the project.
- Identify priority areas for work within their counties that might be addressed in a protocol.
- Identify how each agency works with battered women and/or her children. In one region, flow charts were created, illustrating individual agency roles.
Developed guiding principals for county teams. Regional collaborative teams participated in one 2-day cross
training and two 1-day cross trainings held in four regions of the
state. Continued to address issues within the regions relative to
building relationships, and move toward development of county/tribal
protocols. Worked with DHS to develop protocol for use by child protection
agencies. Reviewed existing protocols, articles and held discussion with
representatives of other states involved in other
collaborations. Developed a document titled Draft Recommendations for
Protocol and Collaborative Elements for County/Reservation Teams, a
companion exercise and recorder sheets for use in guiding the process of
protocol development at the spring 2001 training and in meetings held
subsequent to these training sessions. Began drafting protocols for county and reservation teams
utilizing exercise. Engaged in ongoing dialog with county teams regarding
sustainability of their efforts in the event that continuation funding
was not secured.
Return to the Top
Outlines abused children, battered women's and child protection
agencies roles. Clear process utilized for identifying elements to be included in
protocol based on experience of other collaborations, best practices,
and recommendations in the field. Region's ability to develop protocols tailored to meet specific
region/community conditions. Promotion of a clear separation of advocacy role from child
protection role, including defining the role of advocates in providing
advocacy related to battered women involved in the child protection
process. (See Best Practices for Battered Women's Programs section of
Draft Protocol Recommendations document). Directives that battered women's programs and child protection
programs do not collaborate in individual case planning. Provides for referral and not mandate of battered women to
battered women's services. Advocate role on child protection team is defined as that of
providing systems advocacy and avoiding discussion of individual cases,
except where requested by battered women and only after release
obtained. Systems change focus included as a role of county teams when
collaborating, in order to identify community changes needed to enhance
safety for women and children and accountability for batterers. Protocol development allowed for the institutionalization of
existing county strengths. For example in three counties in one region,
most child protection workers had experience either working for or
volunteering with the battered women's program. This was identified as
a strength and thus a provision whereby child protection interns will
spend part of their internship at the battered women's program, and the
battered women's program will provide on-going training as well as
volunteer opportunities to workers was included in their county's
protocol. The combined strength of the involved agencies engaged in the
protocol makes it easier and more likely to approach other systems and
enlist their participation (i.e. law enforcement, guardians ad litem,
etc.). Some teams have included annual "mini" cross training to maintain
and enhance relationships and increase inter-agency
understanding.
Return to the Top
Targeted focus of the Minnesota Collaborative on improving
services and enhancing the safety of battered women and their children
when battering and child abuse co-exist allowed for proceeding with
caution to avoid unintended consequences. Participants were identified as experts at the start in terms of
identifying local/county and tribal needs. Collaborators were given needs assessment results identified
statewide, so they could consider the problem beyond local
conditions. Teams, via their regional specialists, were given technical
assistance through bringing local problems to coalition strategists who
helped shape the process to respond to the current climate (following
the confusion surrounding the short-lived enhanced neglect statute in
1999). Broad base of experience gained because of the large numbers of
counties and reservation communities involved (26 and 9,
respectively). Specific rural focus which is replicable in many rural
communities nationwide The overall project includes funding for 5 additional counties to
develop Demonstration Projects. These counties were selected to
develop/enhance existing relationships with child protection with hopes
of developing projects that can be replicated in other counties.
Community Specialists provide technical assistance to these projects and
information is/can be exchanged. While the process for protocol
development may not be as formal as other aspects of this project, these
five teams are building relationships, enhancing the collaborative
process and are developing protocols for their counties. Technical assistance and enhancement training was provided by
Praxis for Community Specialists, participants in the Demonstration
Projects and collaborative teams participating in this project. Flexibility in the development of the cross training curriculum,
allowing for input from trainers, community specialists, project
consultants, and other stake holders (child protection, abused
children's programs, battered women's programs) throughout the duration
of the grant period. Because of collaboration among state agencies in the development
and implementation of the project, understanding and buy-in at the state
level led to an unintended beneficial consequence, whereby the MN
Department of Human Services convened a diverse group of agencies and
individuals to develop best practice guidelines for child protection
workers for cases where domestic violence and child maltreatment
overlap. The involvement of the Minnesota Department of Human Services in
the development and delivery of the cross trainings enhanced buy in
among child protection agency participants. Relationships were enhanced between child protection and domestic
violence programs by involving trainers from each discipline involved in
the protocol development who modeled respectful listening geared towards
understanding differences across disciplines. Project built on experience gained from emerging programs and
model initiatives in other parts of the country -- through review and
discussion of the literature, attendance at Jackson Hole training,
participation in audio conferences and direct consultation with
program/initiative representatives. Good buy-in from many counties was facilitated as a result
of:
- Stable, strong battered women's programs and child protection agencies with already existing informal and formal cooperative relationships.
- Timing: some counties felt the need to collaborate was imminent and welcomed the opportunity to have a facilitated process.
- Other efforts within their areas in the development of county/tribe reciprocal agreements and/or model responses to domestic violence (the Center for Reducing Rural Violence has selected domestic violence in some rural organizing initiatives).
Adequate time was built in for relationship building and
opportunities for dialog regarding local conditions that would affect
development. Community specialists came from outside of the involved agencies
who were better situated to encourage a process whereby objections and
reservations could be aired among participants. This reduced the risk
of collusion among team members who might have been constrained from
disagreement because of their ongoing relationships outside of the
protocol development process. Cooperation was increased and the effective use of time enhanced
because of the role of the community specialists, who were responsible
for the ongoing work of the teams, i.e. setting up meetings, compiling
the research, typing up agendas, minutes, protocols, copying,
etc. Community Specialists were sensitive to the time limitations of
the participants, structuring meetings and tasks in a focused
way. Community specialists could learn from each other and what was
working in each region. Participating teams report being well informed and that the
trainings were operative in opening up real community dialogue through
the understandings gained there. The project adapted to frequent changes in personnel in both
child protection and battered women's programs. Regional cross trainings were accessible to
participants. Most counties are committed to the idea of cross-training and
addressing domestic violence and child protection overlap issues as part
of the orientation process to train new employees and address new
statutes/laws/mandates. Some counties are institutionalizing monthly monthly "check-ins"
to see how the process and protocol is working, which will serve as an
informal evaluation piece.
Return to the Top
Some counties were not engaged/interested in participating due to
local conditions including:
- High turnover in child protection and battered women's programs
- Some child protection agency representatives are entrenched, territorial and closed to outside influences.
- Minnesota is a "county-run-state" with respect to human services; and thus, there is little incentive for county-level child protection to invest in the issue if they do not have some sort of interest already.
- Entrenched victim blaming attitudes that expect the battered woman to control what the state cannot, namely the batterer and the battering.
- Resistance on the part of child protection agencies who assume greater authority and credibility in terms of defining the problem, i.e. see efforts to protect the adult victim as coming from battered women's programs lack of professionalism and hence objectivity regarding the culpability of battered women.
- History of bad relationships between the child protection and battered women's agencies and no mandate requiring them to work together.
Some places experienced difficulty getting involvement and buy-in
from reservations. Possible reasons for this include:
- The failure to approach the Tribal Council with the reservation advocates and/or the tribal human service people.
- Extremely high turnover on the reservations. People filling domestic violence positions do not believe they will hold their positions for long and are consequently lack interest in starting new initiatives.
- Some reservations extremely closed to outside influence.
- History of bad relationships with county agencies.
- History of oppression and exploitation of Indians by white people.
Some teams had imbalanced representation - typically more
representatives of battered women's programs were involved. Staffing issues made it difficult to leave programs/schedule
meetings/attend trainings. Rural landscape typified by few staff without the resources to
meet extraordinary travel expenses -- often the battered women's program
participants are the only advocate or worker in their county which
limits their ability to participate in meetings and trainings (crisis
calls take priority over meetings). Minnesota winters and springs offer some unique weather
challenges. In small agencies, in which management often consists of one
person, if that one person is obstructionist it can hobble the entire
effort (also true for judges, law enforcement, etc.) Leadership from DHS is great, but often seems remote and fraught
with unrealistic expectations to overburdened, rural workers. Data did not exist beyond the anecdotal to prove the need for
protocol development. Example: one county did not feel that they
wanted/needed a protocol. Believed that they were good people already
working well and there was little evidence to prove otherwise. Small battered women's programs can be unwilling to identify
child protection problems when they lack community organizing skills and
are striving for legitimacy among community agencies. Some counties have agencies that are at odds with county
administration, and progress is inhibited by local mistrust. Some counties are opposed to separate case plans for batterers,
due to time constraints.
Return to the Top
Further training, consultation, and mentoring for battered
women's programs is needed regarding the rights of battered women in the
child protection system and how to advocate effectively for them as well
as to strengthen their agency's capacity to effectively meet extra
responsibilities necessitated by protocol development and
implementation. Flyers should be handed out to battered women in the child
protection system developed by the battered women's programs, which
outline:
- Services that battered women's programs provide in general for battered women and their children
- Services provided specifically for battered women in the child protection system (in particular information about the availability of advocacy for battered women to assure that their rights are met in the child protection system).
Need to identify what separate case plans for batterers would
include beyond completion of batterers groups. In counties where
batterers groups exist, they may be over-relied upon to provide
accountability for batterers. In many other counties, they are
non-existent or ineffective. Tracking and monitoring of the extent to which criminal, civil
and juvenile justice system sanctions are used to respond to batterers
who also abuse their children is needed, including the identification of
resource or other systemic impediments that contribute to the
under-utilization of these remedies. Anecdotally, it is known that civil
and criminal remedies are not often used against batterers. Expand involvement in project to other intervenors, including law
enforcement, prosecution, batterers programs, schools, and other court
agencies. Review protocol with battered women who were dissatisfied with
their involvement with the child protection system to test whether the
existence of the new protocol would have made a difference in their
situation and to adapt as needed to strengthen it. Review each point of entry for battered women to identify where
protocol needs further development to assure safety for them and their
children. Review problem of overrepresentation of women of color in child
protection system and identify solutions for child protection and
battered women's programs. Create grid or other method of assisting child protection and
battered women's programs in considering when children should be taken
from a battered woman for failure to protect, including possible
sanctions to hold male perpetrator accountable and to assist her in
gaining separation in those cases where staying with him and sanctions
against him has not resulted in his reform. Monitoring the development of Alternative Response, particularly
in Olmsted Co. Provide input, training, etc. as part of the advisory council to
ensure safety needs of women and children are considered and
incorporated in each counties Alternative Response. In addition to protocol development, identify what leadership on
this issue would look like for participating agencies. In areas where participation by child protection was low, work
with battered women's programs to document the need and organize within
their communities to get them to the table. Assess for unintended consequences to battered women and their
children. Provide a Reservation Community Specialist to serve as liaison to
county teams and reservation communities. Reservation-specific evaluation is needed, i.e. - assessing the
outcomes for Indian children. See also "Developing Protocols: Exercise for County Teams", D.
section.
Return to the Top
(a.k.a. The Green
Book) published by NCJFCJ.
Strengths:
Leadership coming from a reputable national
organization. Good section on audit to identify community obstacles (this
section was incorporated into the Draft Review and Recommendations for
Protocol Development). Clear guide to refer to as communities and local teams move
forward. Provides a reminder to integrate juvenile court responses,
identify and expand resources, cultural competence, etc. Availability of copies free of charge to provide to each county
team to review and/or implement recommendations as resources
allow. Some recommendations will be useful if/when expanding the
protocol to more systems. Good challenges to the
criminal justice system concerning accountability. Batterers programs are directed to participate in annual
cross-trainings. Both batterers programs and other systems might
benefit from their participation. Suggestions that battered women's programs, who generally lack
expertise in this area, increase their internal capacity. Recommendations for mediators, where mediation is mandated, are
good. Though our feeling is that it would be better if mediation were
not mandated. Laudatory suggestions regarding setting standards for competent
well-trained attorneys. Encourages cross communication and understanding, and ongoing
trainings between involved systems.
Weaknesses:
Assumes level of expertise that battered women's programs (and
perhaps others) do not necessarily have relative to engaging in
collaborative efforts. It seems to blur the distinction between the battered women's
advocacy and child protection role or erroneously assumes that the
battered women's program is in a position to articulate its independence
(not clear which). Surfeit of principles with few specifics for practice. Metro-centric focus, which does not take into account rural
issues. Assumes some resources, which aren't available in rural areas,
for example, batterer's programs, transportation, childcare,
etc. Language not conducive to buy-in by rural participants, e.g. use
of many "shoulds" in the principles not inviting. Teams seem overwhelmed at the complexity of collaboration; the
book could add something to make it user-friendlier, like encouraging
one-and two-year measurable objectives to provide milestones of success
for teams. Not always realistic, particularly for rural, economically
deprived areas. More focus needed on holding perpetrators accountable and how
this is done. See also #5: Future Direction/ Tasks in Ongoing Work with
Participating Agencies/ Programs Recommendation #50 regarding extension in permanency, refers to
"healing". No reference to lack of resources, which if available would
preclude the necessity of her healing. The problems with mediation are not addressed head-on. Likewise
advises use of dangerous interventions such as couples counseling and
family conferencing with caution. Why use them if they are
dangerous. Confidentiality not addressed. Recommends joint case consultation: is this with external
battered women's programs and if so this may increase the danger to the
battered woman, particularly in rural areas. Seems to suggest expanding existing coordination efforts, to
include child protection issues (Recommendation #6). This seems like it
assumes that coordinating councils have been successful. Seems unwieldy
and unworkable to have a larger group take on the whole of this
issue. Is Recommendation # 8 promoting internal advocacy over external
advocacy? Should reference the importance of battered women's advocate
involvement. Needs to operationalize offender accountability and safety for
battered women-- what do those terms mean? Many recommendations are unclear.
Return to the Top
This document was compiled by the MCBW-hired staff of the MN Women
and Child Safety Project/Rural Violence Against Women/Child
Victimization Enforcement Project and does not necessarily represent the
opinions of other persons, agencies, organizations or governmental
offices involved in or participating in the project.
|
