Interdisciplinary Collaboration

Research on How Child Welfare Social Workers and Law Enforcement Officers Collaborate to

Investigate Child Abuse

Viola W Lindsey, PhD MSW Loma Linda University

April 16, 2012

Rationality and SkepticismRationality

◦Beyond descriptive to an explanatory discussions about how CPS social workers and law enforcement officers engage in collaboration across professional boundaries.

Skepticism◦Lack of participation based on

confidentiality

Research Site DemographicsRiverside County

◦Population 2,100,156 Ranks number 4 among top ten largest

counties in California◦Geography

7,208 square miles Ranks number 3 in square miles

coverage among top ten largest counties

Research Site DemographicsSan Bernardino County

◦Population 2,015,355 Ranks number five in top ten largest

counties in California◦Geography

20,062 square Ranks number 1 in square miles

coverage among top ten largest counties

Comparative DemographicsRemaining 48 California Counties

◦Population Range from 1,061 to 845,559

◦Geography Range from 48 to 4,060 square miles

Social Workers Demographics (11)

Gender◦One male, 10 females

Age◦Ranged from mid 20’s to early 50’s

Job title◦Social service workers III ◦Social Service practitioners◦Social service supervisors

Social Workers Demographics cont’d

Education◦Six social workers had earned Masters of

Social Work (MSW) degrees, ◦Five possessed Bachelor of Art (BA) degrees

Years on the job◦Ranged from 2 to 13 years

Ethnicity◦African Americans, Caucasians, Hispanics

Law Enforcement Demographics(10)

Gender◦Four males, six females

Age◦Ranged from mid 30’s to mid 60’s

Job title◦Three sergeants, seven detectives

Years on the job◦Ranged from two to 27 years

Law Enforcement Demographics cont’d

Education ◦ Two law enforcement officers had earned

Bachelor of Science (BS) degrees◦ Three possessed Associate’s (AA) degrees◦ Five completed their high school education

Ethnicity◦ One African American, nine Caucasians

Commonality◦ Both professional groups respond to

child abuse allegations across multiple municipalities and/or regional offices

Research MethodQualitative rationale

◦Beyond descriptive to an explanatory discussions about how CPS social workers and law enforcement officers engage in collaboration across professional boundaries

Research Method cont’dGrounded theory approach

◦Provides insight into human interactions involving individuals or groups working together on particular tasks(Hughes, Bryan & Robbins, 2005; Turner, 1983)

◦Data comes directly from the practitioners themselves (emic)

◦ Information gathered has practical and functional use in real world or day-to-day work environments (Myers, 2000)

Research Methods Grounded Theory cont’d

◦Most appropriate candidates

To attach meaning to their cross-discipline actions and social interactions

To defend the consequences of taking such actions (Goulding,1998)

To clarify the conditions in the environments that shape their actions

Key TermsCoordinatio

n

Cooperation

Collaboration

Key Term - CoordinationAbout achieving efficiency in procedures such as sharing informing about rules under which each agency operates

Does not lend itself to communicating the reciprocal consequences of those procedures (Denise, 1999)

Key Term - Cooperation An interaction that is intended to contribute, directly or indirectly, to the effectiveness of each other’s work (Strimling, 2006)Interactions across organizational boundaries are usually informal and lack rigid structureEach agency functions separately and without consideration for the other’s goals; interactions are based on an as needed basis

Key Term - Collaboration

People getting together in a room to talk to each

other often misconceptualized as

collaboration(Mizrahi,1999)

Coordination, cooperation a continuum leading to

collaboration

Degree to which communication is

formalized, frequent, and a willingness to exchange and share information for the purpose of meeting

mutual goals (Horwath & Morrison, 2007)

Key Questions 1. Describe for me how you decide which child abuse allegations do not need to be

investigated. 2. Describe what circumstances you and child welfare social workers(CPS)/law

enforcement join together to investigate child abuse. 3. How frequently do you go out with the same child welfare social worker/law

enforcement officer? [Revised] 3. How often do you meet up with the same child welfare (CPS) social worker/law

enforcement officer?◦ [Probe: When you work with the same officer, what is that relationship like?]◦ [Probe: When you work with a new officer, what is that relationship like?]

4. Describe how well you think CPS social workers/law enforcement officers are prepared to do child abuse investigations?◦ [Probe: What problems do you see in their performance or understanding?]◦ [Probe: What strengths do you see in their performance or understanding?]

5. Both CPS and law enforcement talk about ensuring the well-being of children. What does

that mean to you?◦ [Probe: Describe for me how that meaning is the same or different for CPS social workers/law

enforcement] 6. Describe some of the challenges encountered when working with CPS social workers/

law enforcement. 7. Tell me what’s positive about working jointly with CPS social workers/ law enforcement.

Findings Challenges in collaborating

Different investigative approaches

Lack of understanding

each others’ roles and

responsibilities

Different Timeframes

Different languages

Different standards

Inconsistent engagement

practices

Different Investigative Approaches

Active engagement in cross-reporting

child abuse allegations

reports

Evaluating out’ vs.

investigating each

referral received

Some law

enforcemen

t officers

only

investigated

cases where

prosecutabl

e crime was

indicated

Repeat referrals not

investigated

by social workers

Case appearing to be family law matters

often not investigated by social workers

Inconsistent Engagement Practices

No systematic engageme

nt practices protocol; practice varied

To prevent

interviewing the

victim of abuse

multiple times

Involved

CPS to

ensure

victim’s

complianc

e with a

scheduled

forensic

interview

Involved CPS to

gather knowledge

about the family’s

history

Engaged with CPS only if determination made to remove

child from home

Different StandardsStandard of evidence•Preponderance of evidence - social workers

•Clear and convincing evidence – law enforcement

Social workers

responsible for

assessing children’s

current circumstances

as well as risk factors

From the perspective

of law enforcement

there was no need to

be involved with the

family if there was no

evidence a crime had

occurred

Different Languages

Sexual abuse/incest vs sexual assault; Physical abuse vs physical assault

CPS viewed sexual abuse as a family

dysfunction requiring intervention

strategies to restore the family unit

and improve family functioning

Law enforcement

viewed sexual or

physical abuse as

either a physical or

sexual assault

deserving punishment

and long term jail

time law enforce

ment

made no distinctio

n

between physical or

sexual abuse

occurrin

g in the home

and physical and

sexual abuse

occurrin

g outside the

home

Perpetrator vs

suspect

Well-being• Physical safety vs physical, emotional,

social, educational safety

Different Timelines

Social Workers

• Immediate response (IR’s) - 24 hours

• Non-IR’s – 10 days

• Reunification- 18 months

Law Enforcement

• Statute of limitations open

Findings cont’dLaw enforcement officers’ characterization of

social workers relating to

◦ Time line differences - ‘irresponsible’, ‘overzealous’, ‘jumping the gun’

◦ Punishment versus treatment - naïve and shortsighted

◦ Investigation styles - passive, too soft, lacking in assertiveness skills

◦ Consulting with supervisors - too much emphasis placed on book learning rather than training

Findings cont’dSocial workers’ characterization of law

enforcement

◦ Punitive - more interested in taking the perpetrator down regardless of consequence to the children

◦ Impatient – see child abuse as a low level crime, not as exciting as a homicide or a robbery

◦ Detectives who work in Crimes Against Children Units are low level positions in police departments; it’s like a “you screwed up” position

Findings cont’d Complementary roles

Social workers complement my role when the child is removed form the home and the suspect goes to jail and hopefully to prison

They protect my safety; they protect the safety of the child, but I wish they would value my profession more

They provide another set of eyes; respected for their uniform. All we have is a plastic badge and a plastic notebook going into neighborhoods that we don’t even know are dangerous. Law enforcement tells us they don’t even go into those neighborhood without backup

Theoretical implicationsSocial

identity theory

Boundary spanning

Loosely connected systems theory

Theoretical Implications

Social Identity Theory

Deals with intergroup relations where Individuals see themselves as

a member of a certain group or category (the in-

group) as compared to

another group (the out-group)

These groups evaluate

themselves on dimensions that

lead to the in-group being judged as positive and the out -group to be

judged negatively

These comparison become necessary

to maintain distinctiveness and

boundaries the consequences of

which are stereotypes, biases, and it

promotes an “us versus them”

attitude in inter-professional

relationships(Stets & Burke, 2000; Taijfel, 1982)

Theoretical Implications

Boundary Spanning-

Child abuse – a crime (law enforcement) as well as a family

dysfunction (social work intervention)

All organization have boundaries that specify how internal and/external roles and functions are related but also separated from one another (Fiol, 1989)•Boundary spanning positions link two or more systems whose goals and expectations are likely to be at least partially conflicting (Steadman,1992)

•Boundary spanners perform balancing act between inclusion and separation, dependence, and autonomy (Williams, 2002)

Theoretical ImplicationsLoosely Coupled Systems TheoryCoupling the degree to which organizational aspects are linked,

connected, related, or interdependent (Maguire

& Katz, 2002, Weick, 1976)

Coupled organizations are responsive to each other but they preserve their own identity and their

own physical, and logical separateness (Hagan, Hewitt & Alwin, 1979;

Weick, 1976)

Theoretical ImplicationsLoosely Coupled Systems Theory

Organizations that work together but have separate

standards and separate performance measures (Pajak &

Green, 2003)

Organizations guided by ambiguous mandates that

promote irrational work practices; each system

practices in a manner that meets its organizational goals with little regard for how the

other organization in the collaborative arrangement

achieves its goals (Pinnelle & Gutwin, 2006)

Theoretical ImplicationsLoosely Coupled Systems Theory

Interdependence is reduced; interactions are secondary, occasional,

involuntary, and unequal (Weick, 1980)

Organizations conform closely to behaviors that

symbolize mandated expectations but do not

attempt to seriously implement them at the operational level (Scott,

1998)

Policy Implications• Protocol to require joint

investigations on each referral

• Protocol to define each professional groups’ roles and responsibilities during joint investigations

Federal and state policy mandate strict requirements rather than recommended requirements that

CPS and law enforcement

agencies develop collaborative

protocols

• Reduces timelines conflict (Faller & Henry, 2000)

Remove familial physical and sexual abuse crimes out of the sexual assault Penal Code section

and align the crimes with Welfare and Institution Codes

LimitationsResearcher’s bias

Small N (21)

Findings may be exaggerated based on size of counties studied as compared to other smaller (48) counties, population wise as well as geography

Findings may not be generalizable to other smaller counties due to differences in population size and geography

Findings do provide a glimpse into challenges all counties may face when child welfare Federal and state statutes conflict with criminal Federal and state statute

Summary Findings Structural Barriers

Overall, child welfare social workers and law enforcement officers do not collaborate on a consistent basis

There is a lack of understanding of each other’s roles and responsibilities

The structure of each organization makes it difficult to build working relationships

Summary FindingsStructural Barriers

Patrol officer or deputy who responds to investigate a child abuse allegations work on rotating shifts; rarely is the investigating officer the same ◦ Social workers refer to thIs relationship as ‘the luck of

the draw”

If a more thorough investigation is needed the referral is handed off to a detective◦ Social workers describe this relationship as not having a

connections to the intermediate detectives “so it’s like trying to call the station, you leave a message hoping that whoever is assigned will call you back. And that tends to be a hassle for those of us who are not stationed with police/law enforcement”

Summary Findings Structural Barriers

Similarly, child welfare social workers who are first responders investigate child abuse across multiple geographical locations, a mixture of municipalities, and with different deputies and patrol officers who work on rotating shifts, and with different or no understanding of child abuse

If a child is removed from the home and/or a more in-depth investigation is required the referral, in many cases, is handed off to another social worker

Summary FindingsStructural Barriers

Law enforcement (detective) describe this relationship as “A lot of time I will find that if a deputy took a report and say they took it today and I called the social worker who had contact with the family in the past they are usually not available any more so I can’t get any information about the past”

◦Overall, communication linkage is lost

◦Social workers and law enforcement who are co-located seem to have a better working relationship

Recommendations• Interdisciplinary studies can provide an understanding of how the involvement of different professions from different perspectives is necessary to resolve broad and complex societal problems

• Different perspectives provide a more comprehensive understanding of clients’ multilevel needs and challenges

Schools of social work develop curricula that

teach social work students how to collaborate and

resolve conflict in cross-discipline

settings

• Joint trainings teach social workers how to be secure in articulating their professional perspectives, especially in legal settings(Garrett, 2004)

Joint training with law enforcement

to learn about each others’ roles

and responsibilities

Recommendations

• This process not only has potential to close the communication gap

• Process could potentially aid in the alignment of Welfare and Institution Codes with Penal Codes reducing timeline conflicts and systems’ re-abuse of children

Each professional group assign a liaison from both entities

who can track a case at any point

in the investigation

process to provide

reciprocal updates upon

request.

Reference List Attached

QuestionsDiscussions

Remarks

Thank you for participation