Re: Query: Intake Alternatives for Child Protective?

[MCBlueline@xxxxxxx]

I'd like to thank those who reponded to my query, whether on list or off.
 The information provided has been most helpful.  

There was one surprise.  Two posts (one on list, one off) questioned the very
notion that central registers are intake units.  Better, perhaps, to see
registers as computer lists of victims and perpetrators or as providing
screening processes, with "intake units" referring to something else.  I had
rolled all these meanings into one. That the term "register" could be broken
down into its component parts (and institutionalized differently in different
places on that basis) was an eye opener.  

In my home state of New York, the State Central Register (SCR) for Child
Abuse and Maltreatment performs the "intake" function for the whole state via
an 800 phone number.  (It also performs follow-up functions, but I won't get
into that here.)  No case gets investigated in NYS without going through the
Register first.  In this sense, the SCR is not only a repository but also a
gatekeeper.  The screen used at the SCR amounts to a legal test --
"reasonable cause to suspect" abuse or neglect (but it does not, at present,
contain a true risk assessment protocol).  Cases that meet this test are
"registered" (computer lists) and sent to the local districts (e.g.,
counties) for investigation.  Only if by "intake unit" is meant an agency
that actually deals with the case would the SCR not qualify. 

I thank Patrick Tooman for his intake references and will turn to them
shortly for clarification.  

Just about all of the posts addressed the importance of accurately sizing up
cases at intake, especially in situations where notifications are increasing
and resources are dimishing.  What I found most intriguing was the notion
that risk assessment needs to be contextualized for optimum performance (Jeff
Norman, Washington State):

<<We believe that intake functions at it's best when it is located within the
community it serves, knows local resources and professionals,  uses
collateral calls to collect as much information as possible, and is actively
involved in consensus building to achieve consistency in
decision-making.  We have found that communities here do not want a
centralized intake unit, be it region-wide or state-wide.>>

Jeff, could you expand on this a little?  Maybe illustrate with a case or
two?  By the way, I have reached a similar conclusion with respect to the
importance of "consensus building to achieve consistency in decision-making."
 I'd be very interested to know who in your communities gets to participate
in the consensus and how it's achieved.  

Without centralized (read: "standardized") intake, is there ever the worry
we'll end up with different standards in different communities, to the
detriment of some children and families?  Should intake decision-makers
maintain broader ties as well as local ones to make use of the widest range
of thinking on CA/M? 

Regards,
Michael Cahill, Ph.D.
Cultural Anthropologist
623 Snyders Corner Road
Poestenkill, NY  12140
(518) 283-5898
mcblueline@aol.com