[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
privatization of child welfare/ community based care/ managed care and child welfare
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2462.0" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Hello. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I am looking for information regarding managed care
initiatives and programs in child welfare. I have followed the information
that was provided in Children and Youth Services Review (Feb. 2000) and have
used that as a basis for getting information on the 29 initiatives.
However, I have been unable to locate any of the evaluations of these programs,
or information that goes past just a basic description. Specifically, I am
looking for information on programs in </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Milwaukee County, Wisconsin</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Texas (project PACE)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Georgia (project MATCH)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Illinois </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Alabama</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>New York City</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>North Carolina</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Oklahoma</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>California</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>and any others that you may know about. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Your help in locating this information would be greatly
appreciated. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Thanks</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Scottye Cash</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>++++++++++++++++++++++++++<BR>Scottye J. Cash, Ph.D.<BR>School
of Social Work<BR>Florida State University<BR>Tallahassee, FL
32306-2570<BR>++++++++++++++++++++++++++</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Fri Oct 02 09:42:50 1998
Status: U
Return-Path: <owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>
Received: from listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (LISTPROC2.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.56.15])
by postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA13180;
Thu, 1 Oct 1998 18:18:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA27866;
Thu, 1 Oct 1998 18:18:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.mail.cornell.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA24930;
Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:30:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from cornell.edu (cornell.edu [132.236.56.6])
by listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA24004
for <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@listproc2.mail.cornell.edu>; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:07:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by cornell.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA04818
for CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@listproc2.mail.cornell.edu; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:07:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from westatpo.westat.com (westatpo.WESTAT.COM [198.232.250.100])
by cornell.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA04694
for <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:07:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ccMail by westatpo.westat.com
(IMA Internet Exchange 3.1) id 000EE568; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:07:45 -0400
Message-Id: <000EE568.C21292@westat.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:05:10 -0400
Reply-To: CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
Sender: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
Precedence: bulk
X-PH: V4.1@listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (Cornell Modified)
From: SEDLAKA1@westat.com (SEDLAKA1)
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re[2]: Researchers as mandated reporters
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
X-To: Child Maltreatment Researchers <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>,MARY I BENEDICT <mbenedic@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
X-PH: V4.1@cornell.edu (Cornell Modified)
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2(a) -- ListProcessor by CREN
I've watched this discussion with interest, as it is a relevant issue
in studies we've done. Certainly the project director always bears the
primary legal and moral/ethical responsibility when a report is
warranted. While there is conceptual and practical distinction between
legal responsibility and moral/ethical responsibility, both must be
addressed.
Before the study begins, if we expect to be doing interviews in a
delimited geographical area (or set of areas), we preemptively contact
the CPS agencies that would be involved should we have to report a
case. This way they are alerted to the possibility that our study may
uncover cases that would require their involvement. We ask how they
would prefer we submit any cases we encounter. Often, they prefer to
identify a specific liaison person in their agency who can work with
us and our interviewing team, receiving our reports about any cases
our team uncovers. This engenders their confidence in our good faith
efforts to ensure that we report appropriately (leaving the
investigation of suspected cases to them, while at the same time not
overwhelming them with cases that they will automatically screen out
in accordance with their intake standards).
Interviewers are often very worried about carrying the burden of
awareness of suspected abuse or neglect, and do not want to be put
in a situation where they are responsible for making the official
report themselves. They lose faith and confidence in the study if
they feel there are not clear, appropriate, and consistent
procedures set up to handle all cases that raise concerns. For
this reason, and to ensure that the project director is cognizant
of (and responsible for) all reports to CPS that stem from study
interviews, we have them report all suspected cases to home office
supervisory staff and the supervisory staff alert the project
direct and report them to the CPS agency liaison, (with conference
call tie-ins for direct input from the observing interviewer, as
needed).
Informed consent is an important consideration in these studies. We
notify respondents, as part of our informed consent statement, that we
will report any suspected child abuse. The federal Certificate of
Confidentiality is helpful in assuring respondents that we will do
everything in our power to maintain the confidentiality of their
responses. However, I understand that it has never been legally tested
as a 'shield' against reporting child abuse and neglect. Moreover, even
if worked for that purpose, it would only contend with the legal
responsibility angle of this situation, not the moral/ethical side of it.
In fact, we both obtain the certificate and inform the respondent of our
intention to report abuse. We read them the statement, have them sign
two copies, and leave one signed copy with them. One recent study
included the following in our "consent to participate" statement:
"....Westat has obtained a Special Certificate of Confidentiality for
this study...Westat will employ this certificate to ensure that the
information you provide will not be disclosed or released to anyone
without your consent, with one exception--if we learn that a child has
been abused or is endangered we would report this to the appropriate
authorities, which might result in official action in accordance with
State law...."
Our IRB required that we insert the last phrase to clarify the
consequences that might accrue ("...which might result...), so we did
so. We cannot recall a respondent who refused to participate on the
basis of this statement. We did report suspected abuse/endangerment and
it was a case where our report led to the removal of the children.
Having the signed consent form turned out to be important during the
sequelae.
Hope this account of our current operating mode is helpful to Tiz and
to others who face what must be a fairly common dilemma.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Andrea J. Sedlak, Ph.D., Associate Director *
* Human Services Research Group *
* Westat, Inc. *
* RA1230, 1650 Research Blvd. *
* Rockville, MD 20850 *
* (301) 251-4211; fax: (301) 294-4475 *
* e-mail: sedlaka1@westat.com *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Researchers as mandated reporters
Author: MARY I BENEDICT <mbenedic@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu> at Internet-E-Mail
Date: 9/29/98 5:12 PM
Sharon, as you say, the only ethical and legal response is to report a
suspicious situation, which we would do. The question is should it be the
interviewers themselves who make the report or, as our system is set up,
would the interviewer discuss the situation with me - the senior
researcher, but not the person in the field, and I would decide whether to
make the report or not. Apparently in Texas, my interprtation of their
law is that the
person in the field is responsible for making the report, although I would
still have discussion with them first. Thanks for your concern, Tiz
Benedict
On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Sharon Carnahan wrote:
> MARY I BENEDICT wrote:
> >
> > We are doing an evaluation study of an early intervention program that
> > includes
> > home visits - home assessments and some videotaping of parent-child
> > interactions in South Carolina and Texas. We have set up procedures in
> > case the interviewers see something that concerns them while in the home,
> > but I am not clear whether researchers (the interviewers
> > themselves) are included as mandated reporters in those two states? I
> > would appreciate any information anyone has.
> >
> > Tiz Benedict
> > Johns Hopkins School of Public Health
> If not considered reporterds under the law, I would think taht
> researchers ethically should report evidence of abuse and neglect to
> authorities. COnsider, for example, the ethical guidelines for research
> with children published by SRCD.
>