Re:

["Jeanne Pietrzak" <pietrzak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Rick,

Addressing Question # 1 below, I am aware of data from 1995 (Chavkin, et
al) that suggests that 8 states required mandatory reporting of positive
toxicology results to child protective services by law (versus 1 state in
1992) and almost 2/3 of the states described this to be actual practice.
See (Am J Public Health 1998; 88:117-119).  

Jeanne Pietrzak
Nat'l. AIA Resource Center
School of Social Welfare
UC Berkeley
ph:  (510) 643-7017
fax:  (510) 643-7019


At 07:20 PM 05/13/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>I'm trying to identify states that:
>
>1.  Are requiring that children tested positive for drugs/alcohol at birth
are
>reported to child welfare services
>
>2.  Are providing dual track/family assessment services to their lower threat
>(typically neglect) cases
>
>3.  Any states that are doing both and whether they are referring the
drug-exposed
>chidlren and their families to the family assessment track and how that's
working.
>
>So, if anyone has a tip on recent reports that summarize the status of state
>approaches to providing services to drug-exposed newborns OR has a tip on
reports
>that summarize the status of "dual track/family assessment track" systems,
I'd be
>much obliged to get that information
>
>And, if anyone has experience with #3 above, I'd be thrilled to hear from
them.
>
>Thank You,
>
>Rick Barth
>University of North Carolina
>School of Social Work
>
>Richard P. Barth, Ph.D.
>Frank A Daniels Professor 
>Jordan Institute for Families
>School of Social Work
>301 Pittsboro Rd
>University of North Carolina
>Chapel Hill, NC  27599-3550
>(v) 919 962 6516
>(f)        962 1486
>