Skip to main content



Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) List Serve

Database of Past CMRL Messages

Welcome to the database of past Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) list serve messages. The table below contains all past CMRL messages (text only, no attachments) from Nov. 20, 1996 - March 6, 2018 and is updated quarterly.

Instructions: Postings are listed for browsing with the newest messages first. Click on the linked ID number to see a message. You can search the author, subject, message ID, and message content fields by entering your criteria into this search box:

Message ID: 9022
Date: 2011-11-18

Author:Melanie Sage

Subject:Re: Partnerships between Police and Child Welfare

In Portland, Oregon a child welfare police liaison works at the police office. The person in this role helps answer questions to police about child welfare responses, accompanies police, and helps translate police messages back to the child welfare office (such as local crime statistics, problems in specific neighborhoods, etc.). In several counties that use a contract services model for child welfare, all family preservation/reunification services are contracted but assessment/investigation services are still run by county or state. In some of these places the assessment units are housed inside of the police department. Last time I did research on the topic I remember that some counties in Texas were using this model. An important topic for research/exploration is around relationships between police/child welfare in protective services emergency decision making. Across the country, many agencies use a model in which child welfare conducts an assessment but only law enforcement can make the actual removal. (In some places this is by statue, in others it is a less formal child welfare policy to help spread responsibility.) In my own experiences, some police (or departments- sometimes it depends on specific cop/relationship, but some departments have more advesarial relationships in whole) will assist in the removal whenever the social worker asks. Other times the law enforcement agent will say that they are conducting their own "assessment" about child risk and will not agree to removing children unless they decide that the risk meets their level of assessment, since they are the ones that have to put their names on the protective warrant. In some jurisdictions relationships have degraded to the point that social workers go straight to the judge for a protective warrant instead of using the police as partners. I think this issues of collaboration in child risk assessmentis a great topic for investigation/dissemination of best practices since actual practice varies so widely and has a real effect on practice. Melanie On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Alan Puckett > wrote: A number of jurisdictions (EG: Clark County, NV) have implemented Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) to clarify roles and responsibilities between the CPS agency and law enforcement agencies in situations (EG: arrests of parents) which might result in children coming into CPS custody. Clark County in 2009 reported a sharp reduction in emergency child removals by law enforcement agencies following implementation of these MOUs and other front-end system reforms. Also in 2009, the states of NM and OK both passed legislation requiring joint law enforcement-CPS response to situations in which emergency child removal was imminent / likely. OK took a more direct approach to implementing their legislation, but I am not up-to-date on what happened in either state in terms of numbers of emergency removals or out-of-home placements. --- On Thu, 11/17/11, Jane Marshall > wrote: From: Jane Marshall > Subject: Re: Partnerships between Police & Child Welfare To: child-maltreatment-research-l@list.cornell.edu Date: Thursday, November 17, 2011, 2:34 PM Dear all, I am looking for information, either anecdotal or empirical, on partnerships between child welfare and police. Thanks in advance, Jane Marshall -- Jane Marie Marshall Doctoral Candidate, School of Social Work University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Field Coordinator, Illinois Permanency Enhancement Project

In Portland, Oregon a child welfare police liaison works at the police office. The person in this role helps answer questions to police about child welfare responses, accompanies police, and helps translate police messages back to the child welfare office (such as local crime statistics, problems in specific neighborhoods, etc.). In several counties that use a contract services model for child welfare, all family preservation/reunification services are contracted but assessment/investigation services are still run by county or state. In some of these places the assessment units are housed inside of the police department. Last time I did research on the topic I remember that some counties in Texas were using this model. An important topic for research/exploration is around relationships between police/child welfare in protective services emergency decision making. Across the country, many agencies use a model in which child welfare conducts an assessment but only law enforcement can make the actual removal. (In some places this is by statue, in others it is a less formal child welfare policy to help spread responsibility.) In my own experiences, some police (or departments- sometimes it depends on specific cop/relationship, but some departments have more advesarial relationships in whole) will assist in the removal whenever the social worker asks. Other times the law enforcement agent will say that they are conducting their own "assessment" about child risk and will not agree to removing children unless they decide that the risk meets their level of assessment, since they are the ones that have to put their names on the protective warrant. In some jurisdictions relationships have degraded to the point that social workers go straight to the judge for a protective warrant instead of using the police as partners. I think this issues of collaboration in child risk assessmentis a great topic for investigation/dissemination of best practices since actual practice varies so widely and has a real effect on practice. Melanie On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Alan Puckett > wrote: A number of jurisdictions (EG: Clark County, NV) have implemented Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) to clarify roles and responsibilities between the CPS agency and law enforcement agencies in situations (EG: arrests of parents) which might result in children coming into CPS custody. Clark County in 2009 reported a sharp reduction in emergency child removals by law enforcement agencies following implementation of these MOUs and other front-end system reforms. Also in 2009, the states of NM and OK both passed legislation requiring joint law enforcement-CPS response to situations in which emergency child removal was imminent / likely. OK took a more direct approach to implementing their legislation, but I am not up-to-date on what happened in either state in terms of numbers of emergency removals or out-of-home placements. --- On Thu, 11/17/11, Jane Marshall > wrote: From: Jane Marshall > Subject: Re: Partnerships between Police & Child Welfare To: child-maltreatment-research-llist.cornell.edu Date: Thursday, November 17, 2011, 2:34 PM Dear all, I am looking for information, either anecdotal or empirical, on partnerships between child welfare and police. Thanks in advance, Jane Marshall -- Jane Marie Marshall Doctoral Candidate, School of Social Work University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Field Coordinator, Illinois Permanency Enhancement Project