Portfolio - State Health Dept

Page 1

/KLAHOMAæ 3TATE $EPARTMENTæ OFæ(EALTH


Message from the issioner of Health Secretary and Comm y. Sadly, healthy and happ be to ow gr n re ect. a’s child use or even negl ab al Most of Oklahom xu se or d/ t of as a to physical an nally been though io it some do not due ad tr s ha t en sue. maltreatm a public health is h uc m ry While such child ve so al fare issue, it is legal or child wel ent are of child maltreatm es nc ue eq ns co al societ gardless of The personal and fect any family re af n ca at th m le lge in ob Victims often indu severe. It is a pr . us at st ic m no socioeco in excess, race, ethnicity or drinking alcohol g, in ok sm as ch may s su promiscuity. They al negative behavior xu se in ng gi severe es or enga abusing substanc as adults such as s ct fe ef th al althy he e vers well as other unhe as e as also experience ad se di ar ul on, cardiovasc obesity, depressi conditions. h is artment of Healt ep D e at St a om ild s, the Oklah reoccurrence of ch e th ng ci For these reason du re d unity to preventing an cluding our comm in , deeply dedicated em st sy th al me visits Our public he maltreatment. k families with ho is -r at 0 50 1, 4,000 er ided ov ng for well over ni ai tr y it contractors, prov al qu gh ring this ed services, hi iplinary teams du sc and/or center-bas di ti ul m 49 r fo d support professionals an past fiscal year. state working rtners across the pa th al he ic bl our pu ents for I commend all of nurturing environm e or m r, fe sa te ea so tirelessly to cr ren. ild Oklahoma’s ch Sincerely, , MD, MPH h James M. Crutcher issioner of Healt m m Co d an h lt ea Secretary of H

Messag e from t he Chief of Family Suppor t and Pr eventio In 1983, n Servic a small g e rou ab

p use and neglect r of child advocat merely r ates, had es, conce esp rned wit a vision hr of preve the Okla onding to it. T n hose adv homa Ch ting child ising child o il c d abuse – monume ates assu Abuse Pr not nta re e child abu l step in affirmin vention Act in 19 d the passage of 84. The se preve g Oklaho A ntion a p riority in ma’s commitmen ct was a tt the State This repo of Oklah o making rt focuse o m s a. on inform Year 200 7. at Preventio It provides an o ion gathered du ve rin n’s (OCA P) activit rview of the Offic g State Fiscal and the ies, dem costs ass e of Child og ociated w ith these raphics of the fa Abuse mil activities The OCA and serv ies served P continu ices. es into it ’s program to incorporate t he n min 2008- 20 12), com g. For the next f ation’s best pra ct m ive-year America unity con contract ices 12 Critic t r a c t o r s p al E erio wil home vis itation s lements and tra l utilize the Healt d (SFY e in hy r in v based se rvice mo ices and the accla g to assure high Families del is be Training ing brou imed “Circle of -quality and Coo ght to Ok P r d in the state lahoma. arents” centerand natio ation Program ( The C CAT n investiga tion to a s’ leading expert C), as in the pas hild Abuse ll corner t, will br of profes s of our s s in prevention, sionals. interven ing tate in o tion and rder to e ducate a As the fie variety ld Oklahom of child abuse p r a’s effor ts move evention evolves serve wit f o and imp r h such d ro edicated ward as well. It , profess is an hon ves, io o nal indiv r to Sincerely iduals. , Annette Wis Chief, Fa k Jacobi, JD mily Sup port & Pr eventio

n Service


s t n e t n o C f Table o Scope of Child Abuse and Neglect.........................................................................................1 OKDHS Child Abuse and Neglect Statistics: SFY 2005-2006...................................................3 Office of Child Abuse Prevention Overview...........................................................................5 Office of Child Abuse Prevention Programs..........................................................................5 Screenings and Referrals.............................................................................................6 Center-Based Services.................................................................................................8 Assessments................................................................................................................9 Home Visitation........................................................................................................10 Demographics of Home Visitation Participants ........................................................11 Program Reporting....................................................................................................15 Program Budget and Expenditures ...........................................................................18 Future Program Direction..........................................................................................20 Child Abuse Training and Coordination Program................................................................21 Multidisciplinary Child Abuse and Neglect Teams....................................................22 Common Data Survey Collection Results...................................................................23 Additional Activities............................................................................................................24 The Interagency Child Abuse Prevention Task Force...........................................................25 The Child Abuse Training and Coordination Council...........................................................26 Appendix 1. References.......................................................................................................27 Acknowledgements.........................................................................................28


1

Scope of Child Abuse & Neglect Rate / 1,000 Children

20 15 10

Ok-2004

12.9 10.3

Child Maltreatment U.S.-2004

Baseline-1998

Target-2010

Fig 2: Comparison of OK, U.S., and Healthy People 2010 objectives for reducing child maltreatment related fatality

4.8 4

Oklahoma State law recogniz es harm to a child’s health, saf child abuse as “harm or threatened ety, or welfare by a person responsible for the child’s health, safety , or welfare, including sexua l ab sexual exploitation.” Harm or threatened harm includes, use and but limited to non-accidental ph ysical or mental injury, sexua is not l abuse, sexual exploitation, neglect, failure or omission to provid e protection from harm or threatened ha rm or abandonment. Negle ct is defined as “abandonment or failure or omission to provide adeq uate clothing, shelter, medical car e or supervision or special car food, e necessary by the physical or mental condition of the child. 1 made ” The US Department of Healt h an 2010 objectives related to chi d Human Services’ Healthy People ld reduction of child maltreatm abuse and neglect target a 20% ent and a 12% reduction of maltreatment fatalities by the year 2010. 2 In (16.3/1,000) and fatality rat 2005, Oklahoma’s maltreatment rate e (4.8/100,000) was higher than the U.S. rate and the Healthy People 2010 baseline rate (Figure 1 and 2). 3,4

3

5.1

4.7 4.3

4 3

4

3.3

3.1

2 1 0

2005

atment decrease in child maltren in 2005. The 2% 3. a ct pi de s ar ye 5 ildre last National trends in the 12.5/1,000 children in 2001 to 12.1/1,000 ch 01 and 2005 at m 20 n fro , ee te tw ned static be victimization ra ent fatalities has remai m at tre al m ild ch of te ra 4 1.96/100,000 children. talities from child maltreatment fa n in SFY 2005 of te ra e th in e as cre s a 42% in 000 childre In Oklahoma, there wa children in SFY 1996 to 4.7 deaths per 100, 0 3.3 deaths per 100,00 (Figure 3).

4.8

2004

Target-2010

2003

Baseline-1998

2002

U.S.-2004

5

5.4

2001

Maltreatment Related Fatality

5.9 5.3

2000

Ok-2004

6

1999

0

1.4

Fig 3: Child Abuse and Neglect Death Rates Oklahoma, SFY 1996-2005

1998

1

1.6

1997

1.96

1996

2

Death Rate / 100,000 Child Pop.

Rate / 100,000 Children

12.1

5 0

5

16.3 16.3

Fig 1: Comparison of Oklahoma, U.S., and Healthy People 2010 objectives for reducing child maltreatment

Note: Rates derived from data available on child abuse and neglect statistics from OKDHS


itories reporting to In FFY 2005, of the 50 states and two terr System (NCANDS), a the National Child Abuse and Neglect Dat d maltreatment chil of ber num the Oklahoma ranked 44th in having the lowest rate. victims (16.3/1,000 children) with rank 1 states reporting to Oklahoma ranked the worst out of the 50 /100,000 children).4 (4.8 NCANDS on child maltreatment fatalities (ages 3 and Research has shown that very young children d abuse and t frequent victims of chil younger) are the mos 5 5 illustrates that neglect fatalities. NCANDS data for FFY 200 for approximately d children 3 years of age and under accounte le children under whi s, litie fata nt 77% of all child maltreatme ely 42% of the child one year of age accounted for approximat fatalities.4 Human Services In SFY 2006, The Oklahoma Department of firmed child abuse (OKDHS) reported that 58% of the total con rs old or younger.6 yea and neglect victims (n=13,827) were six to neglect with due e wer s case the of Approximately 85% as the perpetrator the biological parents of the6 child named e identified as in nearly 79% of the cases. Mothers wer perpetrators more often than fathers.

Table 1: Individual and Societal Consequences of Child Abuse and Neglect 7 Individual consequences Physical health effects – • Shaken baby syndrome • Impaired brain development • Poor physical health Psychological effects – • Poor mental and emotional health • Cognitive difficulties • Social difficulties Behavioral effects – • Difficulties during adolescence • Juvenile delinquency and adult criminal • Alcohol and other drug abuse • Abusive behavior Societal Consequences Direct costs – • Child welfare system for investigations • Judicial, law enforcement, health, and mental health expenses • Approximately $24 billion per year Indirect costs – • Long-term costs due to criminal activity, mental illness, substance abuse, and domestic violence. • Loss of productivity due to unemployment and underemployment • Special education services expenses • Increased use of health care system • More than $69 billion per year 2


3

OKDHS Child Abuse and Neg lect Statistics: SFY 2005-2006 Each year the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Division of Children and Family Services, Child Welfare Services publishes the Child Abuse and Neglect Statistics. In SFY 2006, OKDHS received 63,128 reports on families, and 36,445 (57.7%) reports had allegations that met the definition of abuse and neglect. There were 51,739 children for whom an investigation was completed, and 11,369 for whom assessments were made.

16.3

Neglect 85%

Fig 4: Confirmed Child Abuse and Neglect Cases by Category, Oklahoma SFY 2006.

Abuse 11%

Sexual Abuse 4%

Table 2: Child Abuse and Neglect Cases Investigated and Confirmed by OKDHS in SFY 2001-2006, Oklahoma State Fiscal Year

Investigated/ Assessed

Confirmed

Confirmation Rate

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

50,683 62,795 62,626 60,770 61,926 63,103

13,394 13,903 12,971 12,347 13,328 13,827

26% 22% 21% 20% 22% 21%

nt d relatively consta ne ai m re s ha s se ca ect child ild abuse and negl reporting source of ch nt ed ue m ir eq fr nf t co os of m e ce 9%) (Figure 4). inued to be th 4. nt (8 co The reporting sour t t en en tm em ea rc tr fo al en m child Y 2006, law the leading type of be since 1996. For SF to d ue in nt co 7%). Neglect maltreatment (21.


In SFY 2006, child abuse and neglect was most often confirmed for children younger than three years of age (31%); followed by children three to six years of age (27.4%) (Figure 5). Oklahoma statistics on deaths due to child abuse and neglect for SFY 2006 have not yet been made available by OKDHS. However, in SFY 2005, 40 children died from abuse and neglect. Children less than one year of age (35.5%) and children one to two years of age (40%) accounted for the majority of child abuse and neglect deaths. Among the confirmed child abuse and neglect deaths in SFY 2005, 50% were females and 50% were males. In addition, 45% of the children were Caucasian, 37.5% were American Indian, 15% were African American, and 2.5% were Hispanic. Please refer to Figure 6 for confirmed deaths by perpetrator in SFY 2005.

Fig 5: OKDHS Confirmed Child Abuse and Neglect Cases by Age, Oklahoma, SFY 2006

30

27%

Child Care provider 2%

23%

20

19% 15

15%

16%

Mother 56%

Grandmother 2% Foster Mother 2%

10

Father 29%

Stepfather 2%

5

s

Male Live-In Friend 7%

>

12

ye

ar

s

7-

11

ye

ar

rs ea 36y

rs ea 12y

1y

ea

r

0 <

Percent of confirmed cases

25

Fig 6: OKDHS Confirmed Child Abuse and Neglect Deaths by Perpetrator, Oklahoma, SFY 2005

4


The Office of Child Abuse Prevention (OCAP) The Office of Child Abuse Prevention was created in 1984 by the Oklahoma Child Abuse Prevention Act, Title 63, O.S. Section 1-227.8 The Act declared that the prevention of child abuse and neglect was a priority in Oklahoma. In accordance with the Act, OCAP was placed within the Oklahoma State Department of Health to emphasize prevention as the focus rather than “afterthe-fact” intervention.

• Secondary services that consist of community-based child abuse prevention programs geared towards families that have one or more risk factors associated with child maltreatment; and • Tertiary services by training professionals involved in the child welfare system and child abuse multidisciplinary teams in the identification, reporting and investigation of child maltreatment.

OCAP utilizes a public health framework for providing prevention services, which includes:

OCAP’s mission is to promote the health and safety of children and families by reducing child abuse and neglect through 1) the funding of direct services (OCAP Programs, page 5); 2) the training of professionals that work in the child abuse prevention and protection arenas (Child Abuse Training and Coordination Program – CATC, page 21); and 3) conducting activities that educate the public about child maltreatment and enhance the infrastructure that supports prevention efforts (Additional OCAP Activities, page 24).

• Primary services to promote child abuse prevention statewide and raise the awareness of the general public, program providers and decision-makers on issues related to child maltreatment;

Abuse d il h C f o e c ffi O e h T ms a r g o r P n io t n e v e r P The Office of Child Abuse Prevention receives specific state appropriations each year into the Child Abuse Prevention Fund for direct services to families that exhibit risks associated with child abuse or neglect. During SFY 2007, the Oklahoma State Legislature provided approximately $3.3 million to be distributed to 21 community contractors (hence referred to as OCAP Programs). These OCAP Programs had been awarded a five-year renewable contract in SFY 2003 based upon a competitive bid process. SFY 2007 was the last year of the contract cycle (see Table 6, page 19).

SERVICES PROVIDED BY OCAP PROgRAMS In general, OCAP Programs provided the following services: • Screenings and assessments to determine eligibility for OCAP Program services • Intensive home visitation services and/or center-based parent education and support • Referrals to intensive services related to issues such as mental health, domestic violence or substance abuse • Education regarding positive parent-child interaction • Child developmental screenings and assessments with linkages to appropriate remediation services • Referrals and connections to community resources such as Medicaid, food banks, quality childcare, job training, immunizations, etc. • Respite vouchers for families experiencing great stress or acute crisis • Transportation to and from necessary appointments


Screenings In order for a family to participate in either center-based services or home visitation services, they must complete the OCAP Program screening. During SFY 2007, 2,947 persons were contacted and screened for potential indicators of child abuse and neglect. Most of these referrals to OCAP Programs came from hospitals (~47%), health departments (~11%), and other sources (~16%) such as Children First, SoonerStart, WIC, family members and self-referral (Figure 7).

Dept. of Human Services 4%

Dept. of Health 10.7%

Fig 7: Referral Source for Screening

Head Start 2.5% Friend 10.2% School 3.6%

Hospital 46.5%

Community Agency 2.7% Doctor’s Office 1.4% Childcare Provider .4%

Church .5%

Other 15.9%

Other HV Program 1.6%


7

FAMILIES AT RISk FOR ChILD AbuSE AnD nEgLECT A family is screened to be at risk for potential child abuse and neglect on the basis of the following indicators: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Young age or single, separated, divorced or widowed* Late or no prenatal care, poor compliance* Abortion unsuccessfully sought or attempted* history of abortions Education under 12 years Partner unemployed Inadequate income unstable housing history of or current depression history of psychiatric care Relinquishment for adoption sought or attempted Marital or family problems Inadequate emergency contacts no phone history of substance abuse

A screening is considered positive if two or more of the above risk factors are present. Additionally, the screening is positive if any of the asterisked (*) factors are present or if there are seven or more unknowns. Of those who screened positive during SFY 2007: • • • • • • • • •

63% had low income 56% were either a teen, single, separated, divorced, or widowed 40% had unknown history of abortions and adoption relinquishment 39% had unknown history of substance abuse 37% had unknown history of family problems 37% had unknown history of psychiatric care 36% had unknown history of depression 32% had education less than 12 years 27% had unknown information on late or no prenatal care

Table 3: Reason For A Positive Screen Not Resulting in Further Assessment Reason Individual lives outside program service area Individual not interested in participating further OCAP Program was unable to contact individual Individual not within target population Individual referred to another program Individual referred to the Children First Program Individual could not communicate in English Individual did not feel need for program Individual was participating in another program Individual did not believe she/he had time to participate

OCAP Program did not have staff to serve Individual/Family involved with DHS Child Welfare Services

Pregnancy ended in miscarriage Pregnancy ended in adoption Other Total

n 196 172 113 107 59 45 29 25 24 19 6 6 3 2 320 1127

Positive screen results were seen in 2,492 (85%) individuals. Of the positive-screen results, 1,453 (58%) individuals were referred for further assessment. Reasons for positively screened individuals not continuing onto assessment are shown in Table 3.

% 17.4 15.3 10.0 9.5 5.2 3.9 2.6 2.2 2.1 1.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 28.4 100


Center-based Services Many young, developing families feel isolated. Isolation can be particularly devastating to a new mother if she is not in school or employed outside of the home. At times, this sense of loneliness can lead to overstressed parents and the potential for a child to be abused increases. For this reason, the OCAP Programs provided a variety of opportunities for families to connect with others for social and educational purposes. ELIgIbILITY FOR CEnTER-bASED SERvICES: In order for a family to be eligible to participate in any center-based services, the family must have had: a) a child under the age of five years; and b) completed the OCAP Program screening process as previously described. Families were allowed to participate in center-based services regardless of their score on the screening tool. Families that participated in home visitation services were also encouraged to attend center-based services as well.

TYPES OF CENTER-BASED SERVICES: OCAP Programs were required to provide the following: 1. Structured Parent Education groups • utilized an approved curriculum and follows a course of lessons such as budgeting, health, discipline, family dynamics, domestic violence, substance abuse, basic parenting skills, child development, special needs, etc. • Met for four weeks to twelve weeks for a minimum of one hour each • Includes the same group of parents until the conclusion of the curriculum 2. Weekly and Monthly Ongoing Parent Education/ Support groups • Parents can joined at any time and sessions were held year-round • Sessions utilized a discussion format and focus on developing social and emotional support among parents • Sessions incorporated an educational component and may have included a guest speaker • Typically held at another facility or agency in the community 3. Parent-Child Drop In Activities • Special events were provided to promote and role-model positive parent-child interaction • Age-appropriate activities were organized for children via play, stories, games, songs and art • Parents were encouraged to continue the activities with their children at home

Numbers Served During SFY 2007

• 622 families attended center-based parent education and/or support groups OCAP Programs. • 992 center-based parent education or support activities were provided by the 8


9

Assessments

If a family screens positively, the OCAP Program will request that an assessment be conducted in order to determine if intensive home visitation services (more intensive services than the center-based services) should also be offered. During SFY 07, 931 families were further assessed for child maltreatment risk factors. Of these, 577 (62%) individuals assessed positively and chose to enroll in OCAP home visitation services during SFY 2007. Of the remaining families: • • • • • •

16.6% had a positive assessment, but refused services 7.3% had a positive assessment, but were referred to another program or services 5.2% had a negative assessment and were referred to other services 4.9% had a positive assessment, but the OCAP Program did not have staff to serve them 3.0% had a negative assessment and were referred to OCAP center-based services 1.0% had a negative assessments and no services or referrals were needed

The 16.6% of the families who positively assessed, the following reasons are provided for the family not enrolling in home visitation services: • The OCAP Program was not able to locate 32% of families after assessment • 32% of the families were not interested in home visitation services • 21% of the families did not want to commit to home visitation services • 11% of the families did not feel that they needed home visitation services • 3% of the families were currently participating in another home visitation program • 1% of the families, had a family member that refused to let any family members participate in home visitation services Of the reported positive assessments (n=835; 90% of the assessments conducted), approximately 70% of all positive assessments were conducted in the rural parts of Oklahoma; 19% of the positively assessed families resided in Oklahoma County, while 11% were in Tulsa County. There was missing information on place of residence for 1.3% of the positive assessments (Figure 8).


Home Visitation Services Provided by OCAP Programs The OCAP Programs were required to utilize the Healthy Families America (HFA) approach to voluntary home visitation. Healthy Families America is an approach developed and promoted by Prevent Child Abuse America (PCA). The primary purpose of HFA is to promote positive parenting and child health and development, thus preventing child abuse and other poor childhood outcomes. Evaluations of HFA in multiple states have demonstrated: • Reduced substantiated reports of child maltreatment 9 • Improved health for family members, an increase in the number of insured and more appropriate use of medical services10 • higher immunization rates than comparison groups 10 • better birth outcomes for those participating mothers enrolled prenatally10 • Reduced subsequent pregnancies 11 • More conducive home environments for early childhood learning 12 • Improved child development scores 12 • Improved positive parenting 13 • Improved educational and socioeconomic conditions 14 • Reduced dependency on public resources 14 ELIgIbILITY FOR hOME vISITATIOn SERvICES In order for a family to have been enrolled in home visitation services, the following criteria was to be met: The mother was pregnant with her first child and beyond her 28th week of pregnancy *; or The mother was pregnant with a second or other subsequent child; or The mother/family had a child less than six months of age.

* Mothers pregnant with their first child and not beyond their 28th week of gestation are referred to another state-funded program, Children First. Children First is specifically designed to work with this population and there is no need ot duplicate services.


11

INTENSIVE HOME VISITATION SERVICES • The OCAP program provides home visitation to families that assessed positive for certain risk factors. The family will initially receive weekly visits, but the frequency of the visits diminishes as the family strives to meet their goals. • The Parents as Teachers Curriculum as well as other evidence-informed curriculum were incorporated into each home visit in order to teach parenting skills. • Denver II Developmental screenings were conducted on the children in order to detect delays and make appropriate referrals for services. Families could continue to receive home visits or consultations as needed, and may have been involved in center-based activities as well. The OCAP Program may have continued to monitor and assess each at-risk family until the identified child reaches the age of five.

Demographics ChARACTERISTICS OF FAMILIES ThAT EnROLLED In hOME vISITATIOn SERvICES DuRIng SFY 2007 During SFY 2007, 490 parents enrolled in OCAP home visitation services. 38% of the candidates were enrolled prenatally. Of all the parents enrolled, 91% gave consent to participate in program evaluation. • Age/gender/Race - 33% of the parents at the time of intake were in the 20 – 24 year age group, 99% were females and almost half (46%) were Caucasian (Figure 9).

NUMBERS SERVED DURINg SFY 2007 • home visitation services were provided in 40 counties in Oklahoma • 447 families completed the enrollment process and began participating in home visitation services • 555 families that had enrolled in a previous year continued participating in home visitation services • 66 OCAP Program staff provided 17,726 home visits to the 1,002 participating families


school education, 38% were unemployed and not looking for a job, and 29% • Socioeconomic Status - At the time of enrollment, 74% of the parents had high responses for the income category. had a household income less than $5,000 (Figure 10). There were 6.7% of missing Fig 10: Education Level Completed, Employment Status, and Household Income of Parents Enrolled in Home Visitation Services, OCAP - SFY 2007

35+ Hrs/Week 13%

Other 5%

Middle School 10% Elementary 1%

Unemployed Student 14%

Masters 1%

High School 75%

Bachelors 5% Vocational Training 8%

<35 Hrs/Week Student 2%

Unemployed, Not Looking 38%

5000<15000 16%

5000 or < 29%

Unemployed, But Looking 19%

15000<25000 12% 25000<35000 5%

Unknown 33%

<35 Hrs/Week 9%

35000<45000 2%

45000 or > 3%

• Marital Status – Approximately 65% of enrolled parents were single and never married at the time of intake (Figure 11). • Receiving Public Aid - Many of the enrolled parents were receiving WIC (83%), Medicaid (SoonerCare; ~70%) and/or Food Stamps (42%; Figure 12). 100

80 Fig 11: Marital Status of Parents Enrolled in SFY 2007, OCAP

70 64.6

60

69.1

%

40

40

27.9

42.1

20 8.5

3.1

0.2

2.5

Sch mp s oo ild lM ca ea re ls As sis ta nc e Me Ho dic us ing aid As s Ut ist ili an ty As ce sis ta Un em nce plo ym en t Ot he r

I

5.1

Ch

Sta

IC

SS Fo od

DC /

ra

ted

d

pa

rce

Se

d

Di vo

we

gle

W ido

Sin

d rie Ma r

W

2.3

0

F

5.2

9.2

7.2

7

0

TA N

10

AF

20

83

60

50

30

80

Fig 12:Enrolled Parents Receiving Public Aid in SFY 2007, OCAP

12


13

Fig 14: Age of Parents Participating in SFY 2007, OCAP

Characteristics of Children

16.3

• 632 children enrolled in OCAP Programs during SFY 2007. (These children include the identified child and his or her siblings younger than 5 years old. Not all of the children were enrolled at birth.) • Families gave positive consent for 76% of the children for program evaluation. • At the time of intake, 68% of the children were less than 6 months of age, and the gender was distributed equally amongst the children (Figure 13). • The majority of the children enrolled were Caucasian (41%)(Figure 13).

25-29 yrs 22%

20-24 yrs 33%

5-9 Yrs 2%

Single 56% Divorced 4.5%

Other 1.1% Black 12.2%

2-<5 Yrs 14%

<6 Months 68%

Widowed .5%

Separated 2%

Fig 13: Age, Gender, and Race/Ethnicity of Children Enrolled in Home Visitation Services, OCAP - SFY 2007

Female 50%

< 16 yrs 3%

16-19 yrs 23%

Married 37%

Age and Marital Status of Parents • 33% of participants were 20-24 years old; 23% were 16-19 years old (Figure 14). • 56% of the participating parents were single and 37% were married (Figure 15).

6-<12 Months 10%

40 yrs or > 4%

Fig 15: Marital Status of Parents Participating in SFY 2007, OCAP

Demographic Characteristics of All Families Served

1-<2 Yrs 6%

30-39 yrs 15%

Male 50%

American Indian 24.5%

Hispanic 21.3%

White 40.5%

Note: Children enrolled include target child and other children at home who will receive home visitation.

Asian 0.4%


Fig 16: Number of Adults in a Household in SFY 2007, OCAP

Household Composition of Families • A household was usually composed of two adults (52%; Figure 16). • Most often the second adult in the household, other than the child’s mother, was the child’s father (40%) or the child’s grandparent (34%; Figure 17). number and Age of Children Living in the households • 1,468 children lived in the households enrolled for home visitation services. • 80% were biological children of the parents. Other categories included nieces/ nephews (3.9%), step-children (1.8%), unrelated (0.9%), grandchildren (0.3%), adopted children (0.2%), and other (12.9%). • Most were either younger than one year (47%) or between 5 – 9 years old (~15%; Figure 18).

2 Adults 52% 3 Adults 16% 1 Adult 17%

Fig 17: Relationship of Other Adults Living in Households Participating in SFY 2007, OCAP 16.3

Mother’s Boyfriend 2%

50

Fig 18: Age of Children Living in Households Enrolled in SFY 2007, OCAP

46.9

%

40 30 20 14.6

10 7.5

0

< 1yr

7.9

6.4

1-<2yr 2-<3yr 3-<4yr

6.3

4.2 4-<5yr

5-9yr

6.2

10-14yr 15-19yr

4 or > Adults 15%

Stepfather 1%

Mother’s Relatives 5% Grandparents 34%

Father 40%

Mother’s Siblings 9% Other 9%


15

Number of Families Not Accepted into the Program • 38% (n=354) of the total assessments conducted during SFY 2007 did not lead to the family enrolling into the program. • Of these, 9% did not have enough risk factors to warrant enrollment in home visitation services. • Service refusal by parents (16.6%) was the most common reason for a positive assessment to not be accepted in the program. For more information related to reasons for nonenrollment, please see page 10.

Program Reporting A statewide evaluation of all the OCAP Programs began in SFY 2000. The purpose of program evaluation is to assure program quality, model fidelity, uniformity among program providers, and goal attainment . A web-based application for data entry and reporting was instituted in SFY 2003. The programs have generated quarterly and annual numerical reports electronically since SFY 2003.

40

Data Note: For all of the following data reporting, the missing information was less than 5% unless otherwise stated. Child data includes the identified child as well as any siblings less than 5 years of age that received services.

20

36.8

35

Fig 19: Number of weeks the children were breast-fed, OCAP Oklahoma, SFY 2007

30 25

15

22.7 19.8

18.2

10

Immunizations OCAP Program staff inquired about the child’s immunizations every 6 months during home visits. Based on self-report, 94.7% of these children were up-to-date on their immunizations. Breastfeeding For children at six months (n=445), approximately 56% had breastfeeding initiated while 38% were not breastfed at all. There was almost 6% of missing information. Of those that initiated breastfeeding (n= 247), approximately 37% were breastfed for 2 to 8 months while 22% were still breast-feeding at the time the data was collected (Figure 19).

5 0

2.4 <2 wks

2-8 wks

>8 wks

Still Can’t Breastfeeding Remember


Child Development Screenings Developmental screenings, beginning at four months of age, were conducted using the Denver II Developmental Screening Instrument for 861 children. For the most recent screening conducted, approximately 11% screened positive for possible delays. 20% of the positive screen cases were referred for developmental assessment.

Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting During SFY 2007, OCAP Programs made thirteen reports to the Oklahoma Department of Human Services for possible child abuse and neglect on families receiving OCAP home visitation services. This number of reports equates to only 1% of all families served.

Parent Satisfaction Surveys Satisfaction surveys are conducted twice a year by each OCAP Program. The following cumulative results show the percentage of parents who responded “Very True” to the statements on the survey (Table 4).

port and role model for me. “Kathy and Brenda have been a great sup months of my daughter’s life There have been hard times during the 17 be there. Because of them, I and I can always count on one of them to college.”* am now a stay at home mom enrolled in e of Child

ns for OCAP public hearing, District XIv. Offic

*Source: general input, written submissio Abuse Prevention, OSDH. 2006

Table 4: Parent Satisfaction Surveys, SFY 2007 Program Services

Response

Addressed the family’s concerns Helpful to the Family good Quality Recommendable Easy to Access

92% 92% 94% 96% 86%

Program Staff

Response

Listened to the Family Skilled to Provide Service Knowledgeable About Services Treated the Family with Respect

97% 97% 98% 98%

Parents said it was “Very True” that they:

Response

Felt better prepared to care for children Felt like a better parent Learned coping skills Learned listening skills Learned child abuse risk factors Learned about children’s behaviors Applied problem-solving skills Applied techniques Improved their support system Wanted to improve their living situation Had a better relationship with their children Had improved health and well-being of their children

88% 86% 58% 77% 88% 87% 70% 84% 79% 92% 90% 89% 16


17

Table 5: Number of Families Participating & Average Length of Time Participating

OCAP Fund Program

Bartlesville Public Schools Community Children’s shelter & Family Resource Center Crossroads Youth & Family Services, Inc.* Exchange Club Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse of Oklahoma Great Plains Youth & Family, District 8 Great Plains Youth & Family, District 9 Help-in-Crisis Latino Community Development Agency Mary Mahoney Memorial Health McClain-Garvin County Youth and Family Center McCurtain County Health Department Northern Oklahoma Youth Services Center & Shelter Northwest Family Services Oklahoma State University, Canadian County Cooperative Extension Oklahoma State University, Cotton & Jefferson Co. Cooperative Ext* Oklahoma State University, Delaware County Cooperative Extension Oklahoma State University, Texas County Cooperative Extension Okmulgee-Okfuskee County Youth Services Parent Child Center of Tulsa Pittsburg County Health Department Sapulpa Public Schools Youth & Family Services for Hughes & Seminole Counties Chickasaw - federally funded Comanche - federally funded

Families Enrolled in Home Visitation Services in SFY 2007

Families active in Centerbased Services in SFY 2007

Families served by Home Visitation Services in SFY 2007

Families served by CenterBased and/or Home Visitation Services in SFY 2007

Number(a) 5 9 15 52 16 14 11 17 16 21 11 36 21 19 34 18 9 26 66 14 19 7 16 29

Number(b) 67 14 6 4 1 25 118 2 2 3 23 34 80 18 6 18 52 56 22 47 25 26 -

Number(c) 31 27 14 112 37 35 35 56 38 31 31 57 40 38 34 43 25 43 147 29 65 34 40 69

Total Number (b+c) 98 41 20 116 38 35 60 175 40 33 34 80 74 118 52 49 43 95 203 51 112 59 66 69

Note: The number of families served in Center-Based and Home Visitation Services may contain duplicate count because families can enroll for both services simultaneously. * These two programs have been in operation for only the first and fifth year of the 5-year cycle. Service was interrupted due to lack of funding during SFY 2004, 2005 and 2006.

Months in Home Visitation Service among all served

Average 33 23 2 13 8 19 7 16 7 7 13 5 8 9 3 10 22 9 14 10 19 19 9 10

Range 3-61 1-71 0-12 0-82 1-21 0-66 0-11 0-62 1-23 0-32 0-70 0-11 2-56 0-46 0-7 0-34 0-73 0-54 0-81 0-42 2-66 0-78 0-42 1-47


Program Budget and Expenditures In SFY 2007, seventeen Child Abuse Prevention Districts were designated in Oklahoma (Figure 20). Each District was allocated a portion of the total CAP Fund for programs in their area for the fiscal year. Each District’s allocation is based upon the statutorily required formula: the percentage of children less than 18 years of age and the percentage of child abuse and neglect reports in the District. Twenty-one private, non-profit and public agencies had their contracts renewed. SFY 2007 was the last year of a five-year contract cycle. In SFY 2007, $3,336,482 was appropriated to the CAP Fund and distributed to the 22 OCAP Programs (see table 6 on page 19).

Average State Expenditure per Family • The average actual State expenditures per family during SFY 2007 is estimated at $2,456. • This amount was derived by adding the CAP Fund expended amount ($3,2196,367) plus the OCAP Administrative Fund (general revenue at the discretion of the Commissioner $282,199) divided by the total number of unduplicated families served by state-funded OCAP Programs (1,426).

In addition, the OCAP was able to award contracts to the Chickasaw and Comanche Nations utilizing its Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP) Federal grant monies. Each tribal nation was awarded a contract for $150,000 each in order to provide the exact same service as the state-funded OCAP Programs. Important Fiscal Note: All monies appropriated to the Child Abuse Prevention Fund are distributed to the OCAP Programs through contracts for direct services. No CAP Fund monies are utilized for administration (central office staff, site visits, training, evaluation). Administration is funded out of 1) state general revenue provided to the Oklahoma State Department of Health at the discretion of the Commissioner of Health, and 2) the federal Community-based Child Abuse Prevention grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration of Children and Families. 18


19

Table 6: State and Federal Funds Allocated To Programs Under Contract During SFY 2007 District Name and Counties Served within the District

Agency Name

Contract Award $

District Total $

District I: Pittsburg, Haskell, LeFlore, Latimer Counties

Pittsburg County Health Department

$108,404

$108,404

District II: Adair, Cherokee, McIntosh, Muskogee, Okmulgee, Sequoyah, Wagoner Counties

Help-In-Crisis, Inc. Okmulgee-Okfuskee County Youth Services, Inc.

$143,516 $132,476

$275,992

District III: Cleveland, Coal, Garvin, McClain, Pontotoc Counties

McClain-Garvin County Youth and Family Center, Inc. Crossroads Youth & Family Services, Inc. The Chickasaw Nation†

$105,460 $158,191 $150,000

$413,651

District IV: Canadian, Kingfisher, Logan Counties

Oklahoma State University Cooperative Extension Service for Canadian County

$132,612

$132,612

District V: Hughes, Pottawatomie, Seminole Counties

Youth and Family Services for Hughes and Seminole Counties, Inc.

$103,208

$103,208

District VI: Caddo, Comanche, Cotton, Grady, Jefferson, Stephens Counties

Oklahoma State University Cooperative Extension Service for Cotton & Jefferson County Comanche Nation of Oklahoma†

$234,870

$384,870

Mary Mahoney Memorial Health Center Exchange Club Parent-Child Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse of Oklahoma, Inc. Latino Community Development Agency, Inc.

$105,830 $293,974

District VIII: Greer, Harmon, Jackson, Kiowa, Tillman Counties

Great Plains Youth and Family Services, Inc.

$101,500

$101,500

District IX: Beckham, Blaine, Custer, Dewey, Roger Mills, Washita Counties

Great Plains Youth and Family Services, Inc.

$101,500

$101,500

District X: Beaver, Cimarron, Ellis, Harper, Texas, Woodward Counties

Oklahoma State University Cooperative Extension Service for Texas County

$101,500

$101,500

District XI: Creek, Lincoln, Okfuskee, Pawnee, Payne Counties

Sapulpa Public Schools

$169,658

$169,658

District XII: Tulsa County

Parent Child Center of Tulsa, Inc.

$490,293

$490,293

District XIII: Craig, Delaware, Mayes, Nowata, Ottawa, Rogers, Washington Counties

Bartlesville Public Schools Oklahoma State University Cooperative Extension Service for Delaware County

$135,438 $101,500

$236,938

District XIV: Alfalfa, Garfield, Grant, Major, Woods Counties

Northwest Family Services, Inc.

$101,500

$101,500

District XV: Carter, Johnston, Love, Murray Counties

Community Children’s Shelter, Inc.

$101,500

$101,500

District XVI: Atoka, Bryan, Choctaw, Marshall, McCurtain, Pushmataha Counties

McCurtain County Health Department

$121,734

$121,734

District XVII: Kay, Noble, Osage Counties

Northern Oklahoma Youth Services Center and Shelter, Inc.

$103,673

$103,673

District VII: Oklahoma

$150,000

$188,143

Note: Programs funded by CBCAP federal funds, all other Programs funded by OCAP state appropriations. †

$587,947


Future Program Direction There are three main areas of change that define the SFY 2008-2012 OCAP contracts: enhanced program evaluation, improved peer support for parents and additional training for home visitors. Program Evaluation: The OCAP has developed a new logic model that outlines specific areas of concern dealing with at-risk families. The evaluation instruments used by OCAP Programs have been restructured to align with the logic model and provide more complete and meaningful data. OCAP will assess in greater detail short and long-term outcomes (i.e. changes in tobacco use, access of prenatal care, developmental screenings of children, home safety conditions). In addition, the OCAP continues to work with the Western Regional Resource Center as part of a multi-state effort to enhance evaluation methods through comparison of Oklahoma program outcomes with other states. Parent Support: The 2008-2012 OCAP Programs now have the option to be trained in the Circle of Parents method of providing parent peer support. The OCAP has become affiliated with the Circle of Parents national network. Circle of Parents is a particular model that encourages parents to meet together in order to create an informal system of support and thereby reduce the likelihood of child maltreatment. The parents co-lead the meetings with a trained facilitator and are integral in the content of the meetings. In addition, Circle of Parents has developed a nationwide data collection system that will allow OCAP to monitor the efficacy of the model. Additionally Required Trainings: The OCAP Program staff are now required to receive additional trainings in a variety of areas imperative to working with high challenge families. New trainings include topics such as domestic violence, adoption, substance abuse and family planning.


21

G AND THE CHILD ABUSE TRAININ COORDINATION PROGRAM

Table 7: Activities During SFY 2007

The Child Abuse Training and Coordination (CATC) Program provides training throughout the state for professionals with responsibilities for children and families in the prevention, intervention, and treatment of child maltreatment. In addition, CATC is responsible for training, technical assistance, and assessment of the developing and functioning multidisciplinary child abuse and neglect teams (MDTs) throughout the state.

CATC Training Activities Activities of the Office of Child Abuse Prevention are funded by State appropriations and Federal grants. Refer to Table 7 for summary of activities conducted by OCAP and CATC throughout the year.

Child Abuse Training and Coordination Program Provided 20 trainings at 15 locations across the state to 1,124 registrants. Special topics covered: Protocol Development, Why Investigating Child Sexual Abuse Is So Important, MDT investigation of Severe Injury & Death of Children & Infants, Investigating Child Fatalities, Interviewing the Offender in Child Sexual Abuse Cases, Elements of a Successful Child Abuse Investigations, Basic & Advanced Joint Investigations. CATC Co-sponsored the Bridges Out of Poverty Training a. Sarkeys Foundation b. Mary Abbott House of Cleveland County CATC collaborated with the Center on Child Abuse and Neglect to provide recruitment and evaluation of the Interdisciplinary Training Program on Child Abuse and Neglect. CATC collaborated with 3 Child Advocacy Centers to co-sponsor local trainings. CATC co-sponsored 9 training/educational events (overall 3,150 registrations) 1. Annual Child Abuse and Neglect Statewide Conference (provided 64 scholarships) 2. Oklahoma Lawyers for Children Continuing Legal Education Seminars i. Improving Compliance and Coordination with the Indian Child Welfare Act ii. Advocationg for Educational Rights of Children in Out-Of-Home Care 3. National Crimes Victims Week (US Attorneys Office) 4. Oklahoma Attorney’s Office Super-Conference on Domestic Violence 5. Oklahoma Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assualt State Conference 6. OKDHS Judicial Conference on Juvenile Court Issues 7. National Indian Child welfare Association National Conference (provided 3 scholarships) 8. Indian Health Services Statewide Behavioral Health Conference CATC collaborated on 5 trainings (Estimated 305 registrations) 1. Forensic Interview Training: a. Woodward: Ann Ahlquist Cognitive Graphic Interviewing i. Woodward County DA’s Office ii. Woodward County MDT iii. OSBI b. Comanche County: Ann Ahlquist Cognitive Graphic Interviewing i. Comanche County MDT c. Children’s Hospital: Finding Words Oklahoma Special Interviewing the Offender Techniques by Reid Investigations a. Child Advocacy Centers of Oklahoma, Inc b. Sara’s House


d Neglect n A se u b A d il h C ry isciplina

Multid

Teams

A Multidisciplinary Child Abuse and Neglect Team (MDT) is a group of professionals from various organizations and agencies who work in a coordinated and collaborative manner to ensure an effective response to cases of child abuse and neglect. MDT’s work to minimize the number of interviews necessary for a child victim of sexual abuse, physical abuse or neglect, and coordinate the system’s response to child maltreatment. Oklahoma legislation calls for the establishment of teams in every county and the funding of functional MDT’s. MDT standards have been established by the Child Abuse Training and Coordination Council, the advisory group to the Child Abuse Training and Coordination (CATC) program, in accordance with 10 O.S., Supp.2003, Section 7110.

Figure 21. Oklahoma Multidisciplinary Teams SFY 2007

BEAVER

EE

62

74

OKLAHOMA

421

CUSTER

92

45

130 160 GA RV IN

267

JACKSON

182

TILLMAN

39

COTTON

35

Counties with a functioning multidisciplinary child abuse team (n=29)

STEPHENS

29

PONTOTOC

189

49

108 JOHNSTON

328 LOVE

MARSHALL

45

37

MAYES

WAGONER

153 195 264

176

MUSKOGEE

SEQUOYAH

65 50 HASKELL

PITTSBURG

105

97

146

MCINTOSH

55

265

LATIMER

178 LEFLORE

COAL

87

ATOKA

113

CARTER

206

118

37

MURRAY

180 JEFFERSON

166

26 HUGHES

IN

KIOWA

COMANCHE

5

MIE

HARMON

42

210

SEMINOLE

CC

LA

GREER

OKFUSKE

O AT AW

M

D AN

GRADY

EL EV

CADDO

393

TT

PO

CL

WASHITA

65

164

93

3,219

CANADIAN

BECKHAM

226 138

LINCOLN

61

CHEROKEE

LOGAN

OKMULGEE

31

CRAIG

286

1

ER

H

110

CREEK

F IS

23 ROGER MILLS

244

PAYNE

65

ADAIR

G

DEWEY

TULSA ,56 1

N

49

87

KIN

13,827

150

ELLIS

BLAINE

Total

216 W PA

The number posted in each county represents the number of confirmed cases of child abuse and neglect for SFY 2006 according to OKDHS.

OSAGE NOBLE

GARFIELD

23

MAJOR

73

9

In SFY 2007, CATC conducted an Annual Team Survey with all of the 49 teams responding. Results indicated that: • Routine case review meetings were conducted weekly (14.2%), twice a month (18.4%), or monthly (67.4%). • All of the responding teams had established a child abuse protocol and 65% utilized the protocol routinely while 33% of the teams utilized the protocol, but felt there was room for improvement. • The responding teams conducted joint investigations of child abuse and neglect by law enforcement and child welfare either often (53%) or routinely (43%).

116

364

4

22 WOODWARD

8

Teams must meet these standards in order to be considered functional. At the end of SFY 2007 there were 49 functioning teams.

KAY GRANT

ROGERS

16

33

DELAWARE

56

10

6

OTTAWA

TEXAS

NOWATA

WOODS HARPER CIMARRON

WASHINGTON

ALFALFA

In summary, the standards include: Standard #1 – Protocols for joint investigations and interviews Standard #2 – Professional development training Standard #3 – Service identification inventory Standard #4 – Team meetings Standard #5 – Required data and annual team survey

309 BRYAN

PUSHMATAHA

54 MCCURTAIN CHOCTAW

62 250

Counties with a Child Advocacy Center Accredited by the National Children’s Alliance (n=19) Total Number of multidisciplinary Teams in Oklahoma = 49

The Office of Child Abuse Prevention provided training, consultation, site visits, technical assistance, standards, and data collection instruments to the developing and functioning MDT’s across the state during SFY 2007 (Figure 21).

22


23 Fig 22: Child Abuse and Neglect Cases Reviewed by MDTs by Gender and Age, Oklahoma, SFY 2007

60

rvey Results

Common Data Collection Su

57 50

50

Common data on cases reviewed in SFY 2007 was provided by 49 MDT’s. During this period, 6,985 cases of child abuse and neglect were reviewed by the MDT’s. Of the teams reporting, a case was usually reviewed once (49%), while 35% were reviewed twice and 16% were reviewed more than twice.

43

40

33

30 20

17 10 0

Gender Female

Age

Male

0-6 yrs

7-12 yrs

13-28 yrs

Fig 23: Child Abuse and Neglect Cases Reviewed by MDTs by Race/Ethnicity, Oklahoma, SFY 2007

Other 3.6%

White 66.5%

Asian 0.4%

Black 10.9%

Hispanic 6%

80 70 60

Fig 24: Child Abuse and Neglect Cases Reviewed by MDTs by the Role of the Perpetrator, Oklahoma, SFY 2007

62.7

50 40 30 20 6.2 n

0.8

ow kn

ge

wn no

rK

ted Ot

he

e

nRe la

tiv

No

rR ela

Ot he

Pa r

en

t

0

r

11.2

6.3

Un

12.8

Str an

10

Reviewed cases could have involved more than one type of child maltreatment. Sexual abuse (38%) was the leading type of child maltreatment among the cases reviewed (Table 8). Other conditions were also involved in the reviewed cases. Among teams reporting, 45% of the cases involved alcohol or drugs and 27% involved domestic violence. See Table 8 for conditions associated with the reviewed cases. In 63% of the cases reviewed, the perpetrator was a parent or a step-parent (Figure 24). The majority of perpetrators were aged 18 years or older (72.5%) while 6% were aged 13-17 years. Approximately 3.2% were below 13 years of age. Age was unknown for 18.3% of the perpetrators.

American Indian 11.7%

MultiRacial 0.9%

Of the cases reviewed, 57% of the victims were females while 43% were males. In 50% of the cases, the child was less than seven years of age (Figure 22). The majority of the cases involved Caucasian children (67%), followed by 12% American Indian and 11% African American children. Six percent of the cases reviewed were Hispanic (Figure 23).

Table 8: Child Abuse and Neglect Cases Reviewed by MDTs by the Type of Abuse, Oklahoma, SFY 2007 Type Sexual Abuse Neglect Physical Abuse Other Other Conditions Involved Alcohol or Drugs Domestic Violence Divorces or Custody Proceedings Mental Illness Other Circumstances

n 3,222 2,848 1,709 613 n 1,401 822 573 258 45

% 38.4 33.9 20.4 7.3 % 45.2 26.5 18.5 8.3 1.5


Additional OCAP The following additional activities were provided: Table 9: Activites During SFY 2007 Provided 13 Healthy Families America trainings to Program staff: Family Support Worker Training, Assessment Worker Training, Prenatal Education Training; Supervisory Training. Provided the Annual OCAP Programs Contractor Meeting. Focused on procedures, evaluation and contract monitoring. Attended by 64 participants including administrators, managers and financial staff. Co-sponsored the Family Matters Conference.* Co-sponsored the Annual Center on Child Abuse and Neglect/Healthy Families Conference. Provided 125 scholarships. * Provide respite care service vouchers to 398 OCAP Program and 272 Children First families in crisis or enduring extreme stress. * Collaborated with other agencies in hosting the 2007 Child Abuse Prevention Day at the Capitol as well as “Pinwheels for Prevention” campaigns in all 17 Child Abuse Prevention Districts across the state.* Provided all Smart Start Communities and pediatricians upon request a set of “I Am Your Child’ videos. These top-quality, educational videos will be used in waiting rooms and parent education groups. Promotional materials accompanied the videos. * OCAP developed the State Plan for the Prevention of Child Abuse for 2007-08. Was approved by the Oklahoma Commission on Child and Youth. Distributed thousands of public awareness items, particularly during April – Child Abuse Prevention Month. The items included blue ribbon lapel pens, writing pins, hotline cards, posters, wristbands, bookmarks and a variety of literature. * OCAP staff served on the Child Death Review Board and the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board. OCAP staff Annette Wisk Jacobi and Sue Vaughn Settles served as the Boards Chairs respectively. OCAP staff provided leadership and staff support for the Home Visitation Leadership Advisory Committee. Sherie Trice served as the Lead in these efforts. * Contracted with the Comanche Nation in order for the Tribe to provide home visitation and center-based services equivalent to the OCAP Programs. A $150,000 contract was awarded for SFY 2007. 28 families received home visitation services and 8 families received center-based services.* Contracted with the Chickasaw Nation in order for Tribe to provide home visitation and center-based services equivalent to the OCAP Programs. A $150,000 contract was awarded for SFY 2007. 15 families received home visitation services and 60 families received center-based services. * Sponsored the Oklahoma Child Death Review Board/Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board Joint Retreat. Attended by 28 Board members. * OCAP continued to participate as a member of the National Alliance of Children’s Trust and Prevention Funds. Annette Wisk Jacobi served on the Alliance’s Board of Directors. * OCAP collaborated with OSDH Child Guidance Services to revise and distribute a curriculum based on the Seven Challenges research by Dr. Barton D. Schmitt. Suzy Gibson served as the Leader in this project. OCAP staffed the required CATC meetings. Sue Settles served as Lead. OCAP staffed the required ITF meetings and the annual retreat. Sherie Trice served as Lead.* OCAP staff continued to participate as a member of the Healthy Families America Western Regional Resource Center. Kathie Burnett served on the Resource Center’s Advisory Board. * Financial Support for these efforts was provided by the Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Grant, US Department of Health and Human Service, Administration of Children and Families.

24


25

NCY CHILD ABUSE E G A R TE IN TE A ST FORCE PREVENTION TASK Larry Langley, Chair Judiciary, legal profession or law enforcement Nelda Ramsey Oklahoma Department of Human Services Afton Wagner Oklahoma Department of Human Services Dian England Oklahoma State Department of Health Sue Boyle Oklahoma State Department of Health J.C. Smith Oklahoma Department of Education Carol LaForce Schneider and Oklahoma Department of Mental Health ices Serv e Substance Abus Karina Forrest and Oklahoma Department of Mental Health ices Serv e Substance Abus

Tamatha Mosier Office of the Attorney General Eddie Johnson Office of the Chief Medical Examiner Tracy Haney Person with expertise in child abuse and neglect Vearl Caid Person with expertise in child abuse and neglect Claudette Selph Person with expertise in child abuse and neglect Linda Terrell Person with expertise in child abuse and neglect Kelly Griffith Psychologist with expertise in child abuse and neglect

Duties of State Inte ragency Child Abus e Prevention Task Fo rce8 1. The Office of Child Abuse Prevention and the interagenc y child abuse prevention task force of the Oklahoma Commission on Children and You th shall prepare the comprehensive state plan for prevention of child abuse and neglect for the approval of the Commission. The develo pment and preparation of sai d plan shall include, but not be limited to, adequate opp ortunity for appropriate loc al pri vate and public agencies and organizations and privat e citizens to participate in the development of the state plan at the local level. 2. The inter agency child abu se prevention task force and the Office of Child Abuse Prevention shall review and evaluate all proposals submit ted for grants or contracts for child abuse prevention pro grams and services. Upon com pletion of such review and evaluation, the interag ency child abuse task force and the Office of Child Abuse Prevention shall make the fina l recommendations as to wh ich proposals should be funded pursuant to the provisi ons of the Child Abuse Preven tion Act and shall submit its findings to the Oklahom a Commission on force and the Off ice of Child Abuse Prevention for compliance of such approved proposals wit h the comprehensive state plan prepared pursuant to the provisions of the Child Abuse Prevention Act. Upon ascertaining compliance with said plans, the Commis sion shall deliver the findings of the interagency child abuse prevention task for ce and the Office of Child Abuse Prevention to the Sta te Commissioner of Health.


INING AND A R T E S U B CHILD A CIL TION COUN A N I D R O O C Tracy Haney, Chair Indian Child Welfare Association Ester Rider-Salem Oklahoma Department of Human Services Donna Glandon Office of Juvenile Affairs Barbara Smith Oklahoma State Department of Health Mary Womak Oklahoma State Department of Health Ramona Paul Oklahoma State Department of Education Julie Young and Oklahoma Department of Mental Health Substance Abuse Services Dr. Pilar Escobar A statewide medical association

The Honorable Candace Blalock Judiciary Dr. Sarah Passmore A statewide association of osteopaths Tamatha Mosier Marcia Smith Oklahoma Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Tara Doty District Attorneys Council Parma Hanan Steve Emmons Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training Kenny Holloway Oklahoma Department of Corrections

Duties of Child Abus e Training and Coordination Coun 8 cil 1. Establish objective criteria and guidelines for multidisci plinary and, as appropriate for each discipline, discipline -specific training on child abu se and neglect for professionals with responsib ilities affecting children, you th and families; 2. Review curricula and ma ke recommendations to state agencies and professional organizations and associatio ns regarding available curricu la and curricula having high standards of professional me rit; 3. Review curricula regard ing child abuse and neglect used in law enforcement off training by the Oklahoma Cou icer ncil on Law Enforcement Edu cation and Training (CLEET) and make recommendation s regarding the curricula to CLEET; 4. Cooperate with and ass ist professional organization s and associations in the development and implement ation of ongoing training pro grams and strategies to encourage professionals to participate in such training programs; 5. Make reports and recom mendations regarding the con tinued development and improvement of such trainin g programs to the State Com missioner of Health, the Oklahoma Commission on Chi ldren and Youth, and each aff ected agency, organization, and association; 6. Prepare and issue a mo del protocol for multidisciplin ary teams regarding the investigation and prosecutio n of child sexual abuse, child physical abuse and neglect cases; 7. Review and approve pro tocols 8. Advise multidisciplinary teams

prepared by the local multid

isciplinary teams;

on team development;

9. Collect data on the operat ion and

cases reviewed by the multid

isciplinary teams;

10. Issue annual reports; and 11. Annually approve the list of fun

ctioning multidisciplinary tea

ms in the state. 26


27

Appendix 1. References

1.

The Oklahoma State Courts Network. Oklahoma Statutes Citationized, O.S. Tit. 10, Sec. 7102. Available online at http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument. asp?CiteID=64365.

2.

U.S Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010 objectives: 15-33. Reduce maltreatment and maltreatment fatalities in children. Available online at http://www.healthypeople.gov/document/html/objectives/15-33.htm.

3.

Child Welfare League of America. national Data Analysis System. Oklahoma specific Child maltreatment rate and maltreatment fatality rate. Available online at http://ndas.cwla.org/ data_stats/data_available.asp. Query ran on 9/10/2007.

4.

U.S Department of Health and Human Services. Child Maltreatment 2005. Available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm05/index.htm.

5.

Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities: Statistics and Interventions. The National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. Available online at http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/ factsheets/fatality.cfm.

6.

Oklahoma Department of Human Services. Children and Family Services Division. Child Abuse and Neglect Statistics SFY 1996 -2006.

7.

u.S Department of health and human Services. Long-Term Consequences of Child Abuse and neglect. Available online at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/can_info_packet.pdf.

8.

The Oklahoma State Courts Network. Oklahoma Statutes Citationized, O.S. Tit. 63, Supp. 2001, Section 1-227Available online at http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument. asp?CiteID=97989.

9.

Healthy Families America. Healthy Families America reduces child maltreatment. Available online at http://www.healthyfamiliesamerica.org/downloads/hfa_fact_a.pdf.

10.

Healthy Families America. Healthy Families America helps ensure healthy child development. Available online at http://www.healthyfamiliesamerica.org/downloads/hfa_fact_b.pdf.

11.

Healthy Families America. Healthy Families America helps families promote self-sufficiency. Available online at http://www.healthyfamiliesamerica.org/downloads/hfa_fact_d.pdf.

12.

Healthy Families America. Healthy Families America helps ensure that children are read to learn. Available online at http://www.healthyfamiliesamerica.org/downloads/hfa_fact_c.pdf.

13.

Healthy Families America. Healthy Families America promotes positive parenting. Available online at http://www.healthyfamiliesamerica.org/downloads/hfa_fact_e.pdf.

14.

Healthy Families America. Healthy Families America helps families promote self-sufficiency. Available online at http://www.healthyfamiliesamerica.org/downloads/hfa_fact_d.pdf.

15.

March of Dimes. Quick reference: fact sheets; Low birth-weight. Available at http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332.asp.


This report is submitted in compliance with Oklahoma Statute 63, O.S., Section 1-227 by: James M. Crutcher, MD, MPH, Secretary of Health and Commissioner of Health Edd D. Rhoades, MD, MPH, Deputy Commissioner, Family Health Services Annette Wisk Jacobi, JD, Chief, Family Support and Prevention Service Chris Fiesel, MLA, Program Manager, Office of Child Abuse Prevention Amber Sheikh, BDS, MPH, Program Evaluator, Office of Child Abuse Prevention Acknowledgements Content and Organization: Amber Sheikh, BDS, MPH, Program Evaluator, Office of Child Abuse Prevention Layout Design: Digital Graphics, Inc. Reviewers: Kathie Burnett, MS, Program Consultant, Office of Child Abuse Prevention; Suzy Gibson, MS, Program Consultant, Office of Child Abuse Prevention; Mary Beth Cox, MSW, MPH, Program Evaluator, Children First; Sue V. Settles, LSW, CATC Coordinator Contact: Oklahoma State Department of Health Family Health Services Family Support & Prevention Service Office of Child Abuse Prevention 1000 NE 10th Street Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1299 Web: www.health.ok.gov Ph: 405-271-7611 Fax: 405-271-1011 Email: AnnetteJ@health.ok.gov ChrisF@health.ok.gov AmberAS@health.ok.gov AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER This publication was issued by the Oklahoma State Department of Health as authorized by James M. Crutcher, MD, MPH, Commissioner of Health. One thousand copies were printed by Digital Graphics, Inc in December, 2007 at a cost of $2,919.02. Copies have been deposited with the Publications Clearinghouse at the Oklahoma Department of Libraries.



Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.