SCREENING AND ASSESSMENT FOR 

FAMILY ENGAGEMENT, 

RETENTION, AND RECOVERY

(SAFERR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Administration for Children and Families

www.samhsa.gov

SCREENING AND ASSESSMENT FOR 

FAMILY ENGAGEMENT, 

RETENTION, AND RECOVERY

(SAFERR)

Nancy K. Young

Mary Nakashian

Shaila Yeh

Sharon Amatetti 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Administration for Children and Families

www.samhsa.gov
Acknowledgments

Numerous people contributed to the development of this volume (see Appendix J, “List of Contributors 

and Reviewers”). This document was prepared by the National Center on Substance Abuse and Child 

Welfare (NCSACW) for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) 

and the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), both within the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services (DHHS), under Contract No. 270-027108. 

Nancy K. Young, Ph.D., served as Project Director, Mary Nakashian, M.A., authored and edited the final 

draft, and Shaila Yeh, M.S.W., created the first draft. Sharon Amatetti, M.P.H., served as the Government 

Project Officer from SAMHSA’s Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) and drafted sections 

of the report; Irene Bocella, M.S.W., and Catherine Nolan, M.S.W., served as the Project Officers from 

ACF.

Disclaimer

The views, opinions, and content of this publication are those of the authors and contributors and do not 

necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or policies of SAMHSA, ACF, or DHHS. Resources listed in this 

document are not all inclusive; inclusion as a resource does not constitute an endorsement by SAMHSA, 

ACF, or DHHS.

Public Domain Notice

All material appearing in this document is in the public domain and may be reproduced or copied 

without permission from SAMHSA, ACF, or DHHS. Citation of the source is appreciated. However, this 

publication may not be reproduced or distributed for a fee without the specific, written authorization of 

the Office of Communications, SAMHSA, DHHS.

Electronic Access and Copies of Publication

This publication can be accessed electronically through the following Internet World Wide Web 

connection http://www.ncsacw.samhsa.gov. For additional free copies of this document, please call 

SAMHSA’s National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information at 1-800-729-6686 or the 

National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect at 1-800-394-3366.

Recommended Citation

Young, N. K., Nakashian, M., Yeh, S., & Amatetti, S. Screening and Assessment for Family Engagement, 

Retention, and Recovery (SAFERR). DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 07-4261. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse 

and Mental Health Services Administration, 2007.

Originating Office

Office of Program Analysis and Coordination, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Substance Abuse 

and Mental Health Services Administration, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857

Publication No. (SMA) 07-4261

Printed 2007
i

Table of Contents

Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................1

Section I. Building Cross-System Collaboration ..................................................................................................................................9

1.1 Developing a Collaborative Team .......................................................................................................................................................................9

1.2 Establishing the Steering Committee’s Charge and Approach .............................................................................................................13

Section II. Collaborative Roles and Responsibilities .........................................................................................................................23

2.1 Responsibilities of the Child Welfare Service System .............................................................................................................................23

2.2 Responsibilities of the Alcohol and Drug Service System ......................................................................................................................27

2.3 Responsibilities of the Court System .............................................................................................................................................................31

2.4 Collaborative Responsibilities of the Child Welfare, Court, and Alcohol and 

 Drug Service Systems ..........................................................................................................................................................................................32

2.5 Models for Cross-System Collaboration ........................................................................................................................................................36

Section III. Collaborative Practice at the Frontline .............................................................................................................................39

3.1 Developing Communication Structures and Protocols .............................................................................................................................40

3.2 Screening ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................41

3.3 Assessment ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................48

3.4 Treatment and Family Case Plans ...................................................................................................................................................................56

3.5 Did the Interventions Work? ..............................................................................................................................................................................64

Appendixes

Appendix A. Facilitators Guide ............................................................................................................................................................................A-1

Appendix B. Fact Sheets ........................................................................................................................................................................................B-1

Appendix C. Understanding the Needs of Children in Families Involved in the Child Welfare 

System Who Are Affected by Substance Use Disorders ...............................................................................................C-1

Appendix D. Examples of Screening and Assessment Tools for Substance Use Disorders ........................................................D-1

Appendix E. Substance Use, Abuse, Dependence Continuum, and Principles of 

Effective Treatment .......................................................................................................................................................................E-1

Appendix F. Examples of Safety and Risk Assessments for Use by Child Welfare Staff ...........................................................F-1

Appendix G. Sharing Confidential Information ..............................................................................................................................................G-1

Appendix H. Glossary of Terms ...........................................................................................................................................................................H-1

Appendix I. A Guide to Compliance With the Indian Child Welfare Act .............................................................................................I-1

Appendix J. Acknowledgment of Contributors and Reviewers ..............................................................................................................J-1

1

INTRODUCTION

This guidebook presents the SAFERR (Screening and Assessment for Family Engagement, Retention, 

and Recovery) model for helping staff of public and private agencies respond to families affected by 

substance use disorders. The SAFERR model and this guidebook were developed by the National Center 

on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare (NCSACW), a training and technical assistance resource center 

established jointly by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment of the Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration and the Office on Child Abuse and Neglect of the Administration for 

Children and Families. Both agencies are part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

NCSACW developed SAFERR in response to frequent requests from managers of child welfare 

agencies for a “tool” that caseworkers could use to screen parents for potential substance use disorders 

in order to make decisions about children’s safety. This guidebook is that tool, and more. Although 

research findings and practical experience have established that no single checklist yields the kind 

of information caseworkers need to make difficult decisions about whether children are safe, they 

have identified an array of screening instruments and practice principles that, if used appropriately, 

can provide timely information to guide those decisions. Moreover, if these instruments and practice 

principles are used collaboratively by child welfare and substance abuse treatment staff, they not only 

inform urgent decisions about child safety, but they also improve the way staff engage and retain 

families in services over time and they point to policy changes that make it easier for families and 

workers alike to succeed (Day, Robison, & Sheikh, 1998). 

SAFERR is based on the premise that when parents misuse substances and maltreat their children, 

the only way to make sound decisions is to draw from the talents and resources of at least three 

systems: child welfare, alcohol and drugs, and the courts.

Although there are a variety of tools for screening and assessing children and families and a range of 

substance abuse treatment and other services, it is only through collaboration and communication across 

the systems responsible for helping families that workers will get the information they need and that 

families will feel they have a chance at changing their lives. 

Recent policy changes give new urgency to improving staff capacity to screen, assess, engage, and retain 

families. These include—

• The timelines in the Federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) that “speed up the clock” 

 when children have been removed from parental custody. These shorter timelines place pressure 

 on child welfare workers to identify parental substance use disorders and then make decisions

 regarding their effects on child well-being, the likelihood that parents can recover, and the level

 of stability in the family. They also place pressure on dependency court judges to keep informed

 about parents’ participation in treatment and the status of their recovery.

• The efforts of the Children’s Bureau, through Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSRs), to

 assess each State’s performance on child welfare outcomes and its level of conformity with

 Federal child welfare outcomes and to assist States in improving their outcomes. Findings of

 completed CFSRs indicate that many child welfare agencies are not adequately assessing

 substance use disorders or making timely referrals to treatment.
2

• The 2003 amendments to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) that place new

 requirements on hospitals to refer to child protective services (CPS) staff newborns identified as

 affected by illegal substances. 

Research and practical experience repeatedly indicate that parental substance use disorders and child 

maltreatment are highly correlated and that many, if not most, children under the jurisdiction of child 

welfare agencies and the courts come from families with substance use disorders. Although substance 

use, abuse, or dependence alone is not the sole determinant of risk to children, the SAFERR model holds 

that because so many families involved with child welfare have these problems, there is a need for child 

welfare policies that call for initial and ongoing screening and assessment of possible substance use 

disorders with an assumption that those disorders are likely to exist (i.e., that practice should be to “rule 

out” substance use disorders). Similarly, this correlation suggests a need for alcohol and drug policies 

that call for initial and ongoing assessment of child safety and risk of child maltreatment within families.

The SAFERR model further maintains that decisions from the court system about the future of children 

should not be made without sufficient information from the child welfare and alcohol and drug systems 

regarding the extent of substance use disorders, their impact on the children, and the potential for 

engaging parents into treatment and recovery.

What SAFERR and This Guidebook Offer States, Counties, and Localities

SAFERR puts forth an approach to help child welfare services, alcohol and drug services, and court staff 

promote child safety and family well-being within the practical realities and legislative mandates that 

drive their agencies. While SAFERR suggests standards of practice within each of the three systems, its 

focus is on the connections, communications, and collaborative capacities across them. These standards 

apply to the child welfare service, alcohol and drug service, and court systems. Because families 

involved with these systems are also likely to be known to other systems such as welfare, criminal 

justice, and mental health, the strategies suggested are relevant for coordinating services across a wide 

range of systems. 

Each system has a process it uses to meet its responsibilities to families. These processes are somewhat 

parallel, unfolding in somewhat similar ways over about the same periods of time. For example, both 

the alcohol and drug and child welfare service systems screen people for potential problems, conduct 

assessments to determine the nature and extent of those problems, develop service plans, and monitor 

progress in meeting requirements of those plans. For families who become involved with the court 

system, courts review assessments regarding the nature and extent of problems in order to establish 

jurisdiction and adjudicate petitions, and they oversee and monitor the performance of agencies and 

families in meeting requirements of plans. 

Traditionally, these processes take place independently of each other, but all three systems are using 

similar and parallel processes involving many of the same families, which strongly argues for strategies 

to reduce duplication, simplify work, save time, and make the processes more clear and practical for 

families to follow. The SAFERR model depicts these parallel processes in the form of the following 

questions that each system—child welfare, alcohol and drug, and courts—individually addresses during 

the time it works with families:

 • Is there a substance use or child abuse or neglect issue in the family, and if so, what is the

 immediacy of the issue?
3

 • What are the nature and extent of the substance use or child abuse or neglect issue?

 • What is the response to the substance use or child abuse or neglect issue? Are there demonstrable

 changes? Is the family ready for transition and what happens after discharge?

• Did the interventions work?

The SAFERR model, as described in this guidebook, suggests strategies to help workers answer these 

questions in a more coordinated manner. Specifically, SAFERR will help staff—

• Create and guide collaborative teams charged with improving services to families through sharing

 information and coordinating services;

 • Support the work of those teams through developing clear expectations regarding mission,

 authority, and accountability;

 • Identify and address State-level policies that may block efficient practice;

 • Select screening and assessment tools and strategies that can be incorporated into daily practice

 protocols;

 • Support and oversee implementation of improved practices at the local level; and

 • Monitor and evaluate successes and problems.

SAFERR Principles and Premises

The SAFERR model is based on three overarching principles:

1. The problems of child maltreatment and substance use disorders demand urgent attention and the highest 

 possible standards of practice from everyone working in systems charged with promoting child safety and family 

 well-being. 

 2. Success is possible and feasible. Staff in child welfare, substance abuse, and court systems have the desire and 

 potential to change individual lives and create responsible public policies.

 3. Family members are active partners and participants in addressing these urgent problems

These principles lead to the following fundamental premises that are addressed in detail throughout this 

guidebook:

1. The team is the tool, and people, not tools, make decisions. Paper and pencil tools to screen

 and assess for substance use disorders do just that. They do not provide information that allows

 child welfare workers, substance abuse counselors, attorneys, judges, or other staff to determine

 whether children are safe or whether there are substance use disorders or other problems in the

 family that put children at risk. Decisions regarding child safety and child placement are made by

 people, who draw on the expertise of multiple perspectives.

2. The family is the focus of concern. Although it is easy to understand how child welfare staff 

 come to focus their attention primarily on the children and substance abuse counselors focus theirs

 primarily on the parents, isolating family members in this way tends to provoke tensions among
4

 service staff and anger and alienation among family members. In order for staff and families

 to succeed, child welfare policies and workers have to acknowledge and address the implications

 of parental substance abuse on child safety, and substance use policies and counselors have to

 develop a family focus and incorporate the needs of children into treatment protocols. 

 3. Problems don’t come in discrete packages: they are jumbled together. It is extremely difficult

 for workers to get an accurate picture of the ways that factors such as poverty, mental and physical

 illness, domestic violence, and lack of basic living skills interact with substance use disorders

 and child maltreatment. It is virtually impossible for managers to establish policies and

 procedures that address these constellations of problems in some coherent manner unless they

 work and communicate with colleagues from other systems with expertise in these fields.

 4. Assessment is not a one-person responsibility. Assessments that are done separately by

 either child welfare or substance abuse staff, in parallel but not coordinated processes, run the

 risk of overlooking factors critical to recovery and family stability, thereby depriving families

 of needed services and reducing the likelihood that they will achieve their goals. In addition,

 as families become engaged in services, they resolve one problem and prepare to address the

 next, they may backslide, and they may face new situations requiring changes in their case

 or treatment plans. Throughout this process, child welfare and substance abuse treatment workers,

 attorneys, and family members must seek feedback from each other, reassess progress and needs,

 and change plans accordingly. Because assessment reports may be used in court as a standard for

 determining whether children remain with or return to their parents, it is essential that they include

 the perspectives of everyone involved and that they accurately represent the family situation at

 each point in time.

 5. Information is limited, and there is no research-based answer. Even though identifying

 substance use disorders and identifying risks to child safety are inseparable, there is little research

 or practice that speaks to the connections between the two. Moreover, there is now no definitive

 research or evidence-based answer to determine how alcohol and drug use affects child

 maltreatment. In the practical environment in which child welfare, substance abuse, and court

 staff make decisions, it is enough to know that substance abuse or dependence is correlated with

 child maltreatment. 

 6. There is no time to lose. Recent child welfare policies emphasizing timely permanency decisions

 and the use of termination of parental rights hearings under ASFA have considerable impact on

 parents with substance use disorders who come under supervision of the child welfare and

 court systems. These parents face difficult challenges in managing many and at times conflicting

 requirements, and the stakes are high. Time is short for these families. Each day that assessments

 are deferred, service needs are overlooked, or services are not delivered is valuable time lost. 

 7. The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) creates specific guidelines for working with American

 Indian populations. More than 560 federally recognized American Indian Tribes operate child

 welfare programs and may be resources for treatment for tribe members. Many tribes also operate

 their own dependency courts. Indian tribes and agencies are important partners in establishing both

 responsible frontline practices and agency-level policies.
5

8. Developing and sustaining effective collaborations is hard work. Outcomes for children

 and families depend on informed decisions by teams of people who work in disparate systems that

 are driven by unique funding, philosophical, and legislative mandates. While SAFERR lays

 out ways to help managerial and frontline staff make these decisions, it does so with an

 understanding that both the collaboration and the decisions to be made are difficult to come by and

 with a deeply felt respect and regard for the staff who work with troubled families.

The table on the next page, The SAFERR Program Model, is a graphical representation of 

the SAFERR model. The SAFERR principles lead to a series of collaborative structures, roles, 

responsibilities, and frontline practices indicated in the three “SAFERR Intervention” boxes. These 

boxes correspond to the next three sections of this guidebook. The SAFERR Intervention should yield 

outcomes listed in the bottom box of the diagram.
6

 The SAFERR Program Model

SAFERR PRINCIPLES

• The problems of substance abuse and child maltreatment demand urgent attention and the highest possible standards of practice from 

everyone working in systems charged with promoting child safety and family well-being. 

• Success is attainable and feasible. Staff in child welfare, substance abuse and court systems have the desire and potential to change individual lives and create responsible public policies. • Family members are active partners and participants in addressing these urgent problems.

SAFERR INTERVENTION

Builds Collaborative Structures Establishes Individual and Cross-System Roles and Responsibilities Identifies Frontline Collaborative Practices

• An Oversight Committee• A Steering Committee• Subcommittees• Mission and Principles• Shared Understanding and 

 Language about Processes

• Goals, Timetables & 

 Products

• Training Curricula & 

 Strategy

• Baseline Data• Progress Reports• Outcome Data

• Child Welfare System Understands—

– the basics of substance use and how use affects child development;– how to screen for substance use– the local treatment system and how to help families remain in treatment; and– the implications of tensions between substance use recovery and ASFA 

 rules.

• Alcohol & Drug System Understands—

– how substance use puts children at risk and how child welfare must respond;– child maltreatment reporting requirements; and– how to screen for child safety.

• Court System Understands—

– the basics of substance use and child development;– its role in requiring substance use and child development assessments; and– its authority to prompt or require collaboration.

• Collaboratively, All Three Systems—

– establish joint policies and procedures for sharing information;– establish case plans;– develop shared indicators of progress; and– monitor progress and evaluate outcomes.

• Child welfare, alcohol and drug,

and court systems have collaborative

policies, protocols and tools to:

– screen for substance use and child 

 maltreatment;

– assess for substance use and child 

 maltreatment;

– communicate across systems;– develop & implement collaborative 

 case plans; and

– monitor progress and evaluate results.

EXPECTED OUTCOMES

• Substance use disorders among families reported for child maltreatment will be identified more accurately and at earlier points in time. • Potential child maltreatment among families assessed for or entering substance abuse treatment will be identified more accurately and at earlier points in time.• Child welfare, alcohol and drug and court systems will communicate effectively in screening and assessing families for substance use disorders or child maltreatment.• Child welfare, alcohol and drug and court systems will communicate effectively and collaborate in monitoring family progress in services.• Staff will make informed, timely, and shared decisions regarding reunification, aftercare or continuing services, and filing of petitions for termination of parental rights.• Families will enter and remain in alcohol and drug and child welfare services at higher rates.• Work processes will be streamlined, resulting in reduced duplication and removal of inconsistent rules that create excessive burden in meeting case plan requirements. • Families will enter and remain in treatment and other services at higher rates.• Risks of child maltreatment will be reduced.• Family stability, reunification, and well being will be increased. 
7

The Layout of the SAFERR Guidebook

This guidebook is organized into 3 sections and 10 appendixes:

Section I: Building Cross-System Collaboration. This section describes ways in which collaborative 

groups differ from other kinds of work groups, creates a framework for selecting and guiding a 

Steering Committee, and offers ideas about how to establish the group’s mission and mandate. It also 

describes two essential elements of successful collaboration: understanding each other’s systems and 

communicating across systems.

Section II. Collaboration Within and Across Systems. This section first lays out elements that people 

in each system should know about their own system and about the other two systems—things they can 

do internally in preparation for working with other agencies. It then presents elements that require 

communication with the other two systems. It concludes with suggestions regarding how the Steering 

Committee should guide both the “within system” and the “cross-system” discussions.

Section III. Collaboration in Action: Working Together on the Frontline. This section presents 

activities that compose the daily work of substance abuse counselors and child welfare workers and 

offers guidance on how they can collaborate in these tasks. Activities include screening for substance 

abuse disorders and for child maltreatment, conducting initial and ongoing assessments, and developing 

techniques for engaging families and monitoring their progress. It concludes with suggestions regarding 

how the Steering Committee should guide these frontline practice changes. 

These sections are followed by a series of appendixes that provide more detailed information, tools, and 

fact sheets to help program managers implement the SAFERR model. 

Appendix A: Facilitator’s Guide. This appendix presents managers with templates and techniques for 

creating and sustaining a Steering Committee or other multidisciplinary group. 

It includes samples of Action Plans, instruments to help Steering Committee members assess their 

values and their capacity to collaborate, and other forms to make it easier for the Steering Committee to 

accomplish its goals. This appendix is a companion to Section I of the guidebook.

Appendix B: Fact Sheets. This appendix provides a series of fact sheets on topics such as the 

number of people involved with child welfare, substance abuse, and the court systems, the number of 

children born prenatally exposed to substances, and research findings on the extent of substance abuse 

problems in child welfare. These fact sheets may be useful in educating legislators and policymakers or 

heightening awareness among frontline staff. They are intended to complement and not replace more 

indepth training activities that should take place. 

Appendix C: Understanding the Needs of Children in Families Involved in the Child Welfare 

System Who Are Affected by Substance Use Disorders. This appendix provides information about 

prenatal and postnatal substance exposure and the consequences of exposure on children, issues related 

to substance use among youth, and a description of resources for children who have been identified as 

affected by parental substance use disorders.

Appendix D: Examples of Screening and Assessment Tools for Substance Use Disorders. This 

appendix presents a sample of commonly used screening tools for substance use disorders and discusses 

the pros and cons of each tool for use by child welfare staff. Child welfare and substance abuse staff 

should jointly select the tools that best meet their needs. 
8

Appendix E: Substance Use, Abuse, Dependence Continuum, and Principles of Effective 

Treatment. This appendix presents principles of effective treatment for substance use disorders and a 

description of the continuum of substance use, abuse, and dependence. This appendix is a companion to 

Sections II and III of the guidebook.

Appendix F: Examples of Safety and Risk Assessments for Use by Child Welfare Staff. This 

appendix provides an annotated list of commonly used risk and assessment tools, including practicebased tools and the Strategic Decisionmaking tool. The purpose of these examples is to provide general 

information to substance abuse counselors regarding the issues addressed in child welfare safety and risk 

assessments. 

Appendix G: Sharing Confidential Information. This appendix describes Federal regulations 

regarding acceptable means for sharing confidential information. It includes information that can be 

incorporated into consent forms for use by multiple agencies and links to Federal resources for sharing 

information in ways that comply with HIPAA and other confidentiality regulations.

Appendix H: Glossary of Terms. This appendix provides short definitions of terms commonly used 

by child welfare, substance abuse services, and court staff.

Appendix I: A Guide to Compliance With the Indian Child Welfare Act. This appendix provides a 

short description of key provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act, including when it applies, State/tribe 

jurisdictions, burden of proof requirements in removing children, and removals of children in emergency 

situations. 

Appendix J: Acknowledgment of Contributors and Reviewers.
9

SECTION I: BUILDING CROSS-SYSTEM COLLABORATION

The Screening and Assessment for Family Engagement, Retention, and Recovery (SAFERR) model and 

this guidebook are based on principles holding that (1) the problems of child maltreatment and substance 

use disorders demand urgent attention and the highest possible standards of practice from everyone 

working in systems charged with promoting child safety and family well-being; (2) success is possible and 

feasible; and, (3) family members are active partners and participants in addressing these urgent problems.

Although many parents with substance use disorders are involved with a variety of social service systems, SAFERR is 

focused on three key systems that have particular responsibility for and influence over how families fare: the child welfare 

service system, the alcohol and drug service system, and the court system.

No system or set of workers has the authority, capacity, or skills to respond to the array of challenges 

faced by these families, but collectively they do have those capacities and skills. When leaders have 

common vision, create joint policies, and require collaborative frontline practices, they create work 

environments and expectations that encourage staff to work with colleagues from other systems in making 

decisions that affect family stability and recovery. 

Collaboration among child welfare, alcohol and drug, and court systems is necessary if families are to 

succeed, but effective collaboration at all levels of each system is very hard to accomplish. The barriers 

to building successful collaborations between the alcohol and drug and the child welfare systems are well 

known and have been described in several publications (Children and Family Futures, 1999). Adding the 

court system to the mix complicates the challenges.

This section of the guidebook provides managers with information about ways to create, guide, and 

sustain a State or countywide initiative aimed at improving services to families who are involved with 

child welfare and affected by substance use disorders. The “Facilitator’s Guide” (see Appendix A) 

provides exercises and tools to assist States and communities in their efforts to implement a cross-systems 

initiative. It proposes that administrators create a Steering Committee to direct the initiative, and it 

describes specific functions of the Steering Committee. Subsequent sections of the guidebook describe 

the activities that must take place within and across systems in order for staff to collaborate effectively on 

behalf of families.

1.1 Developing a Collaborative Team

 A SAFERR collaborative involves—

 An Oversight Committee

 A Steering Committee

 Subcommittees

The decision to collaborate on behalf of families involved with substance use disorders, child 

maltreatment, and the courts has to come from top officials who give priority to this work. If leaders are 

not committed, little will be sustained. Leaders are the only ones who can free up staff time and invest 

staff with authority to make decisions on behalf of the agency. Appendix B, “Fact Sheets,” includes 
10

several fact sheets that describe the challenges facing each system and the extent to which families need 

services from them. This information should help administrators understand how their own successes 

are intertwined with the successes of other agencies. It should also help managers and others educate 

administrators about the numbers and types of families that are involved with several systems. The 

following subsections present a structure for States and counties to use to govern a multidisciplinary 

initiative.

The Oversight Committee

The top child welfare, alcohol and drug services, and court officials (and, if appropriate, members from 

the governor’s or county commissioner’s office) serve as the Oversight Committee for the initiative. 

Officials on the Oversight Committee must direct senior managers in their systems to give this initiative 

priority, and they must ask for periodic progress reports. In addition, these officials have to be willing to 

change their own agencies’ policies when those policies impede the ability of staff to serve families. 

Because the Oversight Committee includes the most senior officials from each system, all of whom are 

likely to be facing many demands and pressures for their time, it is anticipated that this committee will 

meet as a group only three or four times each year. It is also expected that each member will receive 

regular updates from Steering Committee members between meetings.

The Steering Committee

After top administrators form the Oversight Committee, they can take a significant first step by 

establishing a senior-level multidisciplinary Steering Committee charged with creating, directing, 

and evaluating the activities required to translate shared commitment at the top to shared screening, 

assessment, engagement, and retention policies and practices in the field. 

Running a multidisciplinary Steering Committee requires skills that differ from those required to direct 

single-agency hierarchical workgroups. It is helpful if the Steering Committee is 

cochaired by senior managers from the child welfare service, alcohol and drug service, and court 

systems who will share responsibility for ensuring that the Committee functions effectively. If this 

approach is infeasible or unwieldy, consideration should be given to rotating the chair of the Steering 

Committee among the three systems. 

This Steering Committee will include members who do not have jurisdiction over each other, who report 

through separate hierarchies, and who most likely have different (nonparallel) positions within their 

respective agencies. Decisionmaking by decree or majority rule will not work in these situations. Some 

jurisdictions hire outside facilitators to convene and staff their Steering Committees. These facilitators 

are generally not considered to be chairs of the Committee and they are not authorized to make decisions 

that Committee members should make. If funds are available, using facilitators is a good strategy to 

avoid the perception that the initiative is being “run” by one agency. In addition, facilitators are trained 

in guiding multidisciplinary groups to make decisions. 

The Steering Committee should focus on the big picture of State policies, protocols, monitoring and 

evaluation, and include the representatives of the following, at a minimum:

 • Administrators and mid-level managers from State and some county child welfare agencies;

 • Administrators from the State alcohol and drug service agency and directors of some substance 

 abuse treatment provider agencies; 
11

• Judicial officers and attorneys for parents, children, and the social service agency;

 • Representatives from a recognized Native American Tribe that provides child welfare services in 

 the State; and

 • Representatives of the families served by these systems, including individuals who received or are 

 receiving services from the child welfare or alcohol and drug systems.

There are three minimum requirements for establishing an effective Steering Committee: 

• Members must have authority to make decisions on behalf of their agencies. The Steering 

 Committee should be able to reach conclusions and take actions without losing time and 

 momentum while members return to their agencies for approval.

• Members must have sufficient time to participate in meetings. The committee members

 must have time to attend meetings and to work on both collaboration building and the substantive

 issues involved in creating screening, assessment, retention, and engagement strategies. 

 Attending meetings and completing related work between the meetings must be considered part of

 the members’ work assignments.

• An administrative staff person should be assigned to coordinate committee activities. The

 staff person should arrange logistics for the meetings, issue agendas, send reminder notices, track

 Committee milestones and deadlines, take minutes, and reproduce and disseminate meeting

 materials as necessary. Although freeing up or funding a dedicated staff person represents an

 investment from one of the agencies, this level of administrative support is a critical component

 in supporting the work of the Steering Committee and, ultimately, in building a successful

 collaborative team. Ideally, this investment would be shared among participating agencies if

 resources permit joint funding of this position.

It is possible that Steering Committee members have had frustrating experiences with multidisciplinary 

groups who they felt did not yield meaningful results. Leaders, however, do respond well to groups 

when their time is respected, the discussions are engaging and being held at the appropriate policy level, 

multiple perspectives are sought, and decisions are made. Whether convening the Steering Committee 

is the responsibility of an outside facilitator or an employee of a particular agency, that person gains 

credibility by achieving consensus among Committee members, focusing on specific tasks leading to 

outcomes that Committee members feel are important, airing and resolving tensions professionally, 

and creating a sense of energy and excitement among the members. As noted earlier, multidisciplinary 

groups differ from traditional single-agency groups in important ways. Steering Committee members—

• Report to a multidisciplinary Oversight Committee and not solely to supervisors within their own

 agency;

• Are authorized to make decisions and commitments on behalf of their agency; and

• Cannot make decisions on their own, independent of the Steering Committee as a whole. 

What the facilitators or chairs lack in formal authority over members can be achieved by creating high 

standards for meeting logistics and discussions. Therefore, attention must be paid to the way Steering 

Committee meetings are arranged and conducted or members are likely to either stop attending or send 

substitutes who lack authority to make decisions. 
12

Techniques for facilitators are as follows:

• Facilitators and committee chairs may not be able to set priorities for members who work for

 other agencies and systems, which makes scheduling meetings difficult and frustrating. Therefore,

 it is important to establish and send out a schedule of meetings for 12 months. Members

 should know that meetings will not be cancelled or rescheduled, and that they will start and end

 on time. People tend to adjust their attendance to the expectations of the group, and setting

 meeting schedules for several months ahead makes it harder for other priorities to “bump” these

 meetings.

• Facilitators should tell members in advance about issues that require decisions at the next

 meeting, giving them time to consult with supervisors or review background information that will

 prepare them to make a decision or commitment on behalf of their agency. Therefore, they

 should receive annotated agendas in advance of each meeting. Annotations can indicate whether

 each agenda item involves a decision, whether background reading is suggested, who is leading

 the discussion, and what length of time is allocated for that item. Summaries of the prior meeting

 should be attached to the agenda. 

 • Facilitators should help Steering Committee members approach their work believing that 

 they are all responsible to the Oversight Committee and not solely to supervisors within their

 own agency. Therefore, if decisions are to be made at a meeting, the agenda should indicate that

 decisions will not be deferred because a member is absent or an agency is not represented by a

 member who has authority to make decisions.

• Chairs and facilitators have to strike a balance between encouraging open dialogue and

 allowing healthy debate of sensitive and controversial issues on one hand, and avoiding

 monopolizing monologues or pointless and repetitive arguments on the other. This balance

 may be more difficult when people engaging in these debates have limited understanding of each

 other’s systems and when they may have unequal positions within their systems. If the duration

 of the meeting is appropriate and each agenda item includes a reasonable amount of time for both

 presentation and discussion, frequently the group will monitor itself in striking a good balance.

• If an issue cannot be resolved during the meeting or does not warrant participation of the entire

 group, the facilitator can create alternative mechanisms, such as referring the issue to a

 Subcommittee or creating an ad hoc workgroup. 

Appendix B, “Facilitator’s Guide,” includes sample tools and templates to help facilitators create 

effective Steering Committees.

The Subcommittees

Steering Committees of the type proposed in this guidebook will oversee a wide range of tasks and 

activities related to improving the way their State or jurisdiction screens, assesses, engages, and retains 

families in services. In order for the Steering Committee to retain its focus both on large policy issues 

facing the three systems and on the real-world practices that need to be changed and monitored, the 

Steering Committee structure should include appropriate Subcommittees composed of county or local 

frontline and supervisory staff from all three systems.

Subcommittees provide a structure within which the Steering Committee can provide and receive 

feedback about current and proposed policies and protocols. They should be charged with identifying, 
13

researching, and raising concerns to the Steering Committee for discussion and decision. They create 

a forum in which county and local staff can raise concerns to policymakers and identify pressures that 

make it difficult to collaborate. They also serve as pilot sites and guide the work of pilot sites for testing 

new training curricula, screening or assessment tools, or multidisciplinary teams. 

Ideally, each Subcommittee should be chaired by a member of the Steering Committee, who should 

provide Subcommittee progress reports at each Steering Committee meeting. This structure ensures 

that the ties between the Subcommittees and the Steering Committee are clear and subcommittee 

chairs serve as conduits between the ongoing work of their Subcommittees and the oversight and 

decisionmaking work of the Steering Committee.

Subcommittees might be charged with researching and recommending screening or assessment 

instruments that should be used by all systems, reviewing existing training curricula and recommending 

changes, identifying shortcomings in current local office practice for attention by the Steering 

Committee, or pilot testing models of collaboration (some of which are described in Section II of this 

guidebook).

The remainder of this guidebook focuses only on that part of the Steering Committee scope of work 

concerned with screening and assessments and only on the Subcommittees established to address issues 

related to screening and assessments. It is understood, however, that screening and assessment are just 

two parts of a larger and related agenda that is of concern to States and to the Steering Committees.

Section III of this guidebook describes frontline collaborative activities and protocols that might be 

guided by the Steering Committee or Subcommittees.

1.2 Establishing the Steering Committee’s Charge and Approach

The Oversight Committee that establishes the Steering Committee should specify what it expects from 

the Steering Committee and by when. It is essential that the Steering Committee members understand 

and agree upon the purpose, objectives, and parameters of their work. When participants are not clear 

about the purpose of a Steering Committee, they tend to use meetings to address any of several general 

or unrelated issues that exist among their agencies. When this misuse of meeting time happens, the 

focus becomes diluted, decisions are not made, and everyone becomes frustrated. 

 The primary activities of the Steering Committee are to—

 • Create a mission statement based on exploration of values and principles;

 • Enhance understanding of current systems and the barriers to communication across systems; 

 • Establish a common set of baseline information data to be used to establish goals and monitor

 progress;

 • Establish goals, timetables, and milestone products and implement a plan of action to achieve 

 the goals and milestone products; 

 •Identify training curricula and strategies that promote increased knowledge and collaboration; and

 • Monitor progress and evaluate outcomes.
14

Create a Mission Statement Based on Exploration of Values and Principles

Although there are structural and philosophical differences among the alcohol and drug, child welfare, 

and court systems that tend to highlight their differences, in reality staff from these systems hold several 

important core values in common. It is important for Steering Committee members to identify and 

make explicit the shared values and principles, and to use those values as building blocks for a mission 

statement. The recognition and explicit statement of common principles create the foundation on which 

a collaborative can be built. 

For example, people from all three systems generally hold the following principles: 

• Services should be tailored to the specific needs of the individual or family;

 • Services should be provided in a timely manner; and

 • Services should be provided in a manner that is appropriate for the gender and culture of the

 individual or the family. 

At the same time, both individuals and systems have areas of difference, and those areas should be 

brought to the surface and discussed. The goal in these situations should be to enhance understanding 

and respect for values rather than to force agreement in areas where people simply do not agree. Areas 

of disagreement that are not put “on the table” and aired out seriously undermine the ability of the team 

to do its work.

 

The Steering Committee, Subcommittees, and other groups should start their work by surfacing values 

shared by the child welfare, alcohol and drug, and court systems. The following “Examples of Shared 

Principles” presents principles used in collaborative initiatives in California, Ohio, and New York. 

Appendix B provides a protocol to use in developing shared principles and values and other examples of 

principles and collaborative mission statements.
15

Examples of Shared Principles

1. All children deserve to live in safety.

2. Effectively addressing alcohol and drug abuse and related problems among families involved in the 

 child welfare and court systems would contribute to better results for children and their families.

3. Substance use disorders must be addressed in the context of other issues affecting children and 

 parents, including parenting, domestic violence, health, mental health, criminal justice involvement, 

 nutrition, housing, family services, education, and employment.

4. No one agency has the resources and expertise to respond adequately to the needs of parents who 

 are addicted and who have abused or neglected their children, but collectively, it is likely that they

 do have these capacities.

5. Early and effective intervention for substance use disorders and related problems among families

 involved in child welfare systems contributes to better outcomes related to safety, child and family

 well-being, and permanency.

6. Most families involved with the alcohol and drug and child welfare systems can reduce risk in their

 lives and achieve self-sufficiency, particularly when they have access to a full continuum of

 prevention and treatment services tailored to their needs. 

7. Interventions and decisionmaking for families involved in the alcohol and drug and child welfare

 systems should be based on a thorough, strength-based, and holistic approach to assessment, which

 includes addressing the impact of substance use disorders on child safety, child development,

 parental competency, and self-sufficiency.

8. Empowered families are capable of defining their needs, identifying their strengths, and actively

 participating in the development of case plans.

9. Removal of children from families with substance use disorders should occur only when there

 are no other options to ensure their safety. 

10. Parents must be held accountable for maintaining expectations of compliance with case plans and

 court orders while, at the same time, be treated with dignity, understanding, and fairness.

11. Although sobriety is an appropriate goal for parents, caregivers, or siblings who have substance

 use disorders, recovery is a lifelong process and may include an occasional relapse. Other 

 measures of success must also be acknowledged and valued.

12. Parents and children best respond to services that are family focused, responsive to their

 strengths and needs, culture, ethnic, and gender identities.

13. Staff that serve families involved with child welfare and alcohol and drugs should feel secure

 that they have the knowledge, skills, tools, empathy, and resources to do their jobs well. 

14. Human service and legal professionals have a responsibility to strengthen families’ natural and

 informal networks within their own communities and to reduce reliance on professional systems.

15. Service providers, families, and other helping networks should respect each other to collaborate

 effectively. They can show respect by taking time to understand each other.

16. Services can benefit families only to the extent that there is a structure in place within which the

 coordination of those services can take place.
16

Enhance Understanding of Current Systems and the Barriers to Communication 

Too often, people from one system have little knowledge or understanding of the mandates, 

responsibilities, and priorities that guide the operations of systems with which they have to collaborate. 

In order to meet the needs of families in which both substance use disorders and child maltreatment 

occur, staff from the alcohol and drug, child welfare, and court systems have to learn about each others’ 

roles, responsibilities, nomenclature, values, and practices. The Steering Committee can advance this 

knowledge and understanding by educating its own members about these systems and by creating joint 

policies and protocols for assuring that knowledge is systematically transmitted across all three systems. 

The table on the following pages, Terms and Processes in the Alcohol and Drug Service, Child 

Welfare Service, and Dependency Court Systems, explains the terms and describes the activities 

undertaken by the alcohol and drug, child welfare, and court systems through the time each system is 

involved with a family. This time starts with the initial report of substance use or child maltreatment 

(“Is there an issue?”) through eventual disposition and continuing care if needed (“What happens after 

discharge or case closure?”). While the terms for these activities and the processes that guide them 

are likely to differ across and even within States, all jurisdictions are involved with all the activities 

described here. 

The Steering Committee should ask a Subcommittee to “translate” the terms and process outlined 

in the chart into their local language so that all staff can develop a common language and base of 

understanding to guide them in responding to situations that inevitably arise when multiple people are 

serving the same family. The Subcommittee should develop a unified glossary of terms and process 

that would be used by all systems in discussing case activities, or it could use this table as a template 

to create a table specific to their jurisdiction that could be used as the framework for all systems. The 

Steering Committee can use the outcome of that assignment to inform its own members about all of the 

systems and to identify areas of confusion or disagreement that need to be resolved.

Once the Subcommittee and the Steering Committee have created a shared base of understanding and 

knowledge about each other’s systems and have identified activities in which there is confusion or 

disagreement, they can begin to create or modify training curricula for use with front line supervisors 

and staff. If the Steering Committee endorses a unified glossary or template that describes the activities 

of each system at various points in time, it becomes easier to develop cross-system training curricula 

and training approaches. Resources for cross-system training are available free of charge through online 

courses developed by the NCSACW at www.ncsacw.samhsa.gov. 
17

SAFERR Terms and Processes in the Alcohol and Drug Service, Child Welfare Service, and 

Dependency Court Systems

Identification through community or family awareness of signs, symptoms, and behaviors

Alcohol and Drug Service System Child Welfare Service System Dependency Court System

Is there an

issue?

Screen Use of brief screening 

questions

Child Abuse

Report

Brief questions 

posed to determine 

whether a report of 

abuse or neglect 

will be accepted for 

in-person response

The court may not be 

involved; if there is a prior 

history of court involvement 

by a family, it is important 

for both alcohol and drug 

services (ADS) and child 

welfare services (CWS) to 

inquire.

What is the 

immediacy of 

the issue?

Immediate 

Need

Triage

Clinical determination 

of imminent risk 

In-Person 

Safety 

Assessment 

Use of a formal 

tool to determine 

imminent harm to 

a child, whether 

the child will be 

removed from or 

remain in the home

Preliminary 

Protective 

Hearing

The court may not 

necessarily be involved; 

Some jurisdictions require a 

CWS worker to seek judicial 

approval for emergency 

removal of a child—a removal 

hearing is also referred to 

as a shelter care hearing, a 

temporary custody hearing, 

and a protective custody 

hearing. (see Glossary). 

What is the 

nature of the 

issue? 

Diagnosis Use of standardized 

questions in 

an interview to 

differentiate between 

substance use, abuse 

or dependence 

In-Person 

Response/ Risk 

Assessment 

Use of an interview 

protocol and risk 

assessment tools to 

determine level of 

risk to a child and 

whether services 

will be voluntary or 

court involved 

Court 

Findings

If a Preliminary Protective 

Hearing is held, the court will 

issue key written findings as 

mandated by ASFA and State 

statute 

Alcohol and Drug Service System Child Welfare Service System Dependency Court System

What is the

extent of the

issue?

MultiDimensional

Assessment

Use of a standardized 

set of questions by a 

staff member trained 

in substance abuse

issues, including

functioning, needs, 

and strengths leading 

to a determination 

of the level of care 

required and needed 

services

Family

Assessment

Family assessment 

of strengths and 

needs to determine 

the areas of 

family functioning 

requiring 

interventions

for children to be 

safe in a permanent 

living situation that

contributes to their

well-being

Petition Filed;

Preliminary

Protective

Hearing (court

process could

begin here as

well).

A petition may be filed—it

may or may not include

allegations related to

substance use or 

dependence; the court,

attorneys, child welfare

workers, CASAs, and other

treatment providers also

become involved; the court

must establish jurisdiction; 

and adjudication and 

dispositional hearings then 

take place—these can be 

held on the same day

What is the

response?

Treatment

Plan

Individualized 

treatment

plan with measurable

objectives and

outcomes

Case Plan Individualized

treatment plan with

measurable 

objectives

and outcomes

Adjudication

and

Dispositional

Hearing; 

Court-Ordered 

Case Plan

Court orders include

federally mandated findings

regarding court review;

the case plan and the 

treatment plan may be 

incorporated into the court 

order to varying degrees 

of specificity; various court 

orders may be used to 

ensure parental compliance 

with services and to facilitate 

parent’s visitation at 

placement facilities; and court 

oversight monitors provision 

of services by CWS and ADS.
18

Alcohol and Drug Service System Child Welfare Service System Dependency Court System

Are there

demonstrable

changes?

Treatment

Monitoring

Conducting oversight 

and tracking of 

participants’ progress 

in treatment and 

recovery

Case Plan

Monitoring

Regularly reviewing

of the family case 

plan and reports to 

the court (when

applicable) on 

parents’ progress 

and children’s 

well-being when 

applicable

Court Review

Hearings

ASFA requires that periodic

review occurs within six

months of foster care 

entry—reviews include 

receipt of written and oral 

reports from all stakeholders 

on the progress of parents 

and well-being of children; 

consideration of permanency 

needs of children at each 

hearing by the court, other 

stakeholders (e.g., CASA, 

attorneys, and community 

members)

Is the family

ready for

transition?

Transition

Planning

Assessment of ongoing recovery plan, 

support systems 

and other needed 

services

Permanency

Determination

Assessment of the

most appropriate 

form of 

permanency for the

child

Permanency

Hearing

A Permanency Hearing is

required within 12 months

of entering foster care to

determine whether a child

should be returned home,

file for TPR, freed for 

adoption, custody transferred 

to another individual or 

couple, or long-term foster 

care

Alcohol and Drug Service System Child Welfare Service System Dependency Court System

What happens

after discharge

or case

closure?

Recovery

Management

Ongoing selfassessment, and

periodic professional,

assessment, as 

needed

Family Well

being

Ongoing selfassessment of

enhanced capacity 

to care for children

Case Closed In traditional courts,

although the court case

may be closed, parents and

children may work with

treatment providers in an

aftercare program or with

CWS for services; in a

Drug Court program, the

court may review parent’s

progress in aftercare 6

months after case is closed

(e.g., Washington, DC,

Reno, and Charlotte, NC 

Model Courts’ Dependency 

Drug Courts)

Did the

interventions

work?

Outcome

Monitoring

Data-driven outcome

monitoring of 

changes in life 

functioning and 

substance userelated consequences

Outcome

Monitoring

Data-driven 

outcome monitoring 

of recurrence of

maltreatment and 

reentry into child 

welfare system

Outcome

Monitoring

Recidivism—reabuse of

child, refiling of petition, or

sibling entry

Establish a Common Set of Baseline Data 

If the Steering Committee has been able to develop its principles and reach consensus on terms and 

processes, members should create a set of baseline data agreed upon by all members. Baseline data 

include the following information:

• For the child welfare service system:

  Number of child maltreatment reports and substantiated reports;

  Number of children in foster care;

  Number of families receiving preventive services;

  Length of time families are involved with child welfare; and

  Kinds of services most frequently used.
19

• For the alcohol and drug service system:

  Number of people admitted to alcohol and drug treatment;

  Number of people admitted who have minor children;

  Number of children born prenatally exposed to substances;

  Number of parents in treatment who have had children removed by child welfare; and

  Kinds of treatment most frequently used.

• For the court system:

  Number of dependency cases filed;

  Number of children who are court involved because of placement in foster care;

  Number of children who are court involved but not removed from home; and

  Number of dependency cases involving families with substance use disorders.

Efforts should also be made to determine the number of families who are involved with more than 

one or all three of these systems. This information is often partly or completely lacking, so it can help 

Steering Committee members determine some first steps in their future work or information system gaps 

and needs.

Establish Goals, Timetables, and Milestone Products, and Implement a Plan of Action 

After the Steering Committee has gathered baseline data, it should establish goals and then timetables 

and interim milestone products to achieve those goals. Goals, timetables, and milestone products 

should be incorporated into a plan of action that serves as a blueprint for Steering Committee priorities 

and as a framework for monitoring progress and evaluating outcomes. Each goal is likely to include 

multiple milestone products that can be monitored and whose results can be evaluated by the Steering 

Committee. The following text box provides an example of one goal and several practical milestone 

products that might be developed and overseen by the Steering Committee. 

 Goal: Develop statewide guidelines for alcohol and drug providers to ask questions about children.

 Milestone Products:

 Report of research of guidelines used by other jurisdictions

 Draft of guidelines prepared by Subcommittee for Steering Committee

 Steering Committee approval/issuance of final guidelines

 Training curricula for guidelines

Identify Training Curricula and Strategies for Increased Knowledge and Collaboration

As Steering Committee and Subcommittee members explore their values and learn more about each 

other’s systems, it is almost certain that staff development and training needs will emerge as a priority. 

Staff from each system are likely to need training about the operations, philosophies, techniques, 

mandates, and limitations of the other systems. They will also need training and support in learning how 

to work with colleagues from those systems, including how to share confidential information, develop 

coordinated or uniform case and treatment plans, share decisionmaking, and work as members of 

multidisciplinary teams. 
20

The Steering Committee can guide the development of appropriate approaches to training and 

professional development by—

• Assigning a Subcommittee to compile an inventory of current training curricula used by all three

 systems; examine the content of curricula to determine areas where there is duplication or

 inconsistency and identify those curricula that appear most effective; and recommend training

 strategies to the Steering Committee;

 • Identifying training resources within and outside of the State. For example, resources for cross

 system training are available free of charge through online courses developed by the NCSACW at

 www.ncsacw.samhsa.gov;

• Establishing policies that promote the creation of cross-system training curricula and that allocate

 resources for staff from all systems to collaborate in creating, delivering, and evaluating training;

 and

• Overseeing and analyzing feedback from pilot tests of new training approaches implemented in

 selected counties and localities under guidance from the Subcommittee.

Section II provides more specific information regarding training topics. In addition, an annotated guide 

to training resources can be ordered through a link to www.ncsacw.samhsa.gov. The guide is called 

“The Child Welfare-Substance Abuse Connection: A Compendium of Training Curricula and 

Resources.” It includes (1) curricula for training child welfare personnel about substance use disorders 

and about the system that serves people with substance use disorders; (2) curricula for training alcohol 

and drug personnel about child maltreatment, about the child welfare and court systems, and on the 

implications of substance use disorders for child maltreatment; (3) curricula designed to cross-train 

child welfare, alcohol and drug, and court staff (and other relevant professionals) about how to work 

collaboratively and how to address the barriers to collaboration. It is important to note, however, that 

existing training curricula must be adapted to meet the needs of communities and the operations of 

systems within those communities.

Monitor Progress and Evaluate Outcomes

One of the most critical activities for the Steering Committee (and one likely to be of high interest 

to the Oversight Committee) is to measure the families’ progress in recovering from substance use 

disorders and in attaining appropriate parenting capacities. Indicators and benchmarks should be based 

on specifications included in case plans and may include changes in patterns of substance use (e.g., 

periods of sobriety, nature and frequency of lapses or relapses, negative drug test results, participation 

in treatment activities); engagement in parenting, mental health, employment, or other services included 

in the child welfare case plan; consistency in child visitation; changes in risk factors to children, and 

others.
21

Steering Committee members should create and publicize standards they will use to determine whether 

collaborative strategies result in improved screening, assessment, engagement, and retention of families 

in treatment and other services and should monitor those standards against the baseline they created. 

These standards should include establishing mechanisms to determine how many screenings and 

assessments have been conducted, how many families have entered services, and when families have 

dropped out of services. State and local jurisdictions should be monitored against those standards, and 

corrective action taken when performance is below the established standards. 

Section III of this guidebook, “Collaborative Practice at the Frontline,” provides more information about 

alcohol and drug and child welfare case plans. 

23

SECTION II: COLLABORATIVE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Section I of this guidebook establishes the importance of collaboration and presents a structure within 

which collaboration among child welfare, alcohol and drug, and court systems can take place. It is 

beyond the scope of this guidebook to address other systems such as mental health and welfare that 

serve the same families, but SAFERR’s premises and processes should also be useful in collaborating 

with those systems. 

The current section identifies and discusses individual and shared responsibilities of people working 

in the child welfare, alcohol and drug, and court systems. It begins with a summary of essential roles 

within each system and concludes with a description of cross-system roles. 

2.1 Responsibilities of the Child Welfare Service System

Child welfare officials have a responsibility to ensure that their employees and employees of contract 

agencies have adequate and accurate knowledge about the alcohol and drug service and the court 

systems. Specific responsibilities along these lines include:

• Ensuring that personnel with decisionmaking roles involving families understand the

 fundamentals of substance use disorders, the implications of those disorders on child safety

 and well-being, and the potential for effective treatment.

Although there is general consensus among child welfare staff that substance use can contribute to 

child maltreatment, many do not understand substance use, treatment and recovery, and how use and 

recovery are related to child safety and well-being. These relationships are often complex. Although 

a substance use disorder can have a causative relationship to child maltreatment, it also is possible that 

the underlying causes of child maltreatment are not related to substance use disorders. In the latter 

situations, treating parental substance use disorders may not resolve child maltreatment problems. In 

other situations, especially when maltreatment involves child neglect rather than abuse, successfully 

treating parental substance use disorders is more likely to resolve the parent’s neglectful behavior.

It should be required that child welfare training curricula include attention to fundamentals of substance 

use disorders, treatment engagement, treatment services, recovery, and the impact of disorders, 

treatment, and recovery on child safety and well-being. Appendix A provides fact sheets that address the 

impact of parental substance use disorders on children’s development and well-being. 

At a minimum, child welfare staff should understand—

  How and why people develop substance use disorders;

  Types of substance use disorders;

  How addiction affects a person’s ability to function (particularly as a parent);

  How people are screened and assessed for substance use disorders;

  Types of treatment available to families;

  The role of relapse in the recovery process; and

  How treatment improves family stability, employment, and other outcomes.
24

Child welfare staff also require training to give them the skills to screen families for potential substance 

use disorders, including skills needed to interact with families in ways that encourage them to disclose 

and address their substance use disorders. Training may be enhanced if child welfare staff visit a 

substance abuse treatment program and hear stories of families who have recovered from addiction, 

including parents involved with the child welfare system.

Finally, child welfare workers need opportunities that allow them to explore their attitudes and values 

about addiction. Few people in our society are immune from the effects of substance use disorders, and 

staff experiences with these disorders affect how they address those disorders with families. Therefore, 

staff need training that helps them recognize how their personal beliefs and attitudes may affect how 

they relate to families.

Resources and training curricula are available to assist the Steering Committee in creating training 

standards and expectations and to assist local jurisdictions in delivering training to staff. For example, 

Understanding Substance Abuse and Facilitating Recovery: A Guide for Child Welfare Workers can be 

used to train child welfare workers in (1) recognizing the relationship between substance use disorders 

and child welfare; (2) understanding addiction and how to support families during the treatment 

and recovery process; (3) enhancing collaboration with substance abuse treatment partners; and, (4) 

improving outcomes for children of parents with substance use disorders. This guide is available online 

at www.ncsacw.samhsa.gov.

• Ensuring that children from families with substance use disorders receive developmentally

 appropriate services that address the effects of substance use disorders on their lives. 

Children whose parents have substance use disorders and who come in contact with the child welfare 

system often lack the environment, support, and structure required to move through childhood in 

appropriate developmental stages. Child welfare staff should ensure that these children are assessed to 

determine whether they are functioning at the stage of development appropriate for their chronological 

age. Knowing the developmental skills that are expected for each chronological age will help staff 

determine whether or not children are exhibiting deficits or delays and should be referred for further 

assessment or intervention. Attending to developmental stages is important because behavior that is 

appropriate at one stage may be considered maladaptive at another developmental stage. Good resources 

that succinctly present characteristics of children across developmental stages are available online and 

can be found at www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/normaldevelopment.shtml. 

After children are assessed, child welfare staff should assure that they receive developmentally 

appropriate services that allow them to grow and mature, and they should share information about 

children with alcohol and drug treatment staff working with parents. Appendix C provides information 

about prenatal and postnatal substance exposure and the consequences of exposure to both, issues related 

to substance use among youth, and a description of resources for children who have been identified as 

affected by parental substance use disorders.

• Ensuring that there are protocols for screening family members for possible substance use

 disorders, and that results of screens are entered into case files and shared with alcohol and

 drug and court staff, if relevant. 

Many, if not most, children under the jurisdiction of child welfare agencies and the courts come from 

families with substance use disorders. The SAFERR model therefore holds that child welfare staff 

should screen for substance use disorders as a routine procedure. Screening for substance use disorders 
25

determines the likelihood that a problem exists (or, the presence of a problem) and is most often 

conducted in places outside of the alcohol and drug service system: places such as criminal justice 

agencies, mental health agencies, maternal and child health care providers, hospitals, or child welfare 

agencies. 

There are many screening tools for substance use disorders. Because child welfare workers often have 

large and complex caseloads, screening tools should be brief, easy to learn, and able to be administered 

as part of an interview or imbedded in a standard questionnaire. At the same time, screening tools 

should be sufficient to achieve a reasonable balance between sensitivity (ability to detect problems when 

they do exist) and specificity (ability to rule out problems when they do not exist). Decisions regarding 

which tool to use must be made in conjunction with and supported by the alcohol and drug treatment 

system and others who conduct screenings for substance use disorders. A Subcommittee of the Steering 

Committee, comprising representatives from relevant systems, can be charged with recommending 

screening tools. Because the results of screenings conducted by child welfare staff become the baseline 

used by alcohol and drug services staff, information derived from screenings should meet the needs of 

staff and should be consistent with information provided by other systems. 

Section III of this guidebook presents detailed information about substance abuse screening and 

assessment tools and strategies, and Appendix D, “Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Preliminary 

Assessment,” provides information about several screening tools that include only six to eight questions 

and are sufficient to meet the needs of child welfare staff. Regardless of which tool is selected, however, 

as noted in the Introduction, the premise of SAFERR is that collaboration and communication—not the 

too—will ultimately make the difference in whether staff can meet the needs of children and families. 

Screenings may be able to detect whether substance use disorders are a factor in the overall family 

situation, but they do not provide information on which to make decisions about the nature and extent 

of substance use disorders. These decisions require complete information derived from indepth 

assessments conducted by trained and qualified personnel. 

Activities regarding screenings for substance use disorders and referrals for assessments should be 

documented in child welfare case records and made available for monitoring purposes, reviews for 

court hearings if appropriate, and use by alcohol and drug services staff if requested. These records are 

particularly important given the frequent turnover of staff in many local child welfare agencies. 

Although it is generally not feasible for alcohol and drug treatment staff to screen all families involved 

with child welfare, some jurisdictions have co-located substance abuse counselors at child welfare 

offices to help in specific situations, provide consultation, and conduct comprehensive substance 

abuse assessments. Colocation is described more thoroughly at the end of this section, and exploring 

colocation may be a task charged to either the Steering Committee or one of its Subcommittees. 

• Ensuring that families have the opportunity to be successful in treatment by—

  Understanding treatment plan requirements, schedules, and activities;

  Communicating with alcohol and drug treatment staff to coordinate schedules so that families

 do not have conflicting demands that force them to choose between meeting their child

 welfare case plan and their substance abuse treatment plan goals and expectations;

  Ensuring that the array of child welfare services provided to families support the goals of

 treatment; and
26

  Sharing information with alcohol and drug treatment staff regarding how children are doing,

 how parent and child visits are working out, and how parents are progressing in developing

 parenting capacities. 

• Ensuring that all personnel working with children and families or making decisions

 regarding families understand how their local alcohol and drug service system works and

 the nature of local assessment and treatment services.

It is not reasonable or appropriate to expect child welfare staff to have the skills to conduct the indepth 

substance use diagnoses and assessments that follow screenings. These diagnoses and assessments must 

be conducted by substance abuse clinicians with relevant training and expertise. The key purpose of the 

diagnostic and assessment process is to determine whether treatment is needed, and if it is, to identify 

the level of treatment and types of services necessary to maximize the potential for recovery. 

Child welfare staff should know the following about their local alcohol and drug service systems: 

  What are the procedures for making referrals for assessments regarding the nature and extent

 of substance use? Who has to “sign off” on referrals? Who pays for assessments? Where are

 substance use disorder assessments conducted and how accessible are these locations to

 families?

  What assessment instruments are used? How long do assessments take? Are they always the

 same, and if not, why are different ones used?

  Is there a waiting list for an assessment, and if so, how long is it? 

  What do the “results” look like? What releases of information are necessary to receive

 results? How long does it take to receive them? How are the results used to decide what type

 of treatment, particularly residential treatment, is needed?

  What treatment resources are available in the community? Are there waiting lists, and if so,

 how long are they and for what type of treatment? Are there interim programs for parents

 while they wait for an opening in a treatment facility?

  What are the implications of substance use disorder assessments and type of treatment

 selected for child welfare planning?

To ensure that child welfare staff have this level of knowledge, the Steering Committee should establish 

guidelines to ensure that the information is understood by managers throughout the child welfare system 

and that basic information about local alcohol and drug service systems is incorporated into training 

for child welfare staff. If training is provided by staff from the local alcohol and drug service system, 

its structure and format can be incorporated into collaborative agreements established by child welfare, 

alcohol and drug, and court systems. 

• Ensuring that staff understand the substance use disorder treatment process and its

 relationship to ASFA requirements and timeframes. 

Treating substance use disorders involves ongoing management of a lifelong condition such as 

diabetes or high blood pressure, as opposed to short-term interventions for acute crises such as 

broken arms. Recovery from substance use disorders is not a straight line from use to sobriety, but it 

involves periods in which people may return to use and then stop again. Appendix E, “Substance Use, 
27

Abuse, Dependence Continuum, and Principles of Effective Treatment,” provides information about 

substance use disorders and summarizes substance abuse treatment principles developed by the Federal 

Government. 

Understanding the substance use disorder treatment process is essential in case planning and 

decisionmaking regarding permanency for children in foster care, particularly decisions pertaining to 

reunification, termination of parental rights, and continuing and aftercare services when children have 

been reunified with their families. Staff from the alcohol and drug service system frequently voice 

concerns that the timeframes for reunification and termination of parental rights are not consistent with 

the substance use disorder treatment and recovery process.

ASFA requires States to file a petition for termination of parental rights for children who have been in foster care for 15 of 

the most recent 22 months, unless any of the following conditions are met:

• At the option of the State, the child is under the care of a relative;

• A State agency has documented in the case plan a compelling reason for determining that filing such a petition

 would not be in the best interests of the child; or

• The State has not provided to the family, consistent with the time in the State case plan, such services as the

 State deems necessary for the safe return of the child to the child’s home.

Because child welfare staff must make decisions that conform to ASFA rules, it is urgent that they 

screen, assess, and engage families in treatment at the earliest possible moment. The process of recovery 

from substance use disorders can easily take more time than ASFA rules permit, so it is imperative that 

families be given the best opportunity and the longest possible time to make satisfactory progress.

• Ensuring that staff understand the State or District Family Court System, including the roles

 of judges or magistrates, mediators, CASAs, and attorneys.

Athough many court decisions are driven by the requirements of ASFA, there are other legal protocols 

and procedures that child welfare staff must understand and follow. It is not uncommon for child 

welfare cases to involve three attorneys (one representing the parent, one representing the children, and 

one representing the child welfare agency) and a Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA). Child 

welfare officials should work with court staff to obtain training regarding the roles of various legal 

representatives in child welfare cases, how court staff make decisions, and what information attorneys 

require to best represent their clients.

2.2 Responsibilities of the Alcohol and Drug Service System

People working in the alcohol and drug service system share responsibilities with colleagues from the 

court and child welfare systems in ensuring that collaborative structures and relationships result in better 

services to families. In recent years, treatment providers and the public alcohol and drug service system 

have come to understand that family members are important in the recovery process for individuals in 

treatment. As a result, they have assumed greater responsibility for determining the parenting status, 

capacities, and needs of people in treatment. 
28

Responsibilities of staff in the alcohol and drug service system differ somewhat depending on whether 

parents have an open child welfare case and whether the child is in the custody of the court or the parent. 

Specific responsibilities include—

• Understanding the ways that substance use disorders put children at risk and the ways that

 the child welfare system must respond to those risks, including ASFA requirements.

Traditional assessments for substance use disorders have focused on the effects of substance use on the 

person entering treatment, including effects on employment, housing, and mental and physical health. 

Workers in the alcohol and drug treatment system were less likely to explore the effects of substance use 

on other people in the person’s life, including children. Moreover, treatment counselors are not generally 

trained in the area of child development and may overlook important signals suggesting that children of 

parents in treatment are not developing appropriately, may need help, or may need to be removed from 

their homes at least temporarily. Alcohol and drug treatment staff may feel that reporting suspicions of 

child abuse or neglect will undermine their therapeutic relationship with parents and may be hesitant to 

or uncertain about taking action.

Reporting requirements for child maltreatment are discussed below. It is, however, essential that 

alcohol and drug treatment staff receive training about basic principles of child safety, theories of child 

development, stages of child development, and ways that parental substance use disorders affect children 

at all developmental stages, including prenatal substance exposure. In addition, they should receive 

training regarding the range of possible responses from the child welfare system, including responses 

such as preventive services that may allow parents to retain custody of their children while they 

participate in treatment. 

Staff working in the alcohol and drug service system need specialized training that addresses at least the 

following:

  State definitions of child maltreatment;

  The role of the treatment provider in reporting suspected abuse or neglect;

  Benefits from addressing family dynamics and potential child maltreatment when working

 with a parent who has a substance use disorder;

  Consequences for children whose parents have substance use disorders;

  Other family issues that arise when parents are involved with child welfare;

  Ways treatment staff help parents prepare for child welfare and court reviews; and

  How ASFA requirements influence decisions regarding treatment.

Just as child welfare staff need to explore their beliefs about addiction, alcohol and drug services staff 

need opportunities that will allow them to address their experiences with and exposures to the child 

welfare and court systems, and to identify the attitudes that have come from these experiences. Training 

for alcohol and drug services staff must also help them recognize how their personal beliefs and attitudes 

regarding child maltreatment may affect their ability to work with families. 

The NCSACW developed an online training curriculum for substance abuse professionals, entitled 

“Understanding Child Welfare and the Dependency Court: A Guide for Substance Abuse Treatment 

Professionals” available at www.ncsacw.samhsa.gov.
29

• Ensuring that alcohol and drug services staff understand and comply with State laws

 regarding the reporting of child abuse and neglect. 

In order to avoid confusion about reporting child abuse and neglect, alcohol and drug services staff 

must be trained about State rules regarding mandatory reporting of abuse or neglect. As noted above, 

treatment workers may hesitate to report suspicions of child abuse or neglect. Decisions regarding 

responsibility to report maltreatment, however, are dictated by law, making reporting less a personal 

decision than a professional responsibility. Staff also need to understand that privacy rules pertaining 

to reporting limit their responsibility and authority to making only an initial report. These rules do not 

allow people making reports to respond to followup requests for information or subpoenas unless the 

parent has signed a consent form or a court has issued an order that complies with relevant rules. 

In order to make appropriate reports or provide child welfare staff with information that will help 

them secure services for families and monitor family progress, alcohol and drug services staff must 

understand how their local child welfare system works. Child welfare operations and regulations vary 

greatly across States and localities. Variation is found in statutory definitions of child maltreatment, how 

reports of maltreatment are handled when first received, the kinds of evidence necessary to substantiate 

reports of maltreatment, and the use of police and/or child welfare personnel to investigate reports and 

conduct initial safety assessments. Ideally, staff from the local child welfare agency should provide this 

training to workers in the alcohol and drug service system, and at a minimum, child welfare staff should 

provide input into the training curriculum.

The following additional examples of variations among child welfare systems underscore the importance 

of training workers in the alcohol and drug service system about child welfare operations in their 

particular community.

Variations among child welfare systems:

• In some localities, reports of domestic violence are considered “eligible” child maltreatment reports, while in other

 localities, domestic violence is not included in the statutory definition of child maltreatment and such reports are

 “screened out” (i.e., they are not referred to the child welfare for further action). 

• In some localities, child welfare responses include an “alternative response track.” This option permits child welfare

 agencies to respond to families on whom reports have been made with an assessment and an offer of voluntary services

 rather than with an investigation to determine whether child maltreatment actually occurred.

• In some localities, any one of these methods of contacting families may occur: first contacts after a maltreatment

 report has been accepted are generally made by the police; these contacts are generally made by child welfare staff;

 the police respond to some types of maltreatment reports (such as sexual abuse and severe physical abuse), and child

 welfare staff respond to others; the police make initial contact if it is “afterhours,” while child welfare workers make

 contact during regular working hours; and police and child welfare staff make the first contact as a team.

• When there is not an open child welfare case, determining whether children are present

 in the home, whether the parent has caretaking responsibilities for children in the home, and

 whether the nature of the substance use disorder (whether or not the person is a caretaker)

 creates a risk of child maltreatment. 

Just as child welfare staff should seek advice from colleagues in the alcohol and drug treatment system 

in selecting substance abuse screening tools, so should alcohol and drug service system staff seek 
30

advice from colleagues working in child welfare in selecting tools to screen for child safety. Because 

the Subcommittee charged with recommending substance use disorder screening tools includes 

representatives from multiple systems, that Subcommittee would be well positioned to recommend a 

child safety screening tool as well. 

When screenings conducted by workers in the alcohol and drug service system suggest that children 

are at risk or have been maltreated, those workers should consult with child welfare staff regarding 

next steps. Therefore, alcohol and drug service staff must understand how to make reports of child 

maltreatment, and they must be aware of preventive services in the community if the information 

obtained from the screening process is a concern but does not warrant a child maltreatment report. 

Determining child safety and child risk is not a precise science, and although many strategies have 

been developed to evaluate safety and risk, none can guarantee that maltreatment will or will not recur. 

Training for alcohol and drug services staff should focus on the general assessment tools used by the 

local child welfare services agency, the limitations of those assessment tools, and how those tools 

incorporate substance use disorders into the safety and risk assessment process. Appendix F, “Examples 

of Safety and Risk Assessments for Use by Child Welfare Staff,” provides information regarding safety 

and risk assessment tools used by child welfare staff. 

• When there is an open child welfare case, participating in creating case plans, sharing

 information about parents and children with child welfare staff, and guiding their patients

 in taking steps to comply with plans. Alcohol and drug treatment staff should also

 understand the continuum of child welfare activities, processes, and timetables and that

 a parent can have an open child welfare case and still have custody of children (these are

 often referred to as “in home” services).

Most staff in local child welfare agencies complete standard required case plan forms. Alcohol and drug 

treatment staff should understand these forms and participate in developing child welfare case plans 

recorded on them. They should conduct multidimensional assessments and share assessment results 

with child welfare staff as quickly as possible, generally within 7 days. 

Although child welfare staff interact regularly with court staff, alcohol and drug treatment personnel do 

so less frequently and need to understand the role of courts when children of their clients are in foster 

care. It is important for them to understand the Federal, and sometimes State, statutory requirements 

that govern child welfare case plans and decisions about families. In particular, they need to understand 

the Federal ASFA requirement that permanency hearings be held after children have been in foster care 

for 12 months, with the expectation that decisions and next steps regarding permanent placement of 

children will result from permanency hearings. 

The child welfare and court timeframes put added pressure on parents to progress quickly through 

treatment. One way that the alcohol and drug service treatment system can respond to this urgency and 

increase collaborative relationships with child welfare and courts is to give treatment priority to people 

with open child welfare cases involving children in foster care, where possible and within Federal rules 

regarding access to treatment.

Treatment providers can support family members by—

  Encouraging them to sign consent forms allowing for disclosure of treatment progress to child

 welfare workers and court professionals;
31

  Understanding their child welfare case plan requirements, meetings, appointments, and

 expectations for visits or involvement with children;

  Communicating with child welfare caseworkers to coordinate schedules so that family

 members do not have conflicting demands that force them to choose between meeting their

 child welfare case plan goals and expectations and those of their substance abuse treatment

 plan; and

  Ensuring that child welfare workers understand the difference between treatment lapses and

 treatment relapses, and communicating clearly how both lapses and relapses are being

 addressed in treatment. 

Alcohol and drug treatment staff should have the following knowledge about the operations of their 

local child welfare systems:

  What are the indicators of child maltreatment, and how are reports made?

  How does child welfare staff respond to reports of maltreatment, and how are initial and

 subsequent investigations and assessments made? What assessment forms are used, and how

 long does it take to conduct an investigation or assessment?

  What happens when a child abuse report to a hot line turns into allegations of child abuse

 or neglect? What happens when the allegations are not substantiated, and what happens when

 they are substantiated? How long does it take to determine whether reports are substantiated?

  How does child welfare make determinations about removing a child from a parent’s custody

 and how do they determine when to return a child? What services are available to children and

 families, and how are those services delivered?

  What are the implications of child welfare findings for treating substance use disorders?

2.3 Responsibilities of the Court System 

Court officials have a responsibility to ensure that employees, attorneys, and volunteers receive 

adequate and accurate training about the alcohol and drug service and child welfare systems. These 

responsibilities include—

• Understanding the fundamentals of substance use disorders, the implications of those

 disorders on child safety and well-being, and the potential for effective treatment. 

As noted earlier, the relationship between substance use disorders and child maltreatment is often 

complex. Court and legal staff and volunteers should be required to receive training in topics such as 

the nature of substance use disorders, treatment engagement and services, recovery, and the impact 

of substance use disorders and treatment on children including aspects related to prenatal substance 

exposure. Continuing legal education credits can often be provided for this kind of training.

Ideally, staff from the alcohol and drug service system or a local treatment provider should develop 

curricula and provide training to court and legal staff. NCSACW developed an online curriculum aimed 

at court and legal staff that is available at www.ncsacw.samhsa.gov. Alcohol and drug treatment staff 

can adapt the curricula for their jurisdiction.

• Understanding the fundamentals of child development and how substance use disorders affect

 children’s capacity to grow.
32

Child welfare staff are often well versed in the developmental stages of children and attempt to address 

those stages in the decisions they make regarding placement of and services to children whose parents 

have substance use disorders. Court and legal staff are much less likely to have this knowledge and 

therefore may make decisions regarding services and custody without understanding how those decisions 

affect the ability of children to progress developmentally.

Staff from the child welfare service system can adapt curricula used to train their own staff for use in 

training court staff, and they can provide training in this area. 

 • Requiring that all families coming before the court be screened, and if appropriate, assessed

 for substance use disorders; that developmental assessments of children have been

 completed; and that prenatal substance exposure, if it exists, be addressed. 

Despite the correlation between substance use disorders and child maltreatment and the importance of 

screening for substance use disorders upon first contact with a family reported for maltreatment, such 

screenings may not occur. Judges and magistrates can greatly increase the likelihood that screenings will 

be completed if they routinely ask whether they have been done and for information about their outcome.

Ideally, court or legal staff should participate in the Subcommittee of the Steering Committee charged 

with recommending a particular screening tool for substance use disorders. 

If screening results suggest that family members have substance use disorders, judges and attorneys 

should ask for information regarding followup assessments, referrals to services, and protocols for 

supporting and monitoring family members through treatment.

• Using court authority to prompt collaboration required to ensure compliance with ASFA. 

Because ASFA imposes strict timelines for terminating parental rights, it puts added pressure on child 

welfare and alcohol and drug treatment agencies to collaborate. 

Judges and magistrates should use the authority of the court to hold families, child welfare staff, and 

alcohol and drug treatment staff accountable for complying with ASFA requirements or developing 

compelling reasons why ASFA rules should not apply in a particular case. Judges also can issue findings 

that the State has not made reasonable efforts (or active efforts for families covered by the Indian Child 

Welfare Act) to provide services to families. These findings generally require immediate remedial actions 

by agencies to make those efforts.

2.4 Collaborative Responsibilities of the Child Welfare, Court, and Alcohol and Drug Service

 Systems 

Although each system has certain individual responsibilities to the other systems, as described 

above, there are also critical collaborative activities whose responsibilities must be shared across the 

three systems. The Steering Committee should specify those areas of shared responsibility, create 

communication structures that promote and enforce them, and develop mechanisms to guide and evaluate 

local jurisdictions in adapting and implementing shared responsibility across the three systems. Section 

I suggests that the Steering Committee develop a plan of action to oversee progress toward collaborative 

goals and objectives, and these collaborative activities should be incorporated into the plan of action. 
33

Appendix B of this guidebook provides a template for creating the plan of action. Some of the basic 

shared collaborative responsibilities of the child welfare, court, and alcohol and drug systems are 

described below: 

• Child welfare, court, and alcohol and drug service systems share responsibility for

 facilitating engagement of families by establishing joint policies and procedures for sharing

 information regarding screening, assessment, treatment, and case planning. 

Child welfare, court, and alcohol and drug treatment staff share responsibility for helping families 

engage in child welfare and treatment services. An important factor in influencing whether families 

are engaged is the extent to which staff from all systems have accurate and timely information about 

families they serve, information that is gathered and shared at critical points across the span of a 

family’s involvement with any system. Having formal structures in place to make it easier for staff to 

communicate information increases the likelihood that they will in fact communicate appropriately, 

which in turn increases the likelihood that they will be able to engage and retain families in services. 

One important element of effective communication involves protecting people’s rights to privacy, 

rights that are specified and guaranteed by Federal and State laws. Appendix H, “Sharing Confidential 

Information,” includes a detailed discussion of confidentiality concerns and informed consent 

procedures. Staff from all three systems should develop uniform protocols that provide guidance 

to workers in sharing information. The Steering Committee should charge a Subcommittee with 

researching existing protocols, locating promising practices from other jurisdictions, and developing 

recommendations for improvements to protocols.

• The child welfare, court, and alcohol and drug systems share responsibility for ensuring

 that case plans and court orders (when relevant) for children and families are developed

 collaboratively and create a context within which staff from each system can actively help

 families engage and succeed in services. 

Although each system has its own requirements for case plans, plans generated by each system should 

incorporate information about families obtained from the other systems and all plans should be 

constructed so as to support the capacity of families to engage in required services. When case plans 

do not include the array of activities required by all systems, the plans duplicate one another, contradict 

one another, or pose barriers for the family due to excessive or conflicting demands on family members’ 

time. For example, it is extremely difficult for families to participate in daily outpatient substance use 

disorder treatment programs as required by the alcohol and drug treatment plan, hold a full-time job or 

participate in daily employment training programs as required by the child welfare case plan or court 

order, attend two parenting education or anger management classes per week as required in the child 

welfare case plan, and visit with their children twice per week, also as required by the child welfare case 

plan. 

Alcohol and drug treatment and child welfare case plans should be developed through joint efforts of 

staff from both systems and the court, and must accommodate the timetables under which all systems 

operate. Information regarding the following responsibilities should be shared.
34

 In developing case plans, alcohol and drug treatment and child welfare staff should share the following:

 • Treatment plans and requirements, including drug testing requirements;

 • Child welfare case plan activities and objectives;

 • Family service interventions;

 • Plans for ensuring child safety;

 • Parent and child visitation plans; and

 • Permanency goals and plans.

Ideally, sharing these responsibilities should result in a unified plan that emphasizes engaging and 

retaining families in services, ensuring child safety and family stability, promoting recovery, and 

continuing services even after families complete case plan requirements (sometimes called aftercare).

• The child welfare, court, and alcohol and drug service systems share responsibility for

 developing indicators of progress that meet the needs, requirements, and missions of each

 system and that focus on the entire family.

“Progress” has different meanings to people working in different systems, although in all three systems, 

progress frequently is not characterized by an unbroken straight line to success. In fact, staff in child 

welfare, court, and alcohol and drug systems routinely report that families make progress, stumble, 

resume progress, stumble again, and so on. The “Stages of Change” theory described in Section III 

arose out of research involving people with substance use disorders, but it applies as well to other 

situations in which people attempt to change longstanding behaviors. Movement from one state of 

change to another is an important marker of progress.

The tensions surrounding what constitutes progress have often been expressed in discussions about 

substance use relapse. When people who have abstained from using substances have an episode of 

using again, child welfare and court staff may view the substance use as equivalent to “backsliding” into 

substance abuse. However, staff in the alcohol and drug service system distinguish between “lapse” (a 

period of substance use) and “relapse” (the return to problem behaviors associated with substance use). 

It is important for child welfare and court staff to understand that distinction and avoid concluding that 

relapse is the same as treatment failure. 

Relapse may occur because the treatment plan has not adequately addressed issues relevant to the 

substance use disorder. At the same time, alcohol and drug treatment staff should understand that 

relapse does have implications for child safety. 

While relapse is most frequently associated with substance use disorders, it is important for staff from 

all systems to have a shared understanding that families may also experience periods of return to child 

maltreatment or criminal involvement. In general, progress can be considered as the degree to which 

people have increasing periods of sobriety, decreasing incidences of relapse and improved ability to 

take care of responsibilities, including parenting. Staff should develop shared responses to relapses and 

setbacks when they occur. 

As noted in Section I, one important task for the Steering Committee is to develop broad indicators 

or benchmarks for measuring families’ progress in both recovering from substance use disorders and 

attaining appropriate parenting capacities. Indicators and benchmarks should be based on requirements 
35

included in the treatment and case plans. These indicators and benchmarks help alcohol and drug 

treatment staff determine the appropriateness or effectiveness of the treatment services provided to 

families. These tools also guide child welfare and court decisions regarding permanency arrangements 

for children (particularly with respect to seeking termination of parental rights or providing aftercare 

services to families when children are reunified) and services to ensure child safety and well-being. 

The Steering Committee uses indicators and benchmarks to assess how well their systems are sharing 

information, engaging and retaining families, and making appropriate and timely decisions. 

Joint indicators and benchmarks require that staff have protocols for obtaining information from families 

and for sharing information with colleagues. The following strategies can be useful in securing and 

sharing important information:

  Developing joint disclosure forms that meet the needs of all relevant systems; 

  Convening meetings of staff from all systems to address pertinent issues;

  Conducting meetings involving all involved staff and family members, to discuss progress,

 problems, and next steps; and

  Working with the parent’s legal advocate to ensure that the court is responsive to the parent’s

 treatment needs and progress.

• The child welfare, court, and alcohol and drug service systems share responsibility for

 monitoring and evaluating the results of collaborative screening, assessment, engagement,

 and retention efforts. Evaluations should include determinations regarding whether

 individual system and collaborative responsibilities are being met, determinations about

 whether expected outcomes are being achieved, and procedures for making revisions based

 on evaluation information.

If families are not engaged and retained in services, collaborative efforts have failed. The primary 

objective of the collaborative endeavor presented in this guidebook, and the most important goal for the 

Steering Committee, is to ensure that families receive timely, appropriate, and well-coordinated services. 

As described in Section I, at the onset of working together, members of the Steering Committee should 

gather and understand the data from their own systems and then create a baseline of information that 

the Steering Committee and local Subcommittees can use to establish priorities. Appendix B provides 

information regarding the Collaborative Capacity Instrument and other tools to help the Steering 

Committee members assess the strengths and weaknesses of their systems. This assessment should 

be conducted at one of the early Steering Committee meetings and periodically thereafter. Results 

from these tools frequently prompt discussions among Steering Committee members about the ways 

systems are perceived, reasons why they conflict, and areas in which strong collaborations already exist. 

Information from assessments should be shared with Steering Committee and Subcommittee members 

and with others who have a stake in improving collaborative capacities among agencies. 

When the baseline has been established, all three systems share responsibility for establishing outcomes 

they feel equally responsible to achieve. Outcomes should not be merely a compilation of outcome 

measures specific to each system, and each system should feel responsible for the outcomes of the 

three systems as a whole. Each system’s performance should be measured at least in part against those 

overarching outcomes.
36

2.5 Models for Cross-System Collaboration

Successful collaborations usually involve the creation of a “teaming” approach. These teams can be 

formal or informal and can function within a variety of structures. Team approaches that have been used 

in some localities are described below. 

Colocation of Staff

One team model involves colocating staff from different systems in the same office. For example, 

some localities “outstation” staff from the alcohol and drug service system in a child welfare office or 

court environment. Although colocating staff does not in itself ensure effective collaboration, reports 

from localities that have implemented this model suggest that workers are generally satisfied with the 

arrangement and believe that everyone, including the families, benefits from it. Colocation is usually the 

model that many tribes have developed to deliver services to families. 

Colocation has considerable potential for enhancing cross-system collaboration. It provides 

opportunities for people to learn about other professions and to develop more complete understandings 

about family strengths and problems. In many localities that have implemented the colocation model, 

staff from the alcohol and drug service system not only conduct assessments of families, but also 

participate in staff meetings and conduct trainings for staff and sometimes families. 

The following factors are to be considered in deciding whether and how to colocate staff from different 

agencies:

• Program

  Are the goals for colocation clear, and do all staff share these goals?

  How will information be shared and privacy protected?

  Have staff that will be colocated received basic cross-training to work together effectively?

  What functions will the colocated staff perform? (For example, will alcohol and drug services 

 colocated staff conduct screenings and/or assessments, provide ad hoc advice, conduct home

 visits, or participate in child welfare staff meetings, or perform any combination of these

 functions?)

 • Logistics

  Where will staff sit, what access will they have to computers, photocopiers, and similar

 equipment?

  How will supervision be handled?

  How will differences in work rules such as dress codes, signing-in, coming and going into the

 field, pay, and reward structures be resolved?

• Lessons learned

  Staff who are colocated in another agency must be part of the agency where they sit and

 maintain their own identity.

  Alcohol and drug training provided by alcohol and drug treatment staff that are 

 outstationed with child welfare staff is often better received than training provided by child

 welfare staff.
37

Creating Specialized Staff Positions

Another team approach is to create specialized workers who work only with particular types of families 

and who are responsible for interacting with other staff from systems that work with those families. For 

example, some child welfare agencies have created specialized units or specialized worker positions to 

focus on cases in which problems such as sexual abuse, domestic violence, or parental substance use 

disorders are prominent. 

When families struggle with both substance use disorders and child maltreatment, this approach permits 

designated child welfare workers to develop expertise in the area of substance use disorders and 

familiarity with the local alcohol and drug treatment providers. This expertise and familiarity between 

child welfare and alcohol and drug treatment staff increases the likelihood that staff will communicate 

consistently, and it promotes a sense of teamwork and camaraderie. Specialized child welfare workers 

may spend part of their week at treatment sites to meet with families or resolve problems. Because 

they learn how treatment programs operate, these specialized workers can collaborate with treatment 

staff to ensure that families are not confused or frustrated in their efforts to meet potential conflicting 

requirements of the alcohol and drug service, court, and child welfare systems.

Multidisciplinary Teams

Another collaborative team model involves developing multidisciplinary teams to participate in 

child welfare case staffing meetings or case conferences. Multidisciplinary teams can be combined 

with the colocated or specialized staff strategies described above, or they can be used independently. 

Multidisciplinary teams that include representatives from the alcohol and drug service and court systems 

create a context that makes collaboration more feasible because team meetings afford structured time 

for workers to get and provide information about families, seek suggestions on resolving problems, and 

share resources. 

Establishing and implementing multidisciplinary teams often brings to the fore the underlying tensions 

and inconsistencies that have existed among the systems. Therefore, it is essential that people from 

all systems expected to participate in multidisciplinary teams share in establishing the framework and 

protocols for how the teams will operate. In particular, attention should be paid to establishing clear 

roles for each team member, defining ways that information will be shared among team members, 

reaching consensus regarding the role of family members on teams, and clarifying how decisions will 

be made and enforced. The Steering Committee could charge a Subcommittee with exploring these and 

other options and recommending one or more for use in the State. 

Creating multidisciplinary teams requires significant upfront investments in identifying staff who are 

comfortable working in groups, creating and delivering training regarding effective group processes and 

teamwork, and determining who has authority to make which kinds of decisions. Some jurisdictions 

have limited the number of families or assigned only those with the most intense service needs to the 

multidisciplinary team, because they can be time and resource intensive. 

However difficult, teams can be very productive, and their work can result in several benefits: 

• Multidisciplinary teams ensure that a broad range of knowledge and expertise is available to

 address problems, thereby increasing the likelihood that services will be comprehensive and that

 families will engage and remain in them.
38

• Because team members learn about one another’s services and procedures, each is less likely to

 provide incorrect information to families and more likely to communicate and coordinate services.

• The multidisciplinary approach allows child welfare workers to develop a broader understanding

 of the needs of the children and parents and enhances their ability to match services to family

 needs.
39

SECTION III: COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE AT THE FRONTLINE

Section I of this guidebook makes the case for collaboration and presents a framework for establishing 

a governance structure including an Oversight Committee, Steering Committee, and Subcommittees 

charged with creating policies and protocols that allow staff and systems to work together. Section 

II outlines some of the individual and shared responsibilities of the child welfare, alcohol and drug 

service, and court systems in creating and sustaining effective relationships. This section focuses on 

frontline practices, providing information to help staff implement policies and procedures that have 

been developed and approved by subcommittees and the Steering Committee. It is preferable that child 

welfare, alcohol and drug services, and court staff in local offices participate on Subcommittees and 

therefore identify and recommend the screening and assessment protocols they will use in their offices. 

The Steering Committee and relevant Subcommittees should guide, oversee, and evaluate the activities 

described below and should use local experiences to revise State policies and procedures where required.

The terms “screening” and “assessment” are widely used by staff from child welfare, alcohol and drug, 

and court systems. They are sometimes used interchangeably, and they often mean different things to 

different systems. For example, when calls come in to the child welfare hotline, the worker asks a series 

of brief screening questions to determine whether a report of abuse or neglect will be accepted for an inperson response, and if accepted, whether the situation requires an immediate visit to the home. When 

reports are accepted and workers visit the home, they quickly assess the home situation to determine 

whether children are safe or whether they are at imminent risk and must be removed, at least until 

further assessments have been completed. After an initial determination has been made that children are 

not safe at home or are at serious enough risk to warrant further involvement with child welfare, workers 

resolve the immediate safety concern and then begin a more comprehensive process of screening and 

assessment for a range of services. At this point, screening and assessments for substance use disorders 

should take place. 

Screening and assessment are not specific events conducted by professional staff at predetermined 

points in a family’s involvement with child welfare, alcohol and drug treatment, and court systems. 

Rather, they are continual processes that engage both families and staff in identifying family strengths, 

developing services, and monitoring progress and addressing challenges. These processes are more 

helpful to families and more efficient for staff if they are undertaken in a coordinated rather than parallel 

manner. The Introduction to this guidebook lays out questions that all three systems struggle to address, 

and proposes that these questions are better answered if systems coordinate their responses than if they 

respond in isolation. 

These questions are repeated here:

• Is there a substance use or child abuse and neglect issue in the family, and if so, what is the

 immediacy of the issue?

• What are the nature and extent of the substance use or child abuse and neglect issue?

• What is the response to the substance use or child abuse and neglect issue? Are there demonstrable

 changes? Is the family ready for transition, and what happens after discharge?

• Did the interventions work?

Some local agencies may want to improve their ability to screen and assess families but are not prepared 

to address broader issues regarding collaborative approaches to screening and assessment. The 

information included in this section provides practical guidance regarding screening and assessment 
40

that can be used even if there is need for a larger framework that focuses on collaboration and should be 

useful to agencies that simply want to improve their internal practices. 

After a discussion of communication protocols, the remainder of this section provides guidance in 

developing answers to these questions.

3.1 Developing Communication Structures and Protocols

Responding to the questions listed above requires formal and clear patterns of communication. Results 

from screenings and assessments must be communicated across systems to answer questions regarding 

what kind of treatment and other services best meet family needs, how families can best be engaged and 

retained in these services, how well families are progressing and what problems are they experiencing, 

how transitions are handled, and how systems can know whether they have succeeded? 

The Pathways of Communication Template on the next page illustrates the communication flow that 

must occur between community agencies, the alcohol and drug service system, the child welfare service 

system, and dependency court system during the stages of answering the questions: “What is the 

response?,” “Are there demonstrable changes?,” “Is the family ready for transition?,” “What happens 

after discharge or case closure?,” and “Did the interventions work?” 

Policymakers, administrators, legal experts, and practitioners must consider each of the communication 

points depicted on the template and provide the policies, procedures, and specific content needed 

for staff to share information about families with each other and with family members. Each of the 

communication bridges (shown in areas in between the columns of text on the figure) must be clearly 

defined within each community and jurisdiction. Local office staff or Subcommittees charged with 

designing protocols for local offices should use this template as a guide to define the communication 

bridges, track how communication occurs in their office or jurisdiction, and identify areas in which 

communication breaks down. (An example of a completed communication template is included in 

Appendix A.) On the basis of this analysis, local staff or the Steering Committee should establish formal 

communication guidelines for use by staff from all three systems. The content of information to be 

exchanged across the bridge must be specified, including the exact information and method for exchange 

required to make an effective bridge across the systems. The results of this exercise also provide a good 

basis for creating a cross-system training initiative that is grounded in solid information developed by 

staff from all systems. 
41

Identification Through Community or Family Awareness of Signs, Symptoms and Behaviors

Pathways of Communication Template

Family and Extended Family Services

Other

Community

Agencies

Community

Based Family

Support

Services

Alcohol and

Drug Services

Child Welfare

Services

Dependency

Court

Outcome

Monitoring

Outcome

Monitoring

Detention/

Shelter

Hearing

Jurisdiction

Disposition

Hearings

•Review

Hearings

•Family 

Treatment

Court

 Hearings

•Case

Closures

Outcome

Monitoring

Screening

Multidimensional

Assessment

Treatment Plan

and Services

Treatment

Monitoring

and Transition

Planning

Recovery

Management

Screen

Immediate

Need

Triage

Child Abuse

Report

Case Plan

Development 

and Services

Family Well

Being

Case Plan

Monitoring, 

Permanency

Determination

Diagnosis

Family

Assessment

In-person

Safety

Assessment

In-person

Response/Risk

Assessment

3.2 Screening: Is there a substance use or child abuse and neglect issue in the family? What 

 is the immediacy of the substance use or child abuse and neglect?

Screening for Substance Use Disorders in Child Welfare System Families

When reports of child maltreatment are based on or accompanied by allegations of substance use by 

parents or when children are born prenatally exposed to substances, child welfare staff do not need to 

further screen for substance use problems. 

When substance abuse is not evident from the report of maltreatment or the birth of a child who has 

been exposed prenatally, the answer to the question “Is there a substance use issue?” is arrived at 

through a variety of sources such as observations in the home or information gathered from neighbors 

or other family members. For cases in which the child welfare worker is unsure whether substance use 

is a problem, the use of a standardized set of questions—a screen—is recommended. Alcohol and drug 

screens, as those used in this guidebook, refer to brief tools or procedures designed to determine risk or 

probability that an individual has a given condition, or disorder. Screens should be designed for use by 

a broad range of people, including those with little clinical expertise. An ideal screen should be short, 

easy to administer orally or in writing, inexpensive, and capable of detecting a problem or condition 

when it exists.
42

Screening and the Indian Child Welfare Act

At the time they conduct initial screens, child welfare staff should determine whether families are or might be eligible 

to be members of an American Indian Tribe. If a child is an American Indian, the child welfare agency must be sure it 

complies with the Indian Child Welfare Act and must send notice to the tribe. Appendix I includes more information about 

requirements under the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Child welfare workers may use brief screening tools that can be administered orally in virtually all 

interviews or imbedded in a standard questionnaire. These are more practical and efficient within the 

context of the many issues that child welfare workers explore in their early interactions with families. 

In addition, these screening instruments are available without cost. 

 

Whether screening results indicate that substance use is a problem depends in part on the threshold, or 

the cutoff point above which substance use disorders are determined to exist and below which they are 

determined not to exist. 

Decisions regarding cutoff points may vary across different agencies and jurisdictions. These decisions 

are important because they form the basis for determining which people are referred for treatment. If 

the cutoff point is low so as to cast a wider net, positive results will include both people who do have 

substance use disorders (true positives) and those who do not have disorders (false positives). The 

advantage of this approach is that it is less likely to overlook situations in which family substance use 

disorders pose risks to children. The disadvantage is that families without substance use disorders will 

appear to have those disorders. These families will be referred for more indepth evaluations that drain 

scarce personnel and financial resources from alcohol and drug treatment programs. 

One commonly used short substance use screen is the UNCOPE.

The UNCOPE:

U: In the past year, have you ever drank or used drugs more than you meant to?/or Have you spent more time drinking or 

using than you intended to?

N: Have you ever neglected some of your usual responsibilities because of using alcohol or drugs?

C: Have you felt you wanted or needed to cut down on your drinking or drug use in the last year?

O: Has anyone objected to your drinking or drug use?/or has a family, friend, or anyone else ever told you they objected 

 to your alcohol or drug use?

P: Have you ever found yourself preoccupied with wanting to use alcohol or drugs?/or Have you found yourself thinking a 

 lot about drinking or using?

E: Have you ever used alcohol or drugs to relieve emotional discomfort, such as sadness, anger, or boredom?

Additional information about the UNCOPE and other screening tools is provided in Appendix D, 

“Examples of Screening and Assessment Tools for Substance Use Disorders.” These tools have been 

evaluated and have sufficient sensitivity and specificity for most applications. The screens with four 

to six items seem to strike appropriate balances between sensitivity and specificity, whereas screens 
43

with more than 10 items do not seem to be significantly more accurate and they are more complex to 

administer. 

Screens are not assessments and cannot be used to diagnose the nature or extent of substance use 

disorders or to make decisions regarding alcohol and drug treatment services. Screening results do 

provide important baseline information regarding whether substance use disorders exist and at times, 

whether the disorder is such that immediate action is required to address problems such as severe 

withdrawal symptoms or likelihood of seizures, or to keep children safe. In making diagnoses or 

more permanent decisions regarding parents and children, staff should combine screening results with 

information gathered from other sources. 

Screening tools are based on self-report responses to questions, and screening results are only as 

accurate as the honesty of the replies they yield. Although families under investigation for child 

maltreatment may feel frightened or desperate enough to respond honestly to questions about their 

substance use patterns, they may also feel that disclosing substance use disorders will jeopardize their 

chances of retaining their children. Many families may therefore withhold information about their 

substance use. Although families may not reply honestly to screenings conducted as part of initial 

investigations, it is likely that indications of substance use disorders will emerge as workers become 

more familiar with family histories. For this reason, as noted throughout this guidebook, it is essential 

for workers to approach screening as an ongoing and routine part of their work, and not as a one-time 

event confined to initial and early investigations.

Screening for Child Safety in the Child Welfare Service System

In the child welfare system, the words “risk and safety assessment” are often used interchangeably. For 

the purposes of this guidebook, however, they are separated for clarity. Safety assessments, discussed 

here, work to answer the question “What is the immediacy of the issue?” and risk assessments, discussed 

later in this section, work to answer the question “What are the nature and extent of the issue?”

Risk and Safety Assessments

Safety Assessments are used by child welfare staff at the “front end” to determine the degree of immediate danger of 

maltreatment to the child.

Risk Assessments are used by child welfare staff to assess the likelihood that a child is at risk of near-term abuse and/or 

neglect, help predict future maltreatment, or inform decisions about removing children from the home.

When child welfare investigators first visit families’ homes in response to an allegation of maltreatment, 

their highest priority is to determine whether children are safe, and if they are not, to locate acceptable 

arrangements for them. The Child Welfare League of America published a monograph, “Ours to Keep: 

A Guide for Building a Community Assessment Strategy for Child Protection,” which set forth the 

following components of safety assessments conducted at early stages: 

• Life-threatening living arrangements (such as young children left alone or caretaker’s behavior is

 violent and out of control).
44

• The child is perceived in extremely negative terms by one or more parents (such as repeated

 negative statements to the worker about the child, or the child is afraid of people living in or

 coming to the home).

 • The family lacks resources to meet basic needs (such as no food or child hygiene supplies in the

 house).

• One or more parents intended to hurt the child and showed no remorse (Day et al., 1998). 

The monograph also notes “Safety interventions are not expected to provide rehabilitation or change 

behavior or conditions. The interventions are employed to control the situation until permanent change 

can take place. When child safety has been assured, then a more comprehensive assessment can take 

place” (Day et al.).

The National Child Welfare Resource Center in Family-Centered Practice recommends that families be 

involved in safety assessments by helping to identify protective factors that workers should weigh when 

making determinations regarding child safety. The following protective factors should be explored:

 Protective factors for children: 

 • The family has safe and sober relatives and friends.

 • The family has a plan to call a safe and sober person if abstinence is threatened.

 • The family has identified a place where the child can stay if the parent intends to use substances.

 • The parent has identified a place to go if he or she uses substances.

Screening Pregnant Women for Substance Use Disorders

Studies have shown that pregnant women are frequently motivated to stop using substances for the 

duration of their pregnancies. By working together during this critical period in the lives of young 

women, child welfare, alcohol and drug, and health care staff can identify problems early in pregnancies, 

support women in entering treatment, and make a significant difference in helping them deliver fullterm healthy babies. The issues specific to screening for substance use during pregnancy are most often 

germane to prenatal care staff and physicians. Child welfare agencies, however, may be involved if there 

are older children in the family, and substance abuse treatment agencies may be involved with the family 

if the mother has entered treatment.

Some studies suggest that trained interviewers who have rapport with and can credibly refer pregnant 

women for treatment can also reliably detect prenatal substance use (Arendt, Singer, Minnes, & Salvator, 

1999). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has identified characteristics associated 

with a higher risk of alcohol use during pregnancy. Factors include having a history of physical or 

sexual abuse, being a smoker, being unmarried, having a history of previous or current illicit drug use, 

having psychological stress, having mental health disorders, being of low socioeconomic status, being 

of African-American and American Indian/Alaska Native ethnicity, and other factors including a family 

history of substance abuse (National Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, 2004). Screening 

techniques that include questions about quantity, frequency, and heavy episodic drinking, as well as 

behavioral consequences of drinking, have proven to be most beneficial; simple questionnaires have 

been developed to screen for problematic alcohol use among adults in multiple populations and settings 

(Cherpitel, 2002). It is suggested that primary care physicians and obstetricians incorporate basic 
45

questions about substance use into the larger context of prenatal health evaluations and refer women for 

complete alcohol and drug assessments if yes is the answer to any of the questions (Chasnoff, Neuman, 

Thornton, & Callaghan, 2001; Morse, Gehshan, & Hutchins, 1997). As of January 2007, the Federal 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have added two new billing codes to their system 

that allow for billing and reimbursement for substance abuse screening and brief intervention by medical 

staff. 

The National Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome provides a summary of several screening tools 

identified by the National Center for Education in Maternal and Child Health (NCEMCH) including the 

T-ACE and the TWEAK. (See the NCEMH-published guidelines for screening a substance abuse during 

pregnancy at http://www.ncemch.org/pubs/PDFs/SubAbuse.pdf.) The T-ACE was the first validated 

screen for risk drinking (defined as alcohol consumption of 1 ounce or more per day) developed for 

obstetric-gynecologic practices (Sokol, Martier, & Ager, 1989). The T-ACE questions are as follows:

• T, how many drinks does it take for you to feel high (Tolerance)? 

 • A, do you feel Annoyed by people complaining about your drinking?

 • C, have you ever felt the need to Cut down on your drinking?

 • E, have you ever had a drink first thing in the morning (Eye opener)?

The T-ACE is positive with a score of 2 or more. One point is given for each yes answer to the Annoy, 

Cut-down, and Eye-opener questions and if the tolerance question is 2 or more drinks, it is scored with 

2 points. Although the T-ACE has been found to be good at identifying women at high risk, it has also 

been found to have a chance of misclassifying non-risk women. An alternative to the T-ACE to reduce 

that chance of misclassification is the TWEAK. 

The TWEAK combines items from three other tools and includes the following questions:

 • How many drinks does it take for you to feel high? (Tolerance)

 • Does your partner (or do your parents) ever Worry or complain about your drinking?

 • Have you ever had a drink first thing in the morning to steady your nerves or get rid of a

 hangover? (Eye opener)

• Have you ever Awakened the morning after some drinking the night before and found that you

 could not remember part of the evening before?

• Have you ever felt that you ought to K/Cut down on your drinking?

A woman receives 2 points on the tolerance question if she reports that she can hold more than five 

drinks without falling asleep or passing out. A positive response to the worry question scores 2 points, 

and a positive response to each of the last three questions scores 1 point each. A total score of 2 or more 

indicates that the woman is a risk drinker and requires further assessment (Russel, 1994). 

The “4Ps” screening instrument was developed to begin a discussion with a pregnant woman about her 

use during pregnancy. (For more information on the 4Ps, contact H. Ewing, Medical Director, Born Free 

Project, Contra Costa County, 111 Allen Street, Martinez, CA 94553.) It asks simple questions about 

alcohol and drug use in the past and among significant others. 
46

The questions are as follows:

• Have you ever used drugs or alcohol during this Pregnancy?

 • Have you had a problem with alcohol or other drugs in the Past?

 • Does your Partner have a problem with tobacco, alcohol, or other drugs?

 • Do you consider one of your Parents to be an alcoholic or addict?

More recently, the 4Ps questions have been adapted for various purposes and projects. For example, 

the Alcohol Screening Assessment in Pregnancy (ASAP) Project in Massachusetts found that adding 

a question regarding smoking rather than “Current Use” alone identified significantly more pregnant 

women who were at-risk for substance use and abuse. Other studies have found that past alcohol and 

tobacco use are excellent predictive factors for substance use during pregnancy and suggest adding 

questions to the 4Ps screening tool specific to tobacco and alcohol use in the month before pregnancy. 

The summary of these and other tools, including information on the tools’ features, strengths, and 

concerns, can be accessed at www.nofas.org/healthcare/screen.aspx.

Screening for Risk to Children of parents With Substance Use Disorders

The SAFERR model holds that workers in child welfare agencies are responsible for screening families 

for substance use disorders and counselors from the alcohol and drug treatment system are responsible 

for exploring whether the adult’s substance use places children at risk. At the time parents come to 

alcohol and drug treatment programs for services, they may not be involved with the child welfare 

system. In many cases, such involvement is not warranted; nonetheless, treatment staff should conduct 

child safety assessments to determine whether parents’ substance use disorders place their children at 

risk. Appendix F includes information about risk and safety assessment tools used by child welfare staff 

that can also be of use to alcohol and drug treatment staff. If children are at risk, referrals should be 

made to child welfare or other appropriate agencies. 

Not all substance use endangers child safety, and some children who live with adults with substance use 

disorders can safely remain at home. For example, assume that in a family comprising two parents and 

their children, the father has a drink before dinner and drinks wine with the meal. He helps with chores 

and interacts with his children until they go to bed. Then, he drinks a pint or more of distilled spirits and 

becomes intoxicated. His wife does not drink or use drugs and is always at home when her husband is 

intoxicated. The husband’s level of drinking is excessive by accepted standards and constitutes “risky 

drinking” by some criteria. In the absence of consequences to children, however, this father does not 

meet formal criteria for alcohol abuse or dependence, even though others who drink less may become 

out of control or display behaviors that do meet abuse or dependence criteria.

Although there are many short tools to screen for substance use disorders, there are fewer tools to help 

alcohol and drug treatment staff screen for potential child maltreatment. In some jurisdictions, the 

alcohol and drug service system has implemented a screen that includes a set of questions similar to the 

following.
47

Questions for treatment counselors to ask to determine whether children are at risk:

 • Where are your children at the times you use alcohol or drugs?

 • Have you ever worried that you would not be able to take care of your children while you were using alcohol or

 drugs?

• Has anyone ever told you that they were worried about how you could take care of your children because of your

 drug or alcohol use?

• Have you ever had trouble getting your children food, clothes, or a place to live, or had a hard time getting your

 kids to school, because you were using?

• Has anyone ever reported you to the child welfare system in the past?

 • Are any other agencies involved with your family because of concerns about your children?

The Colorado Department of Human Services Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division revised its alcohol and 

drug licensing standards to require that programs serving women screen parents for child safety issues.

State of Colorado child safety questions for use by substance abuse treatment providers:

 • How are your children supervised during the day and at night? Who is the main caregiver for you children when 

 you are at home and when you are not at home?

• How do you discipline your children? How do others in your household and/or family discipline them?

• When do your children eat their meals and what are examples of food they often eat?

• Do your children have a medical provider? If so, who is that person and when were they last seen? If your 

 children do not have a medical provider, how do you handle medical situations or emergencies?

• (For parents known to have open child welfare cases): What is the connection between your substance use 

 and your child welfare case?

Treatment counselors should also explore protective factors in place within the family to determine 

whether children are safe. Using the responses to these screening questions and involving family 

members to the extent possible, alcohol and drug treatment and child welfare staff should determine 

whether children can remain safely at home, whether they should be placed in care, and what services 

parents and children require in order to create safe and stable family environments. 

The Role of Dependency Courts and Attorneys in Screening

Families frequently undergo screening for substance use disorders and child maltreatment before they 

become involved in dependency court because only those families with these problems end up before 

the court. When families come before the court, court staff should determine that appropriate screenings 

were conducted. They can make this determination by asking whether an alcohol and drug screen was 

conducted and requiring that they be conducted if they were not. In addition, court staff can require that 

screenings were conducted to determine children’s needs. 
48

Concluding Notes on Screening

As noted previously, this guidebook does not recommend a particular tool to use to screen for substance 

use disorders or child safety because no tool will provide the answer as to what should be done. 

Screening is only as successful as the strength of the relationships among staff and the protocols and 

practices they have developed in using information gleaned from screening tools. If relationships are 

strong and protocols are in place, any tested screening tools will suffice. Subcommittees of the Steering 

Committee should be charged with developing protocols consistent with the themes noted in this section, 

and the Steering Committee as a whole should be responsible for ensuring that jurisdictions employ 

the recommended protocols. The Pathways to Communication Template presented later in this section 

provides guidance to staff in creating communication protocols.

3.3 Assessment: What is the nature of the substance use or child abuse and neglect issue? 

 What is the extent of the substance use or child abuse and neglect issue?

The answers to these two questions are gathered through assessments. Assessment generally begins 

once the screening process has been completed, a child welfare department response has been 

determined, and the family is assigned to a child welfare services worker. Assessment in the child 

welfare system broadly refers to both the prediction of future harm to a child and the 

indepth process of determining the family’s strengths and needs in several areas that affect child and 

family well-being. 

Assessments usually involve collection of detailed information that allows staff to determine whether a 

person does in fact have a given condition or meets diagnostic criteria for a given disorder. Assessment 

should also involve determining appropriate levels of care and creating treatment and case plans. 

Assessments may include identifying levels of functioning and determining potential risks or level of 

risk to children. The assessment process is longer and more detailed than screening, requires added 

expertise and experience, and yields information about children and families that can have more 

profound effects on their experiences in the alcohol and drug service system, the child welfare service 

system, and the dependency court than screening can. (The term “child welfare system” is used in this 

guidebook to include public agencies operated by States, counties, and federally recognized Indian tribes 

as well as nonprofit or for-profit organizations operating under the auspices of those governments.)

Assessment in both alcohol and drug and child welfare systems must be viewed as cumulative processes 

of information gathering that involve weighing information garnered from several sources including 

results from screening tools, reports from other service providers and, most important, information 

provided by family members themselves. During each step of the assessment process workers must 

build upon prior information. The more that treatment and child welfare staff communicate with each 

other systematically, the more complete and beneficial the assessment process will be. As workers gain 

expertise in sharing information with each other, assessments should take less time even as they become 

more effective. Information garnered from assessments should be shared with dependency courts for 

situations in which families are under court jurisdiction so that needed services can be included in courtordered case plans. In addition, dependency courts can aid in obtaining needed information by the court 

ordering assessments if necessary.

The subsections below provide a short discussion of essential elements of substance use and child 

welfare assessment concepts, strategies, and techniques. For alcohol and drug assessments, this 

discussion includes a brief overview of the continuum of alcohol and drug use, the role of motivation 
49

to change in alcohol and drug treatment, and treatment placement criteria. Like the section on presence 

and immediacy, with a few exceptions, the discussion of specific tools is reserved for the appendixes.

These concepts, strategies, and techniques can inform frontline collaborative practice related to 

screening, assessing, engaging, and retaining families in services. It is important, however, that the 

Steering Committee charge relevant subcommittees with exploring these ideas and recommending 

ways to use them. The ideas will work best if used as part of the framework for collaboration presented 

throughout this guidebook. They will work less well if used in isolation from other collaborative 

structures and philosophies.

Assessments on Substance Use Disorders

When people screen positive for potential substance use disorders, the alcohol and drug service 

system moves to diagnosis and multidimensional assessment. (The term “substance abuse disorder 

(SUD)” is used in this guidebook as the more precise terminology indicating diagnostic criteria of the 

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of substance abuse or dependency. The term “alcohol and 

drugs” is used when referring to the broad general sense of substance use.) Diagnosis is the use of 

standardized questions in an interview to differentiate between substance use, abuse, or dependence. 

A multidimensional assessment is a standardized set of questions asked by trained alcohol and drug 

services staff that provides information regarding a person’s functioning, needs, and strengths and that 

leads to a determination of level of care and needed services.

As noted earlier, workers with minimal expertise in substance use disorders can conduct screenings 

for substance use, but diagnosis and assessment require that a trained clinician conduct a detailed 

assessment interview with findings interpreted by a qualified professional.

As noted earlier, substance use screenings are generally conducted by staff outside of the alcohol 

and drug service system. If screening results indicate that an assessment is warranted, a referral for 

assessment should be made to a trained clinician in the alcohol and drug service system. Although some 

staff in child welfare and other service systems may have the expertise to conduct some assessments, it 

is a safer assumption that most do not. The point at which families are referred from one system (in this 

case, the child welfare system) to another system (the alcohol and drug service system) for assessment 

is a critical one in setting the stage for whether families engage and remain in services. If the transition 

across systems is seamless and timely, families are more likely to feel that service plans will be realistic, 

feasible, and targeted to their needs. If the transition is marked by passive paper referrals that are not 

coordinated and that lack followup by either system, families are likely to feel disconnected from their 

service providers and are more likely to fall through the cracks as they attempt to create the linkages 

they expect from their service providers. 

While child welfare workers are not likely to conduct detailed substance use disorder assessments, 

they need to have some knowledge of instruments and procedures used in diagnosing substance use 

disorders and in developing treatment plans. Substance use diagnoses, treatment recommendations, 

and responses to treatment are all critical factors in how child welfare workers monitor improvements 

in family functioning and stability. Such information should assist caseworkers in making 

recommendations concerning next steps in ensuring the welfare of children in the household.
50

Use, abuse, and dependence continuum

Alcohol and drug use occurs along a continuum, and clearly not everyone who uses substances 

abuses or is dependent on them. Levels of use are generally identified as use, abuse, and dependence. 

Although any level of substance use by a parent can present risks for children, this discussion focuses on 

dependence.

The American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th 

Edition (DSM-IV), defines substance abuse as a pattern of substance use that results in at least one 

of four consequences: (1) failure to fulfill role obligations; (2) use placing one in danger (e.g., driving 

under the influence); (3) legal consequences; or (4) interpersonal and social problems. A diagnosis of 

substance dependence means that the pattern of use results in at least three of seven consequences: (1) 

tolerance; (2) withdrawal; (3) unplanned use; (4) persistent desire or failure to reduce use; (5) spending 

a great deal of time using; (6) sacrificing activities to use; or (7) physical and psychological problems 

related to use. 

Biological, genetic, and clinical research findings suggest that substance dependence is chronic and 

differs from abuse. Loss of control of the frequency and/or amount of substance use and continued use 

despite adverse consequences are key differentiating factors between abuse and dependence. 

 Urinalysis testing, the most frequently used marker of alcohol and drug problems in the child welfare 

 and dependency court systems, does not provide sufficient information regarding someone’s place on the 

 spectrum of use, abuse, or dependence.

Appendix E, “Substance Use, Abuse, Dependence Continuum, and Principles of Effective Treatment,” 

includes a detailed list of characteristics of substance use, abuse, and dependence and the risk to children 

for each. It also includes a summary of research-based principles of treatment for substance use 

disorders.

Concepts in diagnostic criteria

Many treatment programs rely on clinical judgments by staff based on interviews rather than on formal 

assessments or protocols in arriving at diagnoses of substance use disorders. Many other programs, 

however, use commercially available instruments or locally developed tools to standardize their 

diagnostic and assessment processes. Diagnostic instruments are written documents that guide clinicians 

in conducting structured interviews that cover all of the DSM-IV dependence and abuse criteria. These 

documents provide a written record of diagnoses reached through the assessment. Interviews using 

diagnostic instruments usually take between 30 to 45 minutes to complete. It is important for staff to be 

familiar with the diagnostic practices used in their State or community and to build on those practices in 

developing protocols.

Stages of Change and the role of motivation

A key factor in assessing people entering alcohol and drug treatment services is ascertaining their 

motivation to change. “Stages of Change” is a well-regarded and widely used approach in understanding 

this motivation. Developed by Prochaska and DiClemente (1982) this model puts forth a process in 
51

which people progress through several steps or stages as they try to change patterns or behaviors that 

have caused problems in their lives. The stages are described in the box and figure below.

Stages of Change

Precontemplation: The idea of change is not on the person’s “radar screen,” and he or she has no plans to change in the 

coming months. The person may not be aware of the need to change.

Contemplation: The person is aware that change is needed, but is “on the fence,” considering or planning to make 

changes in the coming months.

Determination: The person has clearly decided to change and has taken some steps toward change.

Action: The person has made overt and real changes in behavior.

Maintenance: The person has sustained the change over a period of several months and continues to work on sustaining 

changes.

Relapse: The person has started to engage in the previous behavior, although the extent may vary. 

Over a period of time, people progress from one stage to the next, even though they may occasionally 

lapse back to a prior stage. The Stages of Change model holds that these lapses are not necessarily 

failures but are often part of the normal process by which people change. 

As the role of motivation has become more widely understood, instruments have been developed 

that focus specifically on assessing a person’s motivation to change rather than on the severity of the 

substance use disorder. One instrument, the Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale 

(SOCRATES) guides the person through a self-assessment of readiness to change substance use behavior 

(Miller & Tonigan, 1996). This tool includes a series of questions for clinicians to ask, a form for 

scoring responses, a form presenting a profile of the person, and guidelines for interpreting scores based 

on the extent of the person’s recognition, ambivalence, and ability and interest to take steps. Another 

Permanent

Exit

Pre-contemplation

Relapse

Maintenance

Contemplation

Determination

Action

WHEEL OF CHANGE

Six Stages of Change
52

tool, the “Stages of Change Form” developed by PROTOTYPES, a women’s comprehensive treatment 

agency, to assist clients in recognizing their readiness for changing behaviors in several domains, is 

included in Appendix D. This tool uses visual cues to help women determine their readiness to change 

in several areas, including substance use.

Miller and Rollnick (1991) further developed these stages of change into therapeutic techniques based 

on a therapeutic style called “motivational interviewing.” Motivational interviewing is used to help 

people recognize and respond to problems whose resolution involves significant behavioral changes. 

Its intent is to assist people in moving to the next stage of change and in creating permanent changes in 

their lives. With motivational interviewing, responsibility for change is placed on the individual, and the 

therapist uses persuasive language rather than coercive actions or threats. The therapist uses supportive, 

direct, and nonconfrontational approaches that help people identify the choices available to them. 

Stages of Change and Motivational Interviewing are important and useful therapeutic techniques for 

engaging families in services as well as for assessing their service needs. If workers can understand 

where families are in their readiness to change (the stage), they can use motivational interviewing to 

help families identify their own readiness to change and decide what changes they are prepared to make. 

Workers can then use the same techniques to support families in making and sustaining the changes they 

identified.

The final step in assessing for substance use disorders involves making a decision regarding appropriate 

treatment. The American Society of Addiction Medicine’s Patient Placement Criteria—2nd Edition 

Revised (ASAM PPC-2R) provides the most widely used structure and criteria for treatment placement 

and planning.

 ASAM PPC-2R criteria to determine treatment needs and the environment required for treatment:

 • Intoxication/withdrawal;

 • Medical conditions;

 • Mental health conditions;

 • Stage of change/motivation;

 • Recovery/relapse risks; and

 • The recovery environment.

Assessing these dimensions leads the clinician to make a recommendation regarding the amount of 

structure that may be needed to support the individual’s recovery.

The ASAM PPC-2R guides staff in determining the level of care that best meets a person’s immediate 

need. Levels of care are described as “outpatient, intensive outpatient/partial hospitalization, residential/

inpatient, medically managed intensive inpatient, and opioid maintenance therapy.” Ideally, people 

should be matched to level of care that is appropriate for their pattern of substance use, but in reality, 

this is not always the case. Impediments to ideal matches include reimbursement considerations, 

availability of appropriate care in proximity to the client, or mandated care or length of stay (for 

example, mandated by a judge) that is inconsistent with the placement decision indicated by ASAM 

criteria. These problems may be exacerbated by the scarcity of gender-specific or culturally appropriate 

treatment programs in some communities. Finally, people who need a particular level of treatment may, 
53

for a variety of reasons, decline or refuse that level. For example, women may refuse to enter residential 

treatment if such treatment means their children will be placed in foster care, or parents may disagree 

with child welfare or treatment staff and believe their substance use disorder does not require the level of 

treatment recommended. 

The ASAM PPC-2R dimensions overlap with sections of the Addiction Severity Index (ASI), but with 

a separate focus. The ASI is a program evaluation instrument widely used in evaluating addiction 

treatment programs and is probably one of the most often cited tools in clinical research related to 

the treatment of alcohol and dependence. For proper use, the ASI requires indepth training and is not 

used as a method for diagnosing substance use disorders or for making decisions regarding treatment 

placement. It is used to gather information and guide treatment planning about seven areas of a 

person’s life: medical, employment, drug or alcohol use, legal status, family history, family and social 

relationships, and psychiatric status.

The discussion of assessments for substance use disorders is summarized in the box below.

Purpose of Activity Example of Tool What Activity & Tool Indicate

Diagnosis DSM-IV Use, abuse, or dependence

Motivation SOCRATES Stages of change and readiness

Level of Care ASAM PPC-2R Treatment program structure

Severity Assessment ASI Areas of life affected

Assessments on Child Maltreatment

As noted earlier in this section, child welfare workers conduct safety and risk assessments to 

determine whether children are in imminent danger and to make arrangements to ensure their safety, if 

necessary. Child welfare assessments other than initial safety assessments begin after screenings for 

child maltreatment have been completed and determined to warrant further action, and after the case 

is assigned to a child welfare investigator or caseworker. In practice, assessments for safety and risk 

factors may be occurring simultaneously. Therefore, assessments in the child welfare system broadly 

refer to the prediction of future harm to a child and to the process of determining the family’s level of 

function in several domains that affect child and family well-being. 

These assessments fall generally into two categories: risk assessments and family assessments. 

The process of assessment is an important first step in engaging families in treatment. Discussions 

emerging from assessments can help families understand why they need treatment, what treatment 

options are available to them, and why a particular treatment provider is recommended. It is especially 

important, at these early stages in working with families, that child welfare and substance abuse 

treatment staff work closely together in ensuring that the transition from one system or service to another 

is well coordinated and clear and comfortable to families.

Risk assessments

In-Person Risk Assessments involve interviews to determine the level of risk to the children and whether 

services will be voluntary or court involved. 
54

Determining risk to children involves assessing the status and condition of the children and the nature 

and extent of the parents’ substance use disorder. Child welfare and alcohol and drug treatment staff 

alike should understand the impact of substance use disorders on all family members. They have to 

distinguish between substance use, abuse, or dependence for adults or adolescents. For other family 

members, the assessment must gauge the effects on children and suggest the best service response. 

Determining the effect of family substance use disorders on child safety and risk is only one part of 

the comprehensive risk and safety assessments that child welfare caseworkers complete. Although 

SAFERR focuses on substance use aspects of child maltreatment and speaks to the urgency with which 

substance use disorders need to be addressed, it also recognizes the importance of other factors that 

affect child safety. 

The Casey Decision-Making Guidelines, developed by the American Humane Association, provide 

guidance to staff by suggesting specific, tangible standards that child welfare and alcohol and drug 

treatment staff can use in assessing the nature and extent of substance use disorders in parents and how 

those disorders affect child risk. The Guidelines conclude, “The issue for child welfare is how the 

substance abuse results in problems in appropriately caring for the child (Field & Winterfield, 2003).” 

The Casey Decision-Making Guidelines specify that in making child risk assessments, workers need to 

assess both the child and the addiction. Therefore, the Guidelines include seven indicators of substance 

use disorders among caregivers and six sets of risk factors to be included in assessing risk associated 

with alcohol and/or drugs, noting “Professional substance abuse screening is preferred if available” 

(Field & Winterfield, 2003).

Casey Decision-Making Guidelines:

 Seven Indicators of Substance Use Disorders Among Caregivers:

• Was the child born with a positive drug toxicology screen?

• Was the child left without adequate supervision?

• Does the child arrive tardy or miss school frequently without apparent good reason?

• Does the child miss well-child medical appointments and frequently appear unkempt when he or she shows up at

 appointments?

• Are the child’s basic needs for food, shelter, and hygiene not met?

• Is there a pattern of neglect where the child does not receive adequate food, medical care, or supervision?

• Was the child abused while an adult caregiver was under the influence of alcohol or drugs? 

 Six Risk Factors for Substance Use Disorders Among Caregivers:

• Caregiver history

• Caregiver characteristics

• Environmental pressures

• Awareness of impact of substance abuse on child

• Parenting skills and responsiveness to child

• Family Support systems
55

One of the few recent efforts to link specific substance use disorder-related factors to child maltreatment 

was conducted in Chicago. Fuller and Wells (2003) analyzed an Illinois database of child maltreatment 

files to determine what risk factors recorded in the database (and the accompanying case files) were 

linked with recurrence of maltreatment—a second report within 60 days of the initial maltreatment 

report. Among the factors that they found related to short-term maltreatment recurrence were—

 • The safety assessment item about caretaker alcohol and other drug use checked ‘yes’;

 • A high risk assessment rating for caretaker criminal behavior; and

 • No police involvement during the investigation.

The researchers suggest that this observation for single, African-American women may be due to the 

fact that pregnant African-American women and those of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to 

be reported to child protective services than are Caucasian women.

The Risk Inventory for Substance Abuse-Affected Families is a tool that has been the subject of 

some research publications. This risk inventory explores the effects of substance use disorders on 

risks for child maltreatment and family functioning (Children’s Friend and Service, 1994; Lester, 

Andreozzi, & Appiah, 2004). It consists of eight scales (sets of questions) rated on a four- to fivepoint continuum, and has descriptions of the kinds of situations a child welfare worker might find for 

each point on the continuum for each scale. In addition to scales addressing substance use disorders 

and recovery, commitment to recovery, patterns of use, and supports for recovery, scales also cover 

effects of substance use on child caring, general lifestyle, self-efficacy, and self-care. The quality of the 

neighborhood is also rated. 

Structured Decision Making (SDM) is a child welfare system case management model that features 

several risk and needs assessment instruments. The risk assessments focus on the probability of future 

maltreatment, and they use separate scales for neglect and abuse because different ethnic groups appear 

to manifest different patterns of maltreatment (Baird, Ereth, & Wagner, 1999). Data from a number of 

States indicate that the application of these risk scales can identify subgroups of families that vary in 

the probability of future maltreatment from under 4 percent to more than 47 percent over an 18-month 

period. 

Appendix F provides more information about these and other risk assessment instruments.

Family assessments

A Family Assessment examines family strengths and needs in order to determine which areas of family 

functioning require interventions in order for children to have permanent and safe living environments. 

Family assessments require participation of parents, children, caregivers, alcohol and drug counselors, 

and others working in collaboration with the child welfare worker. Through family assessments, the 

child welfare services worker, family members, and others work to identify the family’s needs, strengths, 

and resources. Family assessment is a critical component in helping families enhance their parenting 

abilities and in ensuring child safety and well-being (from testimony submitted to the Senate Finance 

Subcommittee on Social Security and Family Policy for the Hearing on Issues in Temporary Assistance 

for Needy Families [TANF] Reauthorization: Helping Hard-To Employ Families, April 25, 2002). 

One model of family assessment is the Family or Group Conference Model (FGC). This assessment 

consists of two parts and is based on a trust-building approach. In the first part, information is gathered 
56

by professionals through use of various assessment instruments and through direct observation of 

family functions. In the second part, a family meeting is called, which may include extended family 

members and relatives. The information collected is presented to participants in the form of strengths 

and limitation. Using this information to bolster the fabric of the family, members are able to make 

informed decisions about how the family members will be assisted, protected, and strengthened. In 

recent years, FGC models have received a good deal of attention in the victim-offender mediation and 

restorative justice movements in North America (Umbreit, 2000). Although this model may be growing 

as a common service, there is variability in how it is applied.

Another model for standardizing family assessments and developing case plans is the Family 

Assessment Form (FAF). The FAF, designed to assist in-home workers in determining what intervention 

is needed (McCroskey, Nishimoto, & Subramanian, 1991), measures risk variables by the Family Risk 

Scales and “emphasizes parental characteristics and family conditions that are believed to be predictors 

or precursors of child maltreatment or other harm to children” (Magura, Moses, & Jones, 1987). It also 

incorporates six Child Well-Being Scales, which are believed to be most useful for risk assessment.

The Role of Dependency Courts and Attorneys in Assessment

When families and agencies appear before the court, judges or magistrates should ensure that 

appropriate assessments were conducted and that the court has information regarding assessment 

results and diagnoses. Attorneys for parents play a key role in advocating for timely assessments and in 

encouraging their clients to participate in the assessment process. Court staff, including attorneys, should 

be available to meet with staff and family members to discuss assessment results and their implications 

for services. 

Considerations for Use by Child Welfare, Alcohol and Drug Treatment, and Court Systems

Although it is logical to assume that substance use disorders increase the risk of child maltreatment, 

these disorders do not automatically equal risk and the risks they imply are not the same for all families. 

Substance use disorders need to be viewed in the context of other potential risk factors as well as specific 

behaviors, histories, and other evidence of how the substance use disorder affects the ability of parents 

to care for their children or poses specific risks for maltreatment. The presence of family members with 

substance use disorders increases the probability of risk to children, but the nature or level of risk that 

exists in a given case is more difficult to determine. More important, decisions about the nature or level 

of risk should be shared between child welfare and alcohol and drug treatment staff, and also by court 

staff if appropriate.

Risk to children is likely to be greater if the adult with the substance use disorder is also the primary 

caregiver for the children. Behaviors associated with substance use, however, vary significantly among 

different people, so staff have to examine each family situation individually. Questions to explore 

include these: Is the individual intoxicated or otherwise incapacitated while being the sole caretaker of 

children? Is the individual violent or hostile as a result of the use or addiction? Is there a history of the 

individual doing things that place children in potential danger or of having harmed a child? 
57

3.4 Treatment and Family Case Plans: What is the response to the substance use or child 

 abuse and neglect issue? Are there demonstrable changes? Is the family ready for 

 transition? What happens after discharge?

Developing Treatment and Family Case Plans

While collaboration between the alcohol and drug, child welfare and dependency court systems is 

crucial in answering questions regarding whether there is a substance use or child maltreatment issue 

and the nature and extent of the issue, these relationships may be even more critical in addressing 

questions ensuring that case plans are comprehensive and coordinated, that they lead to desired 

outcomes, and that progress can be monitored. To the extent that collaborative structures and protocols 

have been established as part of addressing the prior questions covered in this section, those structures 

and protocols set the stage for continued collaborative efforts in developing and monitoring responses. 

To be useful, treatment and case plans must include information required to satisfy the goals and 

mandates of each system, but they cannot be simply a compilation of separate pieces of information as 

determined individually by each system. Ideally, individual system goals, mandates, and services should 

be woven into a single and comprehensive statement of services that is clear to families and service 

providers alike. If unified case plans are infeasible, it is especially important that plans be developed in 

a coordinated manner that gives clear and consistent guidance and directions to families. The Steering 

Committee can be useful in directing that jurisdictions work toward developing unified case plans, in 

supporting their efforts toward that goal, and in overseeing the results.

Family members should be actively engaged in creating their plans. Families often have resources in 

the form of relatives, friends, churches, or other support networks that can participate in creating plans 

and in ensuring that families are able to comply with their plans. Families should be welcomed as full 

participants in multidisciplinary team meetings during which decisions about case plans will be made. 

Factors of importance to treatment plans include treatment goals appropriate to the individual’s history 

of substance use, drug testing requirements, and requirements for attending group and individual 

treatment sessions and, when appropriate, self-help support groups. Factors of importance to child 

welfare case plans include the permanency goal for the child, services to be provided to the family 

as part of helping parents retain or regain custody, and details regarding parent and child contact and 

visitation schedules. Dependency court orders typically incorporate the information provided by the 

child welfare services agency, turning the child welfare case plan into a court order that complies with 

ASFA requirements.

Alcohol and drug treatment plans

Alcohol and drug treatment plans should include information about a family’s experiences and current 

status with child welfare. The fact that a parent’s substance use disorder has resulted in family 

involvement with child welfare and possibly dependency court systems creates both incentives for 

parents to succeed in treatment and pressures regarding consequences if they do not. Treatment plans 

that reflect child welfare and ASFA timetables are important in helping parents demonstrate progress 

when they appear in court for their case reviews. If alcohol and drug, child welfare, and court staff are 

working together effectively in developing and monitoring treatment and case plans and court orders, 

they will be able to make informed decisions regarding child safety, permanency, and family well-being.
58

Alcohol and drug treatment plans should be based on results of prior screenings, assessments, and 

diagnoses. They should draw from child welfare safety and risk assessments and results of assessments 

conducted by staff from other agencies, if relevant. Treatment plans should contain the following 

information:

• Problems to be addressed (substance use, family relationships, medical care, and educational and

 employment needs);

• Goals of the treatment process (e.g., abstinence from the use of alcohol or drugs and improved 

 parenting skills);

• Objectives and strategies to reach the treatment goals (e.g., develop social network with

 individuals who do not use substances and successfully complete parenting classes);

• Resources to be applied—treatment programs, funding, and other services;

• People responsible for actions such as making referrals, attending treatment sessions, and

 preparing followup reports;

• Timeframe within which certain activities should occur; and,

• Expected benefits for the individual participating in the treatment experience.

Child welfare case plans

Similarly, child welfare service system case plans should be based on results of prior screenings and 

risk and family assessments. They should draw from treatment assessment results, treatment plans, and 

results of assessments conducted by staff from other agencies if relevant. Child welfare caseworkers 

should work with family members and alcohol and drug treatment and other service providers to develop 

a case plan that sets forth agreed-upon activities and strategies to reduce or eliminate the behaviors and 

conditions contributing to the risk of maltreatment. 

As suggested in the discussion on screening, families should be asked whether they are or are eligible 

to be members of American Indian Tribes. If a child is determined to be an American Indian, the child 

welfare service agency must ensure that it is in compliance with ICWA. Notice of child welfare service 

action should be sent immediately to the tribe, and tribal staff should be included in the development of 

the case plan.

The ASFA requirements are already built into the child welfare case plans developed with parents and 

represent conditions that parents must meet in order to have their children returned. There must be a 

case plan that places the child in the least restrictive (most familylike) environment available, in close 

proximity to the parents’ home, and consistent with the best interests of the child. ASFA requires that the 

child welfare service system provide a program of services that represent “reasonable efforts” to prevent 

the out-of-home placement of a child or to promote the return of a child to the home as soon as possible. 

In situations governed by the Indian Child Welfare Act, however, there must be “active efforts” rather 

than “reasonable efforts” to prevent out-of-home placement if the child has not yet been removed from 

the home or to return the child to the home as soon as possible if the child has been placed in protective 

custody. 

Child welfare service plans typically include the following:

 • Required activities and objectives;

• Services for adults and children;
59

• Drug testing requirements;

• Visitation plans. Based on the parent’s progress, visitation may range from no contact to

 monitored or unmonitored telephone calls, short supervised or unsupervised contacts,

 unsupervised long visits, or overnight visits;

 • Safety plans that include identification of safety risks, strategies to decrease or eliminate risks,

 informal and formal safety responses, and steps that family members, providers, and others will

 take to ensure that children are safe;

• Permanency plans that state the permanency goal and specify steps to achieve the goal within

 ASFA timelines;

• Requirements such as successful completion of parenting classes, abstaining from substance use,

 and providing a safe home environment for reunification in cases when children have been

 removed; and

• Concurrent planning activities and objectives as applicable (Goldman, Salus, Wolcott, & Kennedy,

 2003)

In developing and monitoring treatment and case plans, alcohol and drug treatment, child welfare, and 

court staff should share information regarding—

 • Treatment and case plan activities and objectives;

 • Family service interventions;

 • Treatment requirements—including type of treatment recommended and number of required

 sessions;

• Required drug testing;

 • Safety plans;

 • Visitation plans;

 • Requirements for reunification; and

 • Permanency plan.

Demonstrable Changes and Their Monitoring

The questions of whether there are demonstrable changes and whether changes are sufficient to warrant 

family reunification or closing the case can be answered only if all staff work closely with families to 

monitor their progress and adjust plans as needed, and if there is effective communication between the 

alcohol and drug, child welfare, and court systems.

Treatment does not equal recovery 

Treatment is an important element of recovery, but recovery involves more than obtaining sobriety. 

Moreover, abstinence from substances on its own is insufficient to support recovery or ensure child 

safety. Recovery involves a series of changes in thinking and behavior and the ability to maintain 

those changes over time. Traditional residential, intensive outpatient, and outpatient alcohol and drug 

treatment programs are time limited, but recovery from alcohol and drug abuse is a lifelong process. 

This tension between the reality of treatment models and the process of recovery poses a challenge for 

staff in determining whether treatment has been successful. An individual who has been successful in 

recovery may have participated in several treatment episodes before achieving that success.
60

In monitoring progress to determine whether there are demonstrable changes, alcohol and drug treatment 

staff distinguish between resolving acute problems and establishing recovery plans for a chronic 

condition. Acute crises or situational problems such as injury, divorce, or grief over losing a family 

member tend to resolve with time. However, for chronic conditions such as diabetes, bipolar disorder, 

or substance dependence, outcome expectations are better framed in the context of suitable plans to 

sustain stable functioning. Diabetics develop plans to check their blood sugar levels regularly, establish 

diet regimens, and go for periodic medical checkups. People suffering from bipolar disorders have to 

adhere strictly to medication protocols and receive periodic medical checkups. Counseling that includes 

attention to proper management of the illness, including ways to detect indications of mood swings and 

to develop strategies for dealing with them is also very important. Substance use recovery plans include 

strategies for dealing with cravings or temptations to use, creating and maintaining healthy support 

networks, and developing a list of people to contact at times of concern. 

Markers that can be used to determine whether someone has made demonstrable change in substance use 

include decreased frequency of drug use, followed by short periods of abstinence and relapse, followed 

by prolonged periods of abstinence with fewer episodic relapses (Goldman et al., 2003). Achieving a 

period of abstinence from substance use requires making a cognitive and behavioral commitment to 

change one’s lifestyle and stop using drugs. In the absence of these changes, cessation of drug use for 

a brief period (e.g., because of a lack of availability of the drug or a brief period of incarceration) does 

not constitute progress toward abstinence. Many treatment providers and the 12 Step fellowships (e.g., 

Alcoholics Anonymous [AA]) recognize a period of 1 month without drug use as the first significant 

measure of progress toward achieving abstinence. However, studies of treatment outcomes report that 

active participation in treatment for more than 90 days is associated with better long-term outcomes. 

Relapse is not the same as treatment failure 

Relapse may be an indication that the treatment plan is not adequately addressing important issues, 

and it may present a therapeutic opportunity for people to learn that controlled use of substances is 

not possible for those who are addicted (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 

1999). Reaching agreement on the consequences of relapse poses challenges for staff that work in 

different systems. People who work in the alcohol and drug service system generally view relapse as a 

component of the recovery process and an opportunity to intervene, but relapse to substance use makes it 

extremely difficult for child welfare staff, dependency court judges, and attorneys to determine whether 

the person is making appropriate progress in treatment (DHHS, 1999). Even if progress is recognized, 

accurately determining whether progress is sufficient to ensure the child’s safety may remain hard. 

Relapse can happen at any time in the recovery process, but families involved with child welfare may 

be more at risk at certain points during their involvement. These critical points include before court 

hearings, after visitations with their children, shortly before regaining custody of their children, and 

shortly before exiting from the child welfare system. As noted in Section II, lapses differ from relapses. 

Alcohol and drug services staff can help parents understand this difference, accept the fact that their 

lapse or relapse does not mean they have failed, and can help them reengage in treatment as soon as 

possible. Child welfare workers, in concert with alcohol and drug treatment counselors, can assist 

parents in using lapse or relapse episodes to learn what factors trigger their cravings to use substances. 

Child welfare workers can also help parents anticipate the possibility of lapses or relapses by creating 

safety plans for their children. For example, if a mother begins to seek out situations involving 

substance users (a warning sign for relapse), is she able to make arrangements for her children so that 

they will be safe and secure if she does in fact relapse? Parents who learn their triggers can become 
61

empowered to plan for the safety of their children and seek healthy ways to neutralize or mitigate 

triggers. One component in facilitating recovery is to develop a relapse prevention plan and strategies.

Monitoring progress to determine whether changes are taking place should be systematic, based on 

negotiated protocols for interagency communications as presented in the Pathways to Communication 

Template presented earlier in this section. Joint monitoring of progress can be as basic as obtaining 

a discharge summary or report from a treatment program, or as formal as monitoring through formal 

assessments designed to document family situations at repeated points in time.

Monitoring: Case Examples

The Monterey County Department of Social Services, Division of Family and Children Service (FCS), and Health 

Department, Division of Behavioral Health (BH), have established policies and procedures that include “Hot Sheets” for use 

by treatment counselors to notify FCS and BH staff if a person is out of compliance with treatment requirements. In the 

event of a positive drug test, a no-show, intoxication, or other incident of noncompliance, the treatment provider calls the 

FCS social worker and BH staff person, and follows the call with a faxed “Hot Sheet” that outlines the problem and offers 

a recommended solution. The FCS social worker, BH staff, or treatment provider may then generate a case consultation 

to determine the appropriate course of action, which could include relapse intervention, a home visit, a health and welfare 

check, removal of the children, or other agreed-upon response.

Sacramento County requires, through a court order, that alcohol and drug treatment staff share information about 

treatment progress with child welfare workers twice per month. The information to be shared has been approved by 

attorney groups, county agencies, and provider organizations and includes overall assessment of compliance with recovery 

plan court orders; alcohol and drug tests requested, completed, or pending; treatment attendance and participation; 

contacts with a recovery manager; and attendance at 12 Step meetings or another appropriate support group if the 

individual does not adhere to the principles of the 12 Step program.

The role of drug testing

Drug testing as part of an ongoing assessment of a treatment participant’s progress is 

often a component of treatment and can be used as a deterrent to relapse (DHHS, 1999). However, 

drug tests have limitations and should be approached with caution. Drug testing may not be an 

accurate method of determining current or recent drug use. Some drugs are quickly metabolized in the 

body; therefore, abstinence cannot be reliably measured solely by blood or urine drug tests, or with a 

breathalyzer, unless the individual is confined in a tightly controlled setting and is tested daily at random 

intervals (D’Aunno & Chisum, 1998). Even if available, the utility of such measurements may be 

limited, because they tell very little about the person’s ability to maintain abstinence outside of a highly 

structured setting and under the daily pressures facing most families involved with the child welfare and 

dependency court systems.

Although treatment researchers have established the reliability and validity of self-reports of drug use to 

impartial researchers (where there is no negative consequence for truthfulness), self-report of abstinence 

to one’s child welfare caseworker is apt to be far less reliable. Therefore, the probability that someone 

is not using substances is best evaluated by a combination of random drug tests, self-reports, and 

observations by treatment providers and child welfare workers of behavioral indicators such as positive 

changes in hygiene and grooming, improved functioning in daily life (in the absence of underlying 
62

untreated psychological or psychiatric disorder), and improved consistency in complying with drug 

treatment and child welfare case plan requirements. 

When used in the context of treatment, results of alcohol or drug tests can help treatment providers 

adjust treatment plans, change the type of treatment offered, or work with families to help them 

acknowledge and start to address substance use problems. These are therapeutic uses of drug tests, and 

qualified treatment counselors should make decisions regarding their use.

Monitoring change is an ongoing component of child welfare work, beginning as soon as the plan is 

implemented and continuing throughout the time the family is involved with child welfare. Evaluating 

whether risk behaviors and conditions have changed drives decisions regarding service needs and 

adjustments, recommendations to courts, and ultimately, whether children remain with their parents. 

Formal reviews regarding the status of each child in foster care are required no longer than and 

preferably sooner than once every 6 months. In some States, these reviews are conducted by child 

welfare staff and are presented to the court only if circumstances warrant. In most States, the reviews 

are conducted by the court. 

 Status reviews for children in foster care generally cover—

 • The safety of the child;

 • The continuing necessity for placement; 

 • The extent to which the parents have complied with the case plan; 

 • Progress toward alleviating the circumstances that required placement; and,

 • Projected likely date by which the child may be returned.

The report A Coordinated Response to Child Abuse and Neglect: The Foundation for Practice, issued by 

the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information (now known as the Child Welfare 

Information Gateway), notes that using case plan reviews to evaluate family progress helps answer the 

following questions: 

• Is the child safe? Have the protective factors, strengths, or the safety factors changed, warranting a

 change or elimination of the safety plan or the development of a safety plan?

• What changes, if any, have occurred with respect to the conditions and behaviors contributing to

 the risk of maltreatment?

• What outcomes have been accomplished, and how does the caseworker know that they have been

 accomplished?

• What progress has been made toward achieving case goals?

 • Have the services been effective in helping clients achieve outcomes and goals and, if not, what

 adjustments need to be made to improve outcomes?

• What is the current level of risk in the family?

 • Have the risk factors been reduced sufficiently so that parents or caregivers can protect their

 children and meet their developmental needs so that the case can be closed?
63

• Has it been determined that reunification is not likely in the ASFA-required timeframes and that

 there is no significant progress toward outcomes? If so, is an alternative permanent plan goal

 needed (D’Aunno & Chisum, 1998)?

The Role of the Dependency Courts and Attorneys in Determining Demonstrable Change

While not all families involved with child welfare are also involved with court, when courts are 

involved, judges and attorneys actively participate in monitoring how families are progressing in their 

case plans and whether agencies are complying with ASFA requirements. For judges to issue rulings 

and modifications to court orders, it is crucial that the court be given comprehensive information 

specifying the basis on which child welfare recommendations are made. This information is particularly 

important in situations when parents are participating in alcohol and drug treatment. The 6-month 

review hearings present opportunities for the attorney for the parents to provide information regarding 

progress and for attorneys, CASA volunteers, or guardians ad litem (attorney advocates) for the child to 

provide important perspectives as well. 

Readiness of the Family for Transition, Discharge, and Case Closure

When a parent has demonstrated progress in meeting treatment objectives, alcohol and drug counselors 

must make a determination about whether the parent is ready to make a transition out of formal 

treatment. This determination involves developing the person’s ongoing recovery plan. 

Continuing care, or aftercare, services are essential to sustaining treatment success, child safety, and 

family well-being because they give the family an opportunity to anchor new behaviors and practice 

drug-free living and relapse prevention techniques. Without such services and community supports, 

relapse rates can be high, even if people have achieved long periods of sobriety while in treatment. 

Continuing care includes clinical treatment and community support that address needs identified in the 

relapse prevention plan, and that create a supportive net around the individual and family to encourage 

recovery. For families in the child welfare system, continuing services should provide help to parents in 

recovery who may be under new stress related to having their children returned home. Other supports 

that are frequently needed include housing, job training, or educational services.

Trusting relationships formed among treatment participants, their peers, and their counselors continue to 

provide support even after people have completed formal treatment (DHHS, 1999). Leaving treatment 

can be stressful, even when treatment has been successful. Alcohol and drug services staff are typically 

aware this is a critical time, prone to recurrence of problems or resistance to ending treatment (DHHS, 

1999). Staff should help people as they end treatment by reviewing their relapse prevention strategies 

and by conducting risk assessments if concerns about child safety emerge (DHHS, 1999). In addition, 

alcohol and drug services staff should help people leaving treatment identify the issues that are 

worrying them and help them locate and use resources to deal with the stress (DHHS, 1999). Ongoing 

participation in self-help groups such as AA, mentioned previously, and Narcotics Anonymous (NA), is 

important in most people’s recovery.

Families should know how to get in touch with workers even after they have been formally discharged. 

Even though formal treatment may have ended, alcohol and drug service and child welfare workers 

continue to have responsibilities to help families in their recovery processes and in the prevention of 

future returns to substance use or child maltreatment. These responsibilities include reengaging the 

family if relapses occur and working with the family on developing strategies to prevent future relapses. 

Thus, in transition planning, it is important for all staff to ask, “What happens after discharge or case 
64

closure?” Staff and family members should work together to establish a system of support for families 

and a process by which families can both assess their own progress over time and receive assessments 

from professional counselors as needed. 

As noted earlier, when a child has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, the State must 

file a petition to terminate parental rights unless a relative is caring for the child, there is a compelling 

reason that termination is not in the best interests of the child, or the State has not provided the needed 

services within the required deadlines. 

When appropriate treatment services are not available to a parent within the timeframes of ASFA, the 

third reason may provide a justification for extending family reunification efforts. In these cases, it is 

essential that staff from all three systems communicate to determine whether an extension is appropriate. 

3.5 Did the Interventions Work?

This is the last of the questions guiding staff from child welfare, alcohol and drug, and court systems. In 

determining whether interventions work, the Steering Committee must evaluate both whether families 

have improved and whether the collaborative is effective. 

The question regarding whether interventions work is answered in the alcohol and drug service system 

by examining changes in life functioning and consequences of substance-use after treatment. The 

question is answered in the child welfare system by examining recurrences of maltreatment and reentries 

into the system. Each of these individual measures is important, but it is equally important for the 

collaborative, through the Steering Committee, to develop shared outcome measures that are routinely 

monitored to determine whether their collaborative work has had a positive effect on families. Without 

agreement on accountability and outcomes, the agencies will likely measure progress using different 

measures of effectiveness.

These common outcomes can hold the collaborative group together and can provide justification to 

policymakers to continue supporting these efforts. Common outcomes might focus on efficiencies in 

the systems, such as timeliness of entry into treatment, timeliness of reunification, or timeliness of case 

closures. 

To evaluate benefits to families, the Steering Committee is responsible for establishing common 

outcome measures, creating mechanisms for gathering data to track common outcomes, and reviewing 

reports of common measures to assess where the collaborative endeavors are successful and where they 

need more attention. Data from reports of common outcome measures should be used by all systems to 

modify policies and protocols that make it difficult for staff to work together. 

To evaluate whether the collaborative has been effective, members of the Steering Committee 

must continually take an honest look at how well the collaborative is working and must monitor its 

progress in meeting the goals specified in the plan of action. Appendix A provides tools such as the 

Collaborative Capacity Instrument and the Collaborative Values Inventory that the Steering Committee 

can use to assess its internal processes and identify issues on which there is consensus and issues on 

which consensus is lacking. While it is important to monitor process, it is also important to monitor 

completion of work. Regular review of progress toward completing activities outlined in the plan 

of action is essential to keeping the group on task, adjusting deliverables and providing feedback to 

Subcommittees and local jurisdictions. Appendix A presents a template for a progress report that can be 

used by the Steering Committee or the Subcommittee.
65

References

Alcohol Screening Assessment in Pregnancy (ASAP) Project. Massachusetts Department of 

 Public Health. Retrieved February 24, 2006, from http://www.healthrecovery.org/proj/ 

 Perinatal%20Screening/ASAP%20I%20Project/ASAP%20Project.html

Arendt, R. E., Singer, L. T., Minnes, S., & Salvator, A. (1999). Accuracy in detecting prenatal 

 drug exposure. Journal of Drug Issues, 29(2), 203–214.

Baird, C., Ereth, J., & Wagner, D. (1999). Research-based risk assessment: Adding equity to 

 CPS decision making. Madison, WI: Children’s Research Center.

Cherpitel, C. J. (2002). Screening for alcohol problems in the U.S. general population: 

 Comparison of the CAGE, RAPS4, and RAPS4-QF by gender, ethnicity, and service utilization. 

Alcohol Clinical and Experimental Research, 26, 1686–1691. As cited in Centers for Disease Control

 and Prevention. (2005). Guidelines for identifying and referring persons with fetal alcohol syndrome.

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 54(No. RR-11). Retrieved March 13, 2006, 

 from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5411.pdf

Chasnoff, I., Neuman, K., Thornton, C., & Callaghan, M. (2001, March). Screening for substance use

 in pregnancy: A practical approach for the primary care physician. American Journal of Obstetrics

 and Gynecology, 184(4), 752–758.

Children and Family Futures. (1999). Summary of five national reports on substance abuse and 

 child welfare. Accessed at http://www.ncsacw.samhsa.gov/files/Summary5NationaReports.pdf

Children’s Friend and Service. (1994). Risk inventory for substance abuse-affected families. 

 Providence, RI: Author.

D’Aunno, L., & Chisum, G. (1998). Indicators for progress in the substance abuse recovery process. 

 Chicago: Illinois Department of Children and Family Services Office of the Inspector General.

Day, P., Robison, S., & Sheikh, L. (1998). Ours to keep: A guide for building a community assessment 

 strategy for child protection. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.

Field, T., & Winterfield. (2003). Tough problems, tough choices: Guidelines for needs-based service 

 planning in child welfare (p. 3). Denver, CO: American Humane Association.

Fuller, T., & Wells, S. (2003). Predicting maltreatment recurrence among cps cases with alcohol and 

other drug involvement. Children and Youth Services Review, 25(7), 553–569.

Goldman, J., Salus, M. K., Wolcott, D., & Kennedy, K. (2003). A coordinated response to child 

 abuse and neglect: The foundation for practice. National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect

 Information (now known as the Child Welfare Information Gateway [http://ww.childwelfare.gov]). 

 Accessed at http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov

Lester, B. M., Andreozzi, L., & Appiah, L. (2004). Substance use during pregnancy: Time for policy 

 to catch up with research. Harm Reduction Journal, 1(5), 1477. 
66

Magura S., Moses, B. S., & Jones, M. A. (1987). Assessing risk and measuring change in families. 

 Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.

McCroskey, J., Nishimoto, R., & Subramanian, K. (1991). Assessment in family support programs: 

 Initial reliability and validity testing of the Family Assessment Form. Child Welfare, 70(1), 19–33.

Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (1991). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people to change addictive 

 behavior. New York: The Guilford Press.

Miller, W. R., & Tonigan, J. S. (1996). Assessing drinkers’ motivation for change: The stages of change 

 Readiness And Treatment Eagerness Scale (SOCRATES). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 10(2),

 81–89. 

Morse, B., Gehshan, S., Hutchins, E. (1997). Screening for substance abuse during pregnancy:

 Improving care, improving health. Arlington, VA: National Center for Education in Maternal and

 Child Health.

National Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. (2004). Screening patients for alcohol use. 

 Retrieved March 13, 2006, from http://www.nofas.org/healthcare/screen.aspx

Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1982). Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a more integrative 

 model of change. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19, 275–288.

Russel, M. (1994). New assessment tools for risk drinking during pregnancy. Alcohol Health and

 Research World, 18(1), 55–61.

Sokol, R. J., Martier, S. S., & Ager, J. W. (1989). The T-ACE questions: Practical prenatal detection of

 risk drinking. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 160, 863–871. 

Umbreit, M. S. (2000, April). Family group conferencing for crime victims. St. Paul, MN: 

 University of Minnesota, School of Social Work, Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Blending perspectives and building common

 ground: A report to Congress on substance abuse and child protection. Washington, DC: U.S.

 Government Printing Office.
APPENDIXES

A-1

Appendix A

Facilitator’s Guide

A-3

Facilitator’s Guide

As noted in the Introduction of this guidebook and of no surprise to anyone working in child welfare, 

alcohol and drug treatment, and dependency court systems, collaboration is not easy. Even when people 

sincerely want to collaborate, it is hard to share authority and accountability with people who come 

from different backgrounds, have different values, and work for different systems from our own. The 

previous sections of this guidebook recommend activities and approaches that may be quite different 

from those currently in use. Reading about and even endorsing these strategies will not make them 

happen. Creating change takes dedication, commitment, support, and perseverance.

This section provides suggestions, tools, and templates to help staff create, govern, and work within a 

collaborative structure. It is a close companion to Section I of this guidebook, in which a collaborative 

structure and activities are suggested. This section is specifically aimed at people responsible for 

chairing or facilitating Steering Committee or Subcommittee meetings. While every collaborative 

endeavor is unique, collaborative groups tend to go through similar processes and struggles. The 

material included here draws from insights gained from providing technical assistance to more than 40 

States and countless local communities. 

The SAFERR tools and materials were developed specifically for use by staff working in the child 

welfare, alcohol and drug, and court systems, but they are not specific to any particular State. Each 

jurisdiction should use the information included here in the way that best addresses its own priorities and 

concerns. Successful collaborative endeavors depend on the leadership, relationships, communication, 

and specific policy priorities of the group, not on the use of any particular tool. Some communities 

may adhere closely to the processes suggested in this section, and others may simply use some of the 

templates to help them in their own processes. In either case, this section is an attempt to provide staff 

with the benefit of prior efforts made by colleagues across the country.

Screening and assessment are just two components of a larger framework of collaboration. While 

these materials focus on those two components, communities should approach them in the context of 

a larger framework of collaboration that goes beyond screening and assessment to include engaging 

and retaining families in services and evaluating family and systems outcomes (Young & Gardner, 

2002). A revised framework, included in the Appendix of Young and Gardner’s document, can be found 

in “Framework and Policy Tools for Improving Linkages between Alcohol and Drug Services, Child 

Welfare Services and Dependency Courts” at http://ncsacw.samhsa.gov.

Step One: Getting Started

Establishing the Project

The Oversight Committee, composed of the top officials in each system, can give the initiative 

significant weight among their employees and in the larger community if, at the outset, they release a 

short notice and statement of support. This notice would be signed by all of them on letterhead stationery 

that includes all agency logos. The notice might include the names of Steering Committee members and 

a few facts about goals and timetables. The next page is a generic letter, adapted from one developed by 

staff in Colorado.
A-4

Sample Project Announcement Letter

 LOGO LOGO LOGO 

 (Court) (Alcohol and Drug) (Child Welfare)

Substance abuse and child maltreatment are two of our country’s most pressing social problems, and 

they are elaborately interconnected. Nationally, in cases in which a child has been placed in custody, 

estimates of parental substance abuse range from 33 percent to 66 percent. Anecdotal evidence suggests 

that over 90 percent of dependency court cases involve children affected by substance abuse. (State or 

county specific data can be added here)

Despite these connections and the implications involved in removing children from their parents, child 

protective services workers, substance abuse counselors, and judges and lawyers often lack guidelines, 

protocols, and knowledge when making decisions about child placement, services to families, and 

termination of parental rights.

We understand that no employee and no agency can resolve problems of child maltreatment and 

substance use disorders1 on its own and that unless we work together to better serve families, none of 

us will succeed. (The term “substance use disorder (SUD)” is used in this paper as the more precise 

terminology indicating diagnostic criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of substance 

abuse or dependency. The term “alcohol and drugs” is used when referring to the broad general issue of 

substance use.) Therefore, we have jointly created a State- or county- (specify) wide initiative that will 

result in protocols for screening, assessing, engaging, and retaining families who have substance use 

disorders and who are involved with our child welfare and dependency court systems. 

Overall guidance for this initiative is provided by the Steering Committee listed below. We have asked 

the Steering Committee to create relevant topic-specific Subcommittees and hope that many of you will 

participate on these subcommittees. We will serve as the Oversight Committee, and for purposes of this 

project, the Steering Committee will report to all of us regarding progress, problems, and results.

It is essential that the Steering Committee and Subcommittee processes be inclusive, open, and based on 

principles shared by all systems. It is equally essential that the results be both grounded in research and 

practical to implement. 

This project represents an important and exciting opportunity for families and staff. We look forward to 

working together and thank you for your support and interest as we go forward.

 ________________ ____________________ ________________

 Court Administrator Alcohol and Drug Director Child Welfare Director

Steering Committee Members

Name Affiliation and Contact Information
A-5

The Oversight Committee should issue written letters of appointment to each Steering Committee 

member. These letters give the project prominence within each system, provide support for Steering 

Committee members to spend the time required to participate in the project, and make it clear that the 

member has authority to make decisions on behalf of the agency. 

Sample Project Announcement Letter

 LOGO LOGO LOGO 

 (Court) (Alcohol and Drug) (Child Welfare)

Dear

We are pleased to announce that (name of jurisdiction) is launching an initiative to help us better serve 

families with substance use disorders who are involved with child welfare and dependency courts. With 

this letter, we are appointing you to serve on the Steering Committee for this important project. The 

three of us collectively compose the Oversight Committee, and the Steering Committee reports to all of 

us.

We will meet with the Steering Committee at its first meeting and then quarterly thereafter. At our 

kickoff meeting, we plan to explore more deeply what each agency would like to achieve from this 

project, identify areas of common and diverging priorities, and develop one or more overarching goals 

that cross our three systems. We will also discuss more fully the authority, scope, and mandate of the 

Steering Committee.

By the end of the kickoff meeting, we plan to have identified areas of greatest interest and priority for 

action. We also will talk more fully about the Subcommittees that we know will be necessary to achieve 

the goals, and we will set a schedule of Steering Committee and Oversight Committee meetings for the 

next 12 months. 

You will receive more information about the kickoff meeting in the coming days. 

We are very excited about this project and look forward to working with you. 

Thank you for agreeing to serve on the Steering Committee.

 ________________ ____________________ ________________

 Court Administrator Alcohol and Drug Director Child Welfare Director

Section I, “Building Cross-System Collaboration,” lists the type and level of staff who should serve on 

the Steering Committee and specifies that they should be at a level to make decisions and commitments 

on behalf of their agencies. Each jurisdiction should add other perspectives to the Steering Committee 

as determined by local needs and structures.

Steering Committee Structure and Governance

Initiatives of the scope and importance described in this guidebook that address challenging issues 

warrant the use of a paid outside facilitator, at least in the beginning. While some members of the 

 
A-6

Steering Committee will not know each other before coming together for this project, others will have 

had prior experiences, both positive and negative, with each other. It is asking a lot of senior managers 

to participate in 

decisionmaking groups in which one of their colleagues is “in charge,” even if only as a facilitator. It 

is also expecting a lot of a senior manager to ask him or her to facilitate a senior-level decisionmaking 

body while serving as a “voting” member of that body.

The Steering Committee facilitator need not be a full-time job. A skilled consultant who is familiar with 

the subject matter and State operations can be hired on an hourly or fixed-price basis. Ideally, the three 

systems should contribute to pay facilitator fees, thus modeling the collaboration they expect of staff. It 

is also quite possible that a local foundation would fund such a position if requested by the top officials 

from all three systems.

As noted in Section I, if hiring an outside facilitator is simply not possible, the Oversight and Steering 

Committees must find other ways to ensure members that they will be treated equally. Communicating 

to all Steering Committee members that the Steering Committee reports equally to the three Oversight 

Committee members can help reduce the perception that one agency is running the initiative. Or, the 

Steering Committee might be co-facilitated by representatives of all three systems. As a last alternative, 

people from each system could rotate as facilitators. This section uses the term “facilitator” to include 

internal staff or external consultants.

Using Internal Facilitators

If an internal facilitator is used, it is important for the facilitator and the Steering Committee to be aware of the person’s 

multiple and potentially conflicting roles. The facilitator should tell the group at the outset that he or she is serving as a 

facilitator and not as a staff member or agency representative, and then must diligently maintain that distinction. The 

facilitator’s job is to manage discussions without getting pulled in. If the facilitator absolutely needs to make a point as a 

staff or agency representative, he or she should make a statement to that effect, make the point, and then state that he 

or she is returning to the facilitator role. When the boundaries of these different roles are delineated and respected, others 

will be more inclined to trust and respect the boundaries as well. (Adapted from Arnie Arnoff, Director of Training and 

Organizational Development, The University of Chicago, May 2002.)

The Steering Committee will require the services of an administrative person to take minutes during 

meetings, follow up on decisions and commitments made during meetings, and distribute agendas or 

other reading material. It is impractical to ask the facilitator or Steering Committee member to perform 

these tasks.

The Steering Committee should consider using student interns. Graduate public policy or social work 

students often need field placements in order to complete their course requirements. These students 

frequently know how to conduct literature reviews and other research, and they are often skilled at 

preparing presentations or other public information brochures and fact sheets.

One important responsibility of the Steering Committee will be to create and oversee the activities 

of several Subcommittees that will work on one or a few specific issues related to screening and 

assessment. Subcommittee members should represent the frontline of practice in each system and come 

from local offices that are interested in pilot testing and implementing cross-system training strategies, 

screening or assessment protocols, or multidisciplinary teams that emerge from the project. Ideally, a 
A-7

Steering Committee member should chair each Subcommittee, to ensure that information flows easily 

and accurately between the two groups.

Details of Steering Committee members’ roles and responsibilities should be thoroughly explored and 

recorded during its first, kickoff meeting, described below. Initially, it is recommended that the Steering 

Committee meet monthly, especially if it will meet with the Oversight Committee quarterly. After plans 

of action have been developed and Subcommittees established, the Steering Committee could possibly 

meet less often. 

Step Two: The Kickoff Meeting

If possible, the Steering Committee should start its work with a 2-day kickoff meeting, with the three 

members of the Oversight Committee attending for at least part of that time. This meeting should be 

held in a neutral location, to avoid the appearance that any system is leading the initiative and to reduce 

the likelihood that members will go back and forth to their offices. If a 2-day meeting is not feasible, the 

activities planned for that time can be accomplished over a series of meetings.

Outcomes of the Kickoff Meeting

By the end of the kickoff meeting, the following should be in place:

Substantively:

 There should be a “wish list” describing the kinds of policies, protocols, training curricula, 

multidisciplinary teams, and other innovations that members would like to explore through this 

initiative. This list does not have to reflect consensus of the group, but there should be general agreement 

on highest priority areas.

Procedurally:

 Members should understand their roles and responsibilities, meeting dates should be established for 

the next 12 months, and members should understand and support ground rules for meetings, discussions, 

and decisions.

The next two pages offer an annotated generic agenda for the kickoff meeting. This agenda covers 

all the important items that should be discussed at the first meeting. The page following the agenda 

provides more information and some exercises to help facilitators guide the discussion on some of the 

topics included on the agenda.
A-8

Sample Kickoff Meeting Agenda

Location and Time

Day One

8:45 – 9:45 Introductions

Participants will introduce themselves to the group, including descriptions of their backgrounds, what 

they and the organizations they represent hope to gain from this initiative, and what changes they would 

like to see for the families they serve. 

9:45 – 11:00 Overview of the Project

The Oversight Committee, comprising the Court Administrator, and Directors of the Alcohol and Drug 

and Child Welfare Service2 systems, will describe why they established this initiative, what they expect 

from it, and what kind of guidance and direction they will provide to the Steering Committee. (The 

term “child welfare service system” includes public agencies operated by States, counties, and federally 

recognized Indian tribes as well as nonprofit or for-profit organizations operating under the auspices of 

those governments.) The Oversight Committee will present its view of roles and responsibilities of the 

Steering Committee and will hear suggestions and ideas from Steering Committee members.

 

11:00 – 11:15 Break

11:15 – 12:30 Presentations From Agencies, Tribes, and Consumers

Representatives from the three State systems, a county, a tribe, and consumers will present overviews of 

their agencies and systems. The presentations will describe agency missions, structures, and principal 

activities. In addition, the representatives will highlight particular “hot” issues facing their agencies, and 

will describe relationships their agencies have with each other, the State legislature, and universities.

12:30 – 1:30 Lunch

1:30 – 2:15 Presentations From Agencies, Tribes, and Consumers (cont’d)

2:15 – 3:15 Brainstorming

(including break)

Members will express their ideas and hopes for desired activities, products, and outcomes of the 

initiative. All ideas will be accepted and recorded. The result of this exercise will form the basis for 

project goals and tasks. 

3:15 – 4:15 Steering Committee Ground Rules and Future Meetings

This session will establish meeting dates for the Steering Committee for the coming year. Meeting 

times will be established, and ground rules regarding attendance, communication, and decisionmaking 

processes will be discussed and agreed to. A process for creating and distributing minutes and 

background materials will be determined.
A-9

4:15 – 4:30 Closing Comments

Day Two

8:30 – 9:00 Recap of Day One 

All participants will reflect on the prior day to clarify issues that may seem vague, to ask questions, or to 

raise additional issues that have occurred to them.

9:00 – 10:30 Framing the Project

Members will review the wish list that resulted from the brainstorming and explore key priorities, 

challenges, and additional tools or resources that might be required to achieve goals. The group will 

reach consensus on the issues of most importance, the ideal outcomes for those issues, and barriers to 

achieving the outcomes.

10:30 – 10:45 Break

10:45 – 12:00 Exploration of Subcommittee Topics and Structures

On the basis of results from the Brainstorming and Framing the Project discussions, the group 

will identify issues that are most likely to be addressed through the work of Subcommittees. It 

will determine Subcommittee structures, roles, and responsibilities, including Steering Committee 

responsibilities in guiding Subcommittees. Preliminary lists of possible Subcommittee members will be 

established. 

12:00 – 1:00 Lunch 

1:00 – 2:00 Planning for Next Meeting/Meeting With Oversight Committee

Members will develop agenda items for the next meeting, assign the lead person for each item, and 

determine background material required. (Agenda items/exercises are likely to include completing the 

Collaborative Values Inventory or completing the Understanding Our Systems Worksheet, both of which 

are described below and included in this Facilitator’s Guide). 

2:00 – 2:30 Closing and Next Steps

The Steering Committee will identify unresolved issues and develop strategies for addressing them. 
A-10

Techniques for Guiding the Kickoff Meeting

Steering and Subcommittee procedures and ground rules are described in Section I. The following 

paragraphs address the substantive items that will be discussed during the 

kickoff meeting.

Introductions

Not all Steering Committee members will know one another, especially those Committees that have 

broad representation including consumers, family members, tribal members, and social service agencies. 

The facilitator should develop creative and enjoyable ways to have people introduce themselves or each 

other to the group. 

Overview of the Project

The kickoff meeting is the first time the Steering Committee will be coming together, and it will be 

joined by the directors from all three systems. Some members are likely to be unsure of why they 

were asked to participate, uncertain of demands that might be placed on their time or resources, and 

unfamiliar with others on the Committee. The facilitator should work with members of the Oversight 

Committee before the meeting to help them present their vision and ideas, to concretely describe their 

goals and expectations, and to specify clearly their charge to the Steering Committee. In addition, the 

facilitator should ensure that the Oversight Committee is open to hearing ideas and suggestions from the 

Steering Committee.

Presentations From Agencies, Tribes, and Consumers

Not all Steering Committee members will be knowledgeable about each other’s systems. 

Representatives from the three State systems, counties, tribes, and consumers should be asked in 

advance to present brief overviews of their agencies, systems, or experiences with agencies and systems. 

The facilitator should work with presenters before the meeting to be sure they prepare comments in 

advance and have visual or written information to accompany their comments. Presenters should 

consider this presentation to be an important and substantive one about their agency mission, structure, 

and activities.

Brainstorming

Brainstorming is helpful when a group is interested in generating a lot of ideas and when people need 

encouragement to speak out. The group can use ideas generated in a brainstorming session to choose 

the specific issues they want to develop into projects and plans of action. Brainstorming discussions are 

likely to raise questions about which families will be the focus of this initiative. The child welfare and 

alcohol and drug service systems are involved with a larger group of families than are the courts and will 

be interested in developing strategies that include both court-involved and non-court-involved families. 

Court staff will be more interested in focusing on families under court jurisdiction. The box below 

provides some guidelines regarding brainstorming sessions.
A-11

Rules of Brainstorming

1. Postpone and withhold judgment of ideas.

2. Encourage wild and exaggerated ideas.

3. Quantity, not feasibility, counts in brainstorming.

4. Build on the ideas put forward by others.

5. Every person and every idea has equal worth.

(Adapted from Infinite Innovations Ltd., c 1999–2001)

Methods of Brainstorming

Structured Go-Arounds

To be used when interested in hearing from everyone. Each person is given an opportunity to speak, 

usually within a time limit. Responses are saved until everyone has had a chance to contribute.

Gallery Method

Large sheets of paper, blackboards, or flip charts are used on which general themes or ideas are written. 

Participants then walk around the “gallery,” read the ideas, and add their comments or thoughts. This 

method is good for people who prefer writing to speaking and for people who are visual learners.

Individual Writing

Group members are given a topic, task, idea, or free reins to write for a defined period of time, typically 

15 minutes. This method is good for generating ideas, soliciting opinions, slowing down a heated 

discussion, or for unlocking a stalled discussion in which no one is participating.

(Adapted from Arnie Arnoff, Director of Training and Organizational Development, The University of 

Chicago, May 2002)

Framing the Project

The brainstorming session provides the opportunity for everyone to put thoughts on the list without 

having to explain or defend them. The outcome of the brainstorming session should yield a diverse and 

rich list of interests, issues, and concerns. The Framing the Project session allows members to think 

more deeply about these ideas, understand other points of view, and challenge assumptions and be 

challenged. From this discussion, the group should be able to group topics into general categories and 

to select a few categories that are the most important to address, even if there is not agreement on every 

item. This discussion also will help the Steering Committee envision topics for future meetings and for 

assignment to Subcommittees.

The next steps included in this section provide information about tasks and activities that the Steering 

Committee should undertake at subsequent meetings.

Step Three: Developing Shared Values, Principles, and a Mission Statement

Experience has repeatedly shown that the most critical first activity in creating an effective collaborative 

Steering Committee or other workgroup is holding open and honest discussions about values and 
A-12

principles. These discussions are not focused on securing or forcing agreement on every value, but 

they should ultimately yield statements of mission, values, and principles that the group endorses and 

supports. 

When people from the alcohol and drug system, child welfare system, dependency courts, tribes, 

consumers, and other agencies come together, they bring with them both overlapping and divergent 

values and philosophies. Systems, agencies, and workers have values that reflect their organizations and 

their professional training. For example, child welfare agencies are charged with ensuring child safety, 

alcohol and drug treatment agencies have deep concern for the adult’s recovery from substance use, 

and the court is focused on establishing permanent living arrangements for children. These values are 

intense, deep seated, and long lasting. 

Value differences cannot be ignored, and they will not always be reconciled. Unless differences 

are acknowledged and accepted, however, they will emerge repeatedly and frustrate efforts to make 

important changes. At the same time, when people acknowledge their differences and then move on to 

explore and reinforce their shared values, those values become the base on which significant progress 

can be made.

Developing Trust

At their most fundamental, collaborations are based on trust. Trust is both a prerequisite for and a 

product of collaborative activities. Trust is most often discussed in terms of relationships between 

families and workers, but in fact trust includes other important dimensions. For example, staff at all 

levels in each system must believe that staff in the other systems will respond appropriately to the needs 

of children and families and will both share their expertise with and seek help from people from other 

fields. In addition, staff within each system must trust that officials in their own system will give them 

the skills to do their jobs well and will support them in their work. This Facilitator’s Guide includes a 

more detailed discussion regarding how leaders can address all of these dimensions of trust. 

The first task of the Steering Committee will often be to create the level of trust required for systems to 

work together effectively. It is likely that the same trust issues that emerge during Steering Committee 

discussions also exist in local jurisdictions and at the 

frontline. To the extent that members of the Steering Committee create and sustain their own trust, they 

can communicate and model that trust within their own agencies and to their staff. As people develop 

trust in one area or around one issue, it will be easier for trust to develop in other areas as well. Trust 

will be an outcome of the work staff does to identify shared values, increase their understanding and 

knowledge about each other, participate in training together, and develop communication structures.

The table below, Dimensions of Trust, summarizes the many dimensions of trust that have to be 

addressed.
A-13

Dimensions of Trust

Trust Dimension Examples

Workers have to earn the 

trust of their clients.

Workers have to:

• Refrain from passing judgment.

• Be comfortable in their knowledge of program rules and services.

• Be forthcoming and clear in presenting options and consequences.

• Explain why they need to know certain information and what will 

 happen with information provided.

• Not turn over to such an extent that recipients feel no one knows them.

• Respect recipients.

• Believe that recipients have strengths and potential.

• Hold confidential information in confidence and explain to families 

 when and how information may be shared.

Agencies have to earn the 

trust of their clients.

Agencies have to:

• Create forms, brochures, and letters that are user friendly.

• Ensure that services exist to help recipients.

• Develop written and visual material to help recipients learn about 

 services.

• Create the most private and pleasant waiting and interviewing areas 

 possible.

• Seek feedback from families regarding services and procedures.

• Create policies that support recipients in disclosing problems.

Workers have to trust their 

skills and capacities.

Workers need opportunities to:

• Learn about addiction, child maltreatment, and legal processes.

• Identify and explore their personal beliefs and values about addiction 

 and child maltreatment.

• Visit substance abuse treatment programs.

• Work collaboratively with staff from treatment programs in making 

 shared decisions about services and progress.

• Achieve and be recognized for their achievements.

Agencies have to earn the 

trust of their staff.

Workers need to feel confident that:

• If recipients seek help, the agency has resources to provide that help.

• They will have ample opportunity for training that includes both 

 conceptual and practical elements, and that they can practice and 

 problem-solve what they have learned.

• Their judgment, perspective, and autonomy are respected and valued by 

 supervisors and managers.

• The agency has employee assistance plans or other mechanisms for 

 staff who have substance abuse problems themselves or within their 

 families.

• They have opportunities for growth.
A-14

Task 1: Complete the Collaborative Values Inventory and the Collaborative Capacity Instrument 

Children and Family Futures staff have been providing technical assistance to collaborative efforts in 

States and local jurisdictions for the past decade. This work led them to develop the Collaborative 

Values Inventory (CVI), a self-administered questionnaire that provides jurisdictions with an anonymous 

way of assessing the extent to which group members share ideas about the values that underlie their 

collaborative efforts. (The CVI is included at the end of this section and is available at 

www.ncsacw.samhsa.gov.) The CVI is simple and short, but it identifies areas of commonality and 

difference that are easily overlooked either because people feel uncomfortable discussing values or 

because they move directly to program and operational issues. 

When disagreements arise, it is easy for people to feel that others are merely protecting turf, playing 

politics, or unaware or unsympathetic to a need. If a group explores values and beliefs, however, 

and learns that members feel differently about some basic assumptions that affect community needs 

and responses, it has a better grasp of why disagreements arise. The group also can respond more 

professionally and appropriately during such disagreements. For example, value discussions frequently 

lead to the realization that systems have different beliefs on something so basic as “who is the client.” 

The alcohol and drug system has traditionally viewed parents as clients, and the child welfare system 

has considered the child to be the client. If this difference is aired and discussed, generally staff from 

both systems conclude that everyone serves the family, even though each may focus on specific aspects 

of family functioning. 

The Collaborative Capacity Instrument (CCI) is also a self-administered questionnaire that provides 

people with information on how well members of their group perceive that systems collaborate and on 

areas in which members believe that collaboration is either strong or weak. The CCI is also included at 

the end of this section and can be obtained through www.ncsacw.samhsa.gov.

Task 2: Create a Mission Statement and a Statement of Values and Principles

By the end of the Steering Committee kickoff meeting, Committee members will have reached general 

agreement on issues that are the most important or interesting. After completing and discussing the CVI

and CCI, the group will have a good feel for those values members share and are important to everyone. 

The next task for the Steering Committee is to translate that agreement and knowledge into a simple, 

preferably one-page document that includes a mission statement for the initiative and a list of principles 

and values that will guide the group in its work. The principles should be specific enough to guide 

decisionmaking. 

The box below provides an example of a mission statement and shared values and principles. 

The values and principles relate to the practice questions posed in Section III of this guidebook, 

“Collaborative Practice at the Frontline.” Section I of this guidebook includes a list of principles that 

have been developed in some jurisdictions, and the end of this section includes values and principles 

developed by the Sacramento County Dependency Drug Court and Cuyahoga County, Ohio. It also 

includes a statement of values and principles developed jointly by the American Academy of Child and 

Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) and the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA).
A-15

Mission Statement

 To improve screening and assessment for families involved in the child welfare service system and 

 dependency courts who are affected by substance use disorders.

Shared Values and Principles

Determining the existence and immediacy of a child welfare or substance use issue

• In making decisions regarding child safety and family well-being, practitioners from all systems 

 should consider the possibility of substance use disorders and adopt a “screen out” stance with 

 regard to substance use.

• Regardless of which system (alcohol and drug, child welfare, or dependency court) the family 

 enters and what the presenting problem is, practitioners should systematically inquire about 

 potential involvement with the other systems.

Determining the nature and extent of a child welfare or substance use issue

• Team members’ effective communication is more critical than the specific tool in determining the 

 relationship between substance use and child safety or risk.

• Sharing information appropriately is desirable, helpful, and feasible.

• To make appropriate referrals for assessment, people from all systems should understand the 

 range of funding streams that are available and should know how to access them.

Developing treatment and family case plans, monitoring change, transitions, and outcomes.

• Case plans can and should be modified as circumstances change.

• Actions should have consequences that are fair, timely, and appropriate to the action.

• Consequences should apply to families and to staff; consequences should not be used solely as 

 punishments.

• Family progress should be recognized, noted, and shared with family members. 

Step Four: Review Current Operations

Steering Committee members will by now have at least a passing knowledge of each other’s systems, 

but it is unlikely that they will have enough knowledge on which to make decisions about policy and 

practice changes. Therefore, it is important for the members to develop a deeper level of understanding 

about each system and where systems connect. 

Task 1: Define Terms and Processes

Section I features the SAFERR Terms and Processes in the Child Welfare Service, Alcohol and 

Drug Service, and Dependency Court Systems table that provides short definitions and descriptions 

of processes within all three systems at several points in time during the period they are working with 

families. The Steering Committee should charge a Subcommittee with using this chart to define, review, 

and describe each process as it exists in the State or jurisdiction. Experience has shown that this task 
A-16

includes many “eye opening” moments during which people realize that they have been unaware of or 

misunderstood other agencies’ processes.

At the end of this task, members should understand how other systems operate and how different 

systems define similar processes in different ways. Most important, the Steering Committee should 

address differences in language or inconsistencies in processes to develop common terms and 

descriptions. In addition to setting the stage for changes in policies and practice, creating a uniform set 

of terms and processes provides a good basis for creating or revising training curricula that can be used 

with staff in all systems.

Task 2: Complete Worksheet 1: Understanding Our Systems

The outcome of the analysis undertaken in Task 1 can be used to complete Worksheet 1: Understanding 

Our Systems. A sample completed Worksheet 1 follows on the next page. This worksheet provides the 

Steering Committee with a short summary of the current situation and concerns about current practice 

that need to be addressed. Information from this worksheet will be useful in creating the plan of action 

for the project. 
A-17

WORKSHEET 1—UNDERSTANDING OUR SYSTEMS SAMPLE

Where Are We Now? Issues with Current Policy/Practice

PRESENCE AND IMMEDIACY

How is a substance use disorder identified in the CWS system?

When Whenever CWS professional identifies it as an issue CWS professionals often do not have adequate 

training in identifying and screening for alcohol and drug issuesNo standard for screening familiesOver-referral by some CWS professionals and underreferral by other professionals; based on individual knowledge of SUDsRelease of information form and history are not always being sent to the providerWhen CWS professional refers to the ADS treatment provider there may be a lack of follow up; individuals not making it to treatment and no one is going after them to try and engage them

Where Wherever the CWS professional is with the family (e.g. CWS 

office or home visit)

By Whom CWS professional

How is this 

communicated 

to the other 

systems?

CWS professional makes referral to ADS treatment provider 

with signed release of information form and historyInclusion in court report for court-involved families
A

-18

How is risk of child abuse or neglect identified in the ADS system?

When If an incident arises where a provider needs to report child 

abuse and neglect

Throughout a State, there is no structured way of identifying child abuse and neglect issues; agencies have their own training programs and ways of identifying (or not) children’s issues No structured training on mandated reporting laws; no information given when the law changes

Where ADS program

By Whom ADS professional

How is this 

communicated 

to the other 

systems?

Through the CWS hotline

How is a SUD identified in the dependency court? Case specific; no systemic policy/procedure around CWS informing court of alcohol and drug issue

Issue of judges’ misunderstanding or having a lack of knowledge around alcohol and drug issues; when and what type of testing is appropriate; same problem with attorneys and other judicial staff

When At the time of petition filing

Where Court

By Whom Attorney for CWS presents evidence that includes information 

from the CWS professional

How is this 

communicated 

to the other 

systems?

Through the court report 

Task 3: Complete Worksheet 2: Where Do We Want To Go From Here?
A-19

Worksheet 2 continues the process started with Worksheet 1. Once people understand and agree on 

how systems currently operate, how information is or is not communicated, and what concerns exist 

with current policies and practices, they can begin to identify specific changes they want to make. 

Worksheet 2 is designed to help the Subcommittees, Steering Committee, and others think generally 

about the changes to be made in the areas of Determining the Presence and Immediacy of a Child 

Welfare or Alcohol and Drug Issue, Determining the Nature and Extent of the Issue, and Developing and 

Monitoring Treatment and Case Plans.

As the Steering Committee gets ready to consider and propose changes, it is helpful for members 

to review the statements of their mission, principles, and values that they developed, to be sure they 

continue to be the framework that guides decisions and activities.

Using Worksheet 2, Subcommittee or Steering Committee members should—

• Revisit the list of concerns with current problems included in Worksheet 1;

 • Identify the desired goals and outcomes for each issue or concern;

 • Consider implications of the desired changes; and

 • Start to develop action steps.

At this stage, the analysis should address general implications and action steps and not become 

distracted by the many details that will arise when implementation starts. The plan of action, described 

below, will address all facets of implementation.

A sample of a completed Worksheet 2 follows this page.
A-20

WORKSHEET 2—WHERE DO WE WANT TO GO FROM HERE? SAMPLE

Identified Issues with Current Policies 

and Practice

Desired Changes Implications of Changes Action Steps

What issues did we raise in the 

working session using Worksheet 

1 regarding current policies and 

practice?

As a collaborative, where 

do we want to be? What 

do we want our SAFERR 

policies/practices to be?

Family

Involvement

Community 

Partners

- Training/ Staff De

velopment

Information 

Systems

Budget/Funding

Agency Policies

Legislation

How does the 

collaborative get 

to where it wants 

to be? What tasks 

do collaborative 

members need to 

complete to get us 

there?

Presence And Immediacy

Alcohol and Drug Services SystemStatewide there is no structured way of identifying children’s issues; agencies have their own training programs and ways of identifying (or not) children’s issues No structured training on mandated reporting laws; no information given when the law changes Statewide guidelines for ADS providers to ask questions about participants’ children; training for ADS providers on guidelines Online resource guide on services for children from families with SUDs Protocols for information sharing with CWS and the 

court

X

X

X

X

X

• Develop guidelines  and training  curriculum• Develop online  resource guide• Develop protocols  for information  sharing among ADS,  CWS and the court
A-21

WORKSHEET 2—WHERE DO WE WANT TO GO FROM HERE? SAMPLE

Identified Issues with Current Policies and Practice Desired Changes Implications of Changes Action Steps

What issues did we raise in the 

working session using Worksheet 

1 regarding current policies and 

practice?

As a collaborative, where 

do we want to be? What 

do we want our SAFERR 

policies/practices to be?

Family

Involvement

Community 

Partners

- Training/ Staff De

velopment

Information 

Systems

Budget/Funding

Agency Policies

Legislation

How does the 

collaborative get 

to where it wants 

to be? What tasks 

do collaborative 

members need to 

complete to get us 

there?

Child Welfare Services System

CWS workers do not have adequate training in identifying and screening for alcohol and drug issuesNo standard for screening familiesOver referral by some CWS workers and under referral by other workers; based on individual knowledge of SUDsRelease of information form and history are not always being sent to the providerWhen CWS worker refers to the ADS treatment provider, there is no follow up; individuals are not making it to treatment and no one is going after them to

Trained CWS staff in identifying and screening for alcohol and drug issues; pilot colocation of ADS worker in CWS officeScreen Out policy; all families to be screened for alcohol and drug issues using a standard screening toolStandard screening tool used by all publicly funded treatment providers in the StateProtocols for information sharing with ADS and the courtPolicy and procedure guidelines about follow up on referrals

X

X

X

X

X

• Develop guidelines  and training  curriculum• Conduct meeting  with CWS and ADS  administrators to  determine where  colocation pilot  should take place;  set up colocation 

pilot

• Develop a Screen  Out policy• Conduct  research and select the screening tool  to be used statewide• Develop referral 

 followup guidelines

• Develop protocols  for information  sharing among ADS,  CWS and the court
A-22

WORKSHEET 2—WHERE DO WE WANT TO GO FROM HERE? SAMPLE

Identified Issues with Current Policies and Practice Desired Changes Implications of Changes Action Steps

What issues did we raise in the 

working session using Worksheet 

1 regarding current policies and 

practice?

As a collaborative, where 

do we want to be? What 

do we want our SAFERR 

policies/practices to be?

Family

Involvement

Community 

Partners

- Training/ Staff De

velopment

Information 

Systems

Budget/Funding

Agency Policies

Legislation

How does the 

collaborative get 

to where it wants 

to be? What tasks 

do collaborative 

members need to 

complete to get us 

there?

Dependency Court

Case specific; no systemic policy/procedure around CWS informing court of alcohol and drug issueIssue of judges misunderstanding or having a lack of knowledge around alcohol and drug issues; when and what type of testing is appropriate; same problem with attorneys and other judicial staff

Trained judges, attorneys and other judicial staff on alcohol and drug issues and issues of children from families with SUDsStandards for inquiry by judges into whether or not families have been screened for SUDs and issues specific to children from families with SUDs; require screens when they have not been conducted

X

X

X

X

X

• Develop training for  judges, attorneys,  and other judicial  staff• Develop standards  of inquiry and court  ordering of screens  for families
A-23

Step Five: Develop and Implement a Plan of Action

By now, the Steering Committee has worked through a brainstorm list of all possible ideas and 

strategies, developed a set of values and principles to guide its work, identified current systems and 

operations and the problems with the current situation, and developed a list of desired changes. These 

changes should now be incorporated into a plan of action that focuses on implementation details, 

specific action steps, tasks, and timelines.

Task 1: Develop a “Visual” of Team Progress to Date

The visual representation of work done in preparation for the plan of action can be used as the first page 

in the plan and will remind everyone involved of the project’s mission, principles, and priorities. It is 

also a simple, clear record of work accomplished. A sample visual representation follows this page.

Task 2: Develop the Products and Action Steps for the Plan of Action

The plan of action is an extremely important written product of the initiative. It becomes the roadmap 

or blueprint for the Oversight and Steering Committees and Subcommittees. It serves as the standard 

against which work of all three groups will be monitored and evaluated. The plan of action should 

clearly specify the following:

• Major activities to be undertaken;

 • Products to be developed; 

 • Tasks required to complete activities and produce products;

 • System and individuals responsible for completing each task; and

• Timelines for completion.

A hypothetical plan of action, ADS, CWS, and Dependency Court SAFERR Collaborative Plan 

of Action: Determining Presence and Immediacy, based on the information included in sample 

Worksheets 1 and 2, follows the visual representation. Please note that this example is not necessarily 

a complete or accurate plan for the activities noted. Each Steering Committee or Subcommittee should 

define its own action steps, tasks, and timelines. The sample is simply an illustration of the concept of a 

detailed plan of action.
A-24

SAFERR Model for Determining Presence and Immediacy

Mission: To improve screening, assessment, engagement and monitoring for families involved in the CWS 

system and dependency courts who are affected by substance use disorders

Guiding Principles:

In making decisions regarding child and family well being, practitioners from all 

systems should consider the possibility that substance abuse is a problem and 

adopt a “screen out stance” with regard to substance abuse

Regardless of which system (ADS, CWS or dependency court) the family enters 

and what the presenting problem is, practitioners should systematically inquire 

about potential involvement with the other systems

Desired Changes

ADS System

Statewide guidelines 

for treatment providers 

to ask questions about 

participants’ children; 

training for treatment 

providers on guidelines 

On-line resource guide on 

services for children from 

families with SUDs

Policy and procedure 

guidelines around 

information sharing with 

CWS and the court

CWS System

Trained CWS staff in 

identifying and screening 

for alcohol and drug 

issues; pilot co-location 

of ADS worker in CWS 

office

“Screen Out” policy; all 

families to be screened 

for alcohol and drug 

issues using a standard

screening tool

Standard screen tool 

used by all publicly 

funded treatment 

providers in the State

Policy and procedure 

guidelines around 

information sharing with 

ADS and the court

Policy and procedure 

guidelines about follow up 

on referrals

Dependency Court

Trained judges, attorneys 

and other judicial staff on 

alcohol and drug issues 

and issues of children 

from families with SUDs

Standards for inquiry by 

judges into whether or 

not families have been 

screened for SUDs and 

issues specific to children 

from families with SUDs; 

require screens when 

they have not been 

conducted

Collaborative Action Steps

• Develop guidelines and training curriculum for ADS providers

• Develop on-line resource guide for services to children from families with SUDs

• Develop policy and procedure around information sharing among ADS, CWS, and the dependency court

• Develop guidelines and training curriculum for CWS providers

• Develop a pilot to co-locate ADS staff in a CWS office

• Develop a “Screen Out” policy

• Conduct research and select a screening tool to use Statewide

• Develop referral follow up protocols

• Develop training for judges, attorneys, and other judicial staff

• Develop standards of inquiry and court ordering for screens for families
A

-25

ADS, CWS and Dependency Court SAFERR Collaborative Plan of Action

Determining Presence and Immediacy SAMPLE

Goals Action Steps/Tasks System/Individuals Responsible Timeline for Completion

Goal 1—Develop statewide guidelines for ADS providers to ask questions about children

1.1 Convene workgroup on statewide guidelines and training for ADS providers

Representatives of ADS, CWS, 

dependency court, and any other 

agencies as deemed appropriate

10/10/06

 Research guidelines from other jurisdictions 12/16/05 Draft guidelines 1/16/07

1.2 Steering Committee to review guidelines Steering Committee 1/30/07

1.3 Workgroup to edit guidelines based on Steering Committee 

feedback

Workgroup 2/13/07

1.4 Elicit input from CWS and ADS providers Workgroup 3/10/071.5 Workgroup to edit guidelines based on provider input Workgroup 3/24/07

1.6 Steering Committee to approve guidelines Steering Committee 3/31/071.7 Implement guidelines Administrators and staff of ADS 

providers

On-going

Goal 2—Implement Training for ADS providers on statewide guidelines

2.1 Convene workgroup on guidelines and training for ADS 

providers

Representatives of ADS, CWS, 

dependency court and any other 

agencies as deemed appropriate

10/10/06

 Research training curriculum 12/16/06 Select or draft curriculum 1/16/06 Draft training plan 1/16/07

2.2 Steering Committee to review training curriculum and plan Steering Committee 1/30/07

2.3 Workgroup to edit curriculum and plan based on Steering 

Committee feedback

Workgroup 2/13/07

2.4 Elicit input from CWS and ADS providers Workgroup 3/10/072.5 Workgroup to edit training curriculum and plan based on 

provider input

Workgroup 3/24/07

2.6 Steering Committee to approve training curriculum and plan Steering Committee 3/31/06

2.7 Train ADS providers Identified Trainers On-going
A

-26

Goal 3—Develop online resource guide on services for children from families with SUDs

3.1 Convene workgroup to develop online resource guide Representatives of ADS, CWS, 

dependency court, and any other 

agencies as deemed appropriate

10/10/06

 Conduct research on local, State and national resources 12/16/06 Identify Web location for resource guide 12/16/06 Identify Webmaster 12/16/06 Draft resource guide 1/16/07

3.2 Steering Committee to review resource guide Steering Committee 1/30/07

3.3 Workgroup to make edits/additions based on Steering 

Committee feedback

Workgroup 2/13/07

3.4 Create online format Webmaster 2/28/073.5 Post online resource guide Webmaster 2/28/07

Goal 4—Establish protocols for information sharing among ADS, CWS, and the dependency court

4.1 Convene workgroup to develop guidelines for information sharing

Representatives of ADS, CWS, 

dependency court, and any other 

agencies deemed appropriate

10/10/06

 Review current practice of information sharing 12/16/06 Review current information management systems 12/16/06 Draft protocols for information sharing 2/21/07

4.2 Steering Committee to review and approve protocol Steering Committee 2/28/074.3 Implement protocol Administrators and staff of ADS, 

CWS, and dependency court

On-going

Goal 5—Implement training for CWS Workers in identifying and screening for SUDs

5.1 Convene workgroup on training for CWS workers and development of colocation pilot

Representatives of ADS, CWS, 

dependency court, and any other 

agencies as deemed appropriate

10/10/06

 Research training curriculum 12/16/06 Select or draft curriculum 1/16/07 Draft training plan 1/16/07

5.2 Steering Committee to review training curriculum and plan Steering Committee 1/30/07

5.3 Workgroup to edit curriculum and plan based on Steering 

Committee feedback

Workgroup 2/13/07

5.4 Elicit input from CWS and ADS providers Workgroup 3/10/075.5 Workgroup to edit training curriculum and plan based on 

provider input

Workgroup 3/24/07

5.6 Steering Committee to approve training curriculum and plan Steering Committee 3/31/07

5.7 Train CWS workers Identified Trainers On-going
A

-27

Goal 6—Pilot colocation of ADS Workers in a CWS Office

6.1 Convene workgroup on Training for CWS workers and 

development of colocation pilot

Representatives of ADS, CWS, 

dependency court, and any other 

agencies deemed appropriate

10/10/06

 Research colocation models in other jurisdictions 1/20/07 Explore interest among CWS offices 4/28/07 Develop policies and procedures for pilot 4/28/07

6.2 Steering Committee to review plan for pilot Steering Committee 5/19/07

6.3 Steering Committee to select CWS office for pilot Steering Committee 5/19/07

6.4 Final touches to plan for pilot Workgroup 5/26/076.5 Implement pilot CWS and ADS administrators and 

staff

6/1/07

6.6 Review success of pilot to date Steering Committee 12/15/076.7 Review success of pilot and determine whether going to scale with colocation

Steering Committee 5/31/08

Goal 7—Create a Screen Out Policy 

Statement

7.1 Convene workgroup to develop Screen Out Policy and develop/select standard screening tool

Representatives of ADS, CWS, 

dependency court, and any other 

agencies deemed appropriate

10/10/06

 Research policies in other jurisdictions 1/30/07 Draft Screen Out policy statement 2/21/07

7.2 Steering Committee to review Screen Out policy Steering Committee 2/28/07

7.3 Workgroup to edit policy based on Steering Committee 

feedback

Workgroup 3/24/07

7.4 Steering Committee to approve policy Steering Committee 3/31/077.5 Implement policy CWS administrators and staff On-going
A

-28

Goal 8—Implement Use of a Standard SUD screening tool by CWS Workers

8.1 Convene workgroup to develop Screen Out Policy and develop/select standard screening tool

Representatives of ADS, CWS, 

dependency court, and any other 

agencies deemed appropriate

10/10/06

 Research screening tools 1/30/07 Select existing tool to use or draft new tool 2/21/07

8.2 Steering Committee to review screening tool Steering Committee 2/28/07

8.3 Workgroup to edit screening tool based on Steering 

Committee feedback

Workgroup 3/24/07

8.4 Elicit input from CWS and ADS providers Workgroup 4/21/078.5 Workgroup to edit screening tool based on provider input Workgroup 5/5/07

8.6 Steering Committee to approve screening tool Steering Committee 5/19/078.7 Implement use of tool CWS administrators and staff On-going

Goal 9—Establish guidelines for referral followup

9.1 Convene workgroup to develop guidelines for referral followup

Representatives of ADS, CWS, 

dependency court, and any other 

agencies deemed appropriate

10/10/06

 Develop plan for referral followup 2/21/07

9.2 Steering Committee to review and approve guidelines for referral followup

Steering Committee 2/28/07

9.3 Implement guidelines for referral followup Administrators and staff On-going

Goal 10—Implement training for judges, attorneys and Other judicial staff on SUDs and children’s issues

10.1 Convene workgroup to develop training and standards for judges, attorneys, and other judicial staff

Representatives of ADS, CWS, 

dependency court, and any other 

agencies deemed appropriate

10/10/06

 Research judicial training in other jurisdictions 1/20/07

Conduct meeting with the Office of the Court 

 Administrator and the State Bar Association to establish  their buy in

1/27/2006

 Select or draft curriculum 4/28/07 Draft training plan 4/28/07

10.2 Steering Committee to review training curriculum and plan Steering Committee 5/19/07

10.3 Workgroup to edit curriculum and plan based on Steering 

Committee feedback

Workgroup 6/2/07

10.4 Elicit input from the Office of the Court Administrator and the State Bar Association

Workgroup 6/30/07

10.5 Workgroup to edit standards based on input from the Office of the Court Administrator and the State Bar Association

Workgroup 7/14/07

10.6 Steering Committee to approve training curriculum Steering Committee 7/21/07

10.7 Train judges, attorneys, and other judicial staff Identified Trainers On-going
A

-29

Goal 11—Implement Standards for inquiry by judges into screening for families

11.1 Convene workgroup to develop training and standards for judges, attorneys, and other judicial staff

Representatives of ADS, CWS, 

dependency court, and any other 

agencies deemed appropriate

10/10/06

 Research standards in other jurisdictions 1/20/07 Conduct meeting with the Office of the Court 

 Administrator and the State Bar Association to establish  their buy in

1/27/07

 Select or draft standards 4/28/0711.2 Steering Committee to review standards Steering Committee 5/19/0711.3 Workgroup to edit standards based on Steering Committee 

feedback

Workgroup 6/2/07

11.4 Elicit input from the Office of the Court Administrator and the State Bar Association

Workgroup 6/30/07

11.5 Workgroup to edit standards based on input from the Office of the Court Administrator and the State Bar Association

Workgroup 7/14/07

11.6 Steering Committee to approve training curriculum Steering Committee 7/21/0711.7 Train judges, attorneys, and other judicial staff Identified Trainers On-going

Goal 12—Implement standards for judges to order screenings when they have not taken place

12.1 Convene workgroup to develop training and standards for judges, attorneys, and other judicial staff

Representatives of ADS, CWS, 

dependency court, and any other 

agencies deemed appropriate

10/15/06

 Research standards in other jurisdictions 1/20/07 Conduct meeting with the Office of the Court 

 Administrator and the State Bar Association to establish  their buy in

1/27/07

 Select or draft standards 4/28/07

12.2 Steering Committee to review standards Steering Committee 5/19/07

12.3 Workgroup to edit standards based on Steering Committee 

feedback

Workgroup 6/2/07

12.4 Elicit input from the Office of the Court Administrator and the State Bar Association

Workgroup 6/30/07

12.5 Workgroup to edit standards based on input from the Office of the Court Administrator and the State Bar Association

Workgroup 7/14/07

12.6 Steering Committee to approve training curriculum Steering Committee 7/21/07

12.7 Train judges, attorneys, and other judicial staff Identified Trainers On-going
A-30

Task 3: Develop a Communication Protocol

Systems interact with each other constantly and through a variety of mechanisms. Nonetheless, 

communication breakdowns, misunderstandings, and gaps are common experiences for agency staff 

and families alike. Effective communication is the ingredient common to values, principles, trust, and 

action. As noted throughout this guidebook, the key to quality services is not the tools that are used, but 

how information from tools and other sources is shared. The clearest test of interagency consensus is 

whether it works to communicate the status of both parents and their children because both are affected 

by abuse, neglect, and substance use disorders. Steering Committee and Subcommittee members need 

to identify key points in all systems where effective communication can and must take place, and they 

need to develop clear administrative policies and protocols for the proper exchange of confidential 

information.

The Pathways of Communication Templates on the following pages are designed to help staff move 

beyond preliminary discussions about communication and toward developing a communication protocol. 

They are intended to be suggestions, and each community will need to adapt the specific information to 

its own systems and procedures.

The page immediately following this page is the Overview template. It proposes a model for 

communication across the systems as a whole. The subsequent three pages provide breakout versions of 

the Overview template, depicting critical junctures of decisionmaking and detailed information that are 

examples of information that may be needed to be communicated across systems. They are Pathways of 

Communication Templates for Determining Presence and Immediacy of an Issue, for Determining 

the Nature and Extent of the Issue, and for Treatment and Case Plans, Monitoring Change, 

Transitions, and Outcomes.

The activities that occur within system are listed in the darker colored columns. The bridges between 

the systems are represented by the three lighter colored columns.

The Subcommittee or Steering Committee should consider each of these communication points 

and should adapt them to meet State or local needs. The templates provide a mechanism for staff 

to understand what activities each system is responsible for undertaking. Once these activities are 

understood, staff can determine who needs to know what, and when. Staff can then create policies and 

protocols to share information with family members and among staff. 

The goal of communication should derive from serving the whole family and should reduce 

administrative burden on workers. Each of the communication bridges should be clearly defined, and the 

content of the information to be exchanged across bridges must be specified.
A

-31

Identification Through Community or Family Awareness of Signs, Symptoms and Behaviors

Pathways of Communication Template

Family and Extended Family Members

OtherCommunityAgencies

Community

Based Family

Support

Services

Alcohol andDrug Services

Child Welfare

Services

DependencyCourt

Outcome

Monitoring

Outcome

Monitoring

Detention/

Shelter

Hearing

Jurisdiction

Disposition

Hearings

•Review

Hearings

•Family 

TreatmentCourt

 Hearings•Case

Closures

Outcome

Monitoring

Screening

Multidimensional

Assessment

Treatment Plan

and Services

Treatment

Monitoring

and Transition

Planning

Recovery

Management

Screen

Immediate

Need

Triage

Child Abuse

Report

Case Plan

Development 

and Services

Family Well

Being

Case Plan

Monitoring, 

Permanency

Determination

Diagnosis

Family

Assessment

In-person

Safety

Assessment

In-person

Response/Risk

Assessment
A-32

Identification Through Community or Family Awareness of Signs, Symptoms and Behaviors

Pathways of Communication Template

for Determining Presence and Immediacy of an Issu

e

Family and Extended Family Members

OtherCommunityAgencies

Community

Based Family

Support

Services

Alcohol andDrug Services

Child Welfare

Services

DependencyCourt

Outcome

Monitoring

Outcome

Monitoring

Outcome

Monitoring

Multidimensional

Assessment

Treatment Plan

and Services

Treatment

Monitoring

and Transition

Planning

Recovery

Management

Immediate

Need

Triage

Child Abuse

Report

Family Well

Being

Diagnosis

Family

Assessment

In-person

Response/Risk

Assessment Results of AOD

Screen andObservations of theFollowing by Parentor Other Individualsin the Home:• Paraphernalia• Smell of Alcohol or  Drugs• Slurred Speech• Lack of Mental

 Focus

• Off Balance• Needle Tracks• Skin Abscesses• Lip Burns• Nausea• Euphoria• Hallucinations• Slowed Thinking• Lethargy• Hyperactive

Screening

Observation or Awareness of Child’s:• Injury• Lack of Medical  Care• Sexual Abuse• Inadequate  Education• Neglect• Excessive  Punishment• Lack of Food• Harsh Treatment• Other Service  Needs

Results of AODScreen andObservations of theFollowing by Parentor Other Individualsin the Home:• Paraphernalia• Smell of Alcohol or 

 Drugs

• Slurred Speech• Lack of Mental

 Focus

• Off Balance• Needle Tracks• Skin Abscesses• Lip Burns• Nausea• Euphoria• Hallucinations• Slowed Thinking• Lethargy• Hyperactive

Observation or Awareness of Child’s:• Injury• Lack of Medical 

 Care

• Sexual Abuse• Inadequate 

 Education

• Neglect• Excessive 

 Punishment

• Lack of Food• Harsh Treatment• Other Service 

 Needs

In-person

Safety

Assessment

Court Reports

Including Results

of Screen and

Observed

Behaviors

Court Orders Detention/

Shelter

Hearing

Screen
A-33

Identification Through Community or Family Awareness of Signs, Symptoms and Behaviors

Pathways of Communication Template

for Determining Presence and Immediacy of an Issu

e

Family and Extended Family Members

OtherCommunityAgencies

Community

Based Family

Support

Services

Alcohol andDrug Services

Child Welfare

Services

DependencyCourt

Outcome

Monitoring

Outcome

Monitoring

Detention/

Shelter

Hearing

•Review

Hearings

•Family 

Treatment

Court

 Hearings•Case

Closures

Outcome

Monitoring

Screening

Treatment Plan

and Services

Treatment

Monitoring

and Transition

Planning

Recovery

Management

Screen

Immediate

Need

Triage

Child Abuse

Report

Case Plan

Development 

and Services

Family Well

Being

Case Plan

Monitoring, 

Permanency

Determination

In-person

Safety

Assessment

Referral for

Community Support

Services

Diagnosis

• Diagnostic Information• Differentiation of Substance Use, Abuse, Dependence• Patterns of Substance Use and History• Frequency of Use• Impact of Drug Toxicity• How Does Alcohol/Drug Use Effect Parent (e.g.  blackouts)• Level of Impairment in Ability to Parent• Extended Family, Family Strengths, Connections to  Community and Resources• Employment/Education Status• Parent’s Trauma History• Assessment of Motivation and Engagement Level• Child Risk Factors Evident During Use• Parent’s Perception of Relationship Between  Substance Abuse/Dependency and their Ability to  Parent• Other Family Events (e.g. marriage, death, move, etc.)• Does Inter-State Compact Apply?• Treatment Recommendation: Length of Treatment Level of Care Child Visitation Issues• Additional Service Needs

Court Reports

Including

Diagnosis and

Treatment

Recommendation

and Level of Care

Determination

• Treatment Plan• Activities and Objectives• Required Drug Testing• Number Required and 

 Type of Sessions

Jurisdiction

Disposition

Hearings

Court Orders

Multidimensional

Assessment

• Nature and Precipitating Incidents• Results of Operations and Screens• Court Orders• Criminal and Civil Court History• Prior Child Abuse/Neglect Cases• Use by Others in the Home• Past or Present History of Violence• Was Parent a CWS Dependent• History of Mental Illness• Is ICWA Applicable• CWS Drug Testing Requirements• Court Orders• Parent’ Perception of Issue• Extended Family, Family Strengths, 

 Connections to Community and  Resources

• Assessment of How Children are Doing• Results of Alternative Dispute

 Resolution

Family

Assessment

In-person

Response/Risk

Assessment
A-34

Identification Through Community or Family Awareness of Signs, Symptoms and Behaviors

Pathways of Communication Template

for Determining Presence and Immediacy of an Issu

e

Family and Extended Family Members

OtherCommunityAgencies

Community

Based Family

Support

Services

Alcohol andDrug Services

Child Welfare

Services

DependencyCourt

Outcome

Monitoring

Detention/

Shelter

Hearing

Jurisdiction

Disposition

Hearings

Outcome

Monitoring

Screening

Multidimensional

Assessment

Screen

Immediate

Need

Triage

Child Abuse

Report

Family Well

Being

Diagnosis

Family

Assessment

In-person

Safety

Assessment

In-person

Response/Risk

Assessment

Treatment

Monitoring

Outcome

Monitoring

and Transition

Planning

Recovery

Management

•Review

Hearings

•Family 

Treatment

Court

 Hearings•Case

Closures

• Compliance with Court OrdersProgress in Meeting Treatment Objectives and Parenting Responsibilities

Treatment Plan, 

 Activities, and 

Objectives

• Required Drug Testing• Number and Type 

 of Treatment Sessions  Required

Outcome Data

Case Plan

Monitoring, 

Permanency

Determination

• Progress in Meeting 

 Case Plan Objectives

• Changes in Visitation• Scheduled Meetings 

 with CWS Workers

• Child Has Been Moved  to a New Placement• Transfers of Case to 

 New Workers

• Court Orders

Treatment Plan

and Services

Court Reports 

Including Progress

in Meeting

Treatment and

Case Plans

Court Orders

Case Plan

Development 

and Services

• Case Plan Activities, 

 Objectives and Service  Strategies

• Visitation Plan• Required Drug Testing• Requirements for  Reunification• Visitation Plan
A-35

Step Six: Monitoring and Evaluating Success

The Oversight Committee should charge the Steering Committee with monitoring collaborative 

efforts. Monitoring is about accountability, and accountability is the difference between an effective 

collaborative and just another meeting. While Monitoring Success is noted here as Step Six, it 

really needs to be planned from the beginning of the collaborative effort and included as an ongoing 

component of the work. 

The monitoring process has two focal points:

• Evaluating the collaborative process; and

 • Evaluating the benefit to families.

Information collected on both points should continually feed back into the work of the Oversight and 

Steering Committees and Subcommittees, so that both process and products can be modified based on 

this information.

Evaluating the Collaborative Effort

The Steering Committee should continually examine itself and the Subcommittees and should closely 

monitor progress in implementing activities specified in the plan of action. In order to have a foundation 

for evaluating how far the collaborative has come, it is useful to gather some baseline information. If the 

various Committees complete the Collaborative Values Index and the Collaborative Capacity Inventory

early on in their work, as described earlier in this section, they can repeat those self-assessments 

periodically to ascertain whether there have been changes in perceptions about ability to collaborate. 

Although it is important to monitor process, it is also important to monitor completion of work. Regular 

review of progress toward completed activities is essential to keeping the Committees on task, adjusting 

deliverables as needed, and reporting to the Oversight or Steering Committee and other stakeholders. 

An example of a Progress Report template, Determining Presence and Immediacy, based on the 

sample plan of action presented earlier, follows on the next page.

Conducting evaluations on an annual or semiannual basis is also beneficial because it allows for a more 

detailed review of the collaborative process. An example of an evaluation report format based on the 

sample plan of action follows the Progress Report template.
A

-36

ADS, CWS, and Dependency Court SAFERR Collaborative 

Progress Report

Determining Presence and Immediacy

SAMPLE

Activity/Tasks Progress Report Problem/Barriers Product Modification Next Steps

Statewide guidelines for ADS providers to ask questions about childrenTraining for ADS providers on 

guidelinesOnline resource guide on services for children from families with SUDsProtocols for information sharing among ADS, CWS and the dependency courtTraining for CWS workers in identifying and screening for SUDsPilot colocation of ADS workers in a CWS office
A

-37

Activity/Tasks Progress Report Problem/Barriers Product Modification Next Steps

Screen Out policy statement Standard SUD screening tool to be 

used by CWS workersGuidelines for referral followupTraining for judges, attorneys, and other judicial staff on SUDs and children’s issuesStandards for inquiry by judges into screening for familiesStandards for judges to order screenings when they have not taken place
A-38

ADS, CWS, and Dependency Court SAFERR Collaborative 

Midyear Evaluation

Determining Presence and Immediacy

SAMPLE

Deliverable Due Date

Percent 

Complete

Revised Due 

Date

Statewide Guidelines for ADS Providers to 

Ask Questions About Children

3/31/07

Convene workgroup on guidelines and 

training for ADS providers

10/10/06

 Research guidelines from other 

 jurisdictions

12/16/06 

 Draft guidelines 1/16/07

Steering Committee to review guidelines 1/30/07

Workgroup to edit guidelines based on 

Steering Committee feedback

2/13/07

Elicit input from CWS and ADS providers 3/10/07

Workgroup to edit guidelines based on 

provider input

3/24/07

Steering Committee to approve guidelines 3/31/07

Implement guidelines Ongoing

Training for ADS providers on Guidelines 3/31/07

Convene workgroup on guidelines and 

training for ADS providers

10/10/06

 Research training curriculum 12/16/06

 Select or draft curriculum 1/16/07

 Draft training plan 1/16/07

Steering Committee to review training 

curriculum and plan

1/30/07

Workgroup to edit curriculum and plan based 

on Steering Committee feedback

3/10/07

Elicit input from CWS and ADS providers 2/13/07

Workgroup to edit training curriculum and 

plan based on provider input

3/24/07

Steering Committee to approve training 

curriculum and plan

3/31/07

Train ADS providers Ongoing
A-39

On-line Resource Guide on Services for 

Children from Families with SUDs

2/28/07

Convene workgroup to develop online 

resource guide

10/10/06

 Conduct research on local, State, and 

 national resources

12/16/06

 Identify web location for resource guide 12/16/06

 Identify Webmaster 12/16/06

 Draft Resource Guide 1/16/07

Steering Committee to review resource guide 1/30/07

Workgroup to make edits/additions based on 

Steering Committee feedback

2/13/07

Create on-line format 2/28/07

Post online resource guide 2/28/07

Protocols for Information Sharing Among 

ADS, CWS and the Dependency Court

2/28/07

Convene workgroup to develop guidelines for 

information sharing

10/10/06

 Review current practice of information 

 sharing

12/16/06

 Review current information management 

 systems

12/16/06

 Draft protocols for information sharing 2/21/07

Steering Committee to review and approve 

protocol

2/28/07

Implement protocol Ongoing

Training for CWS Workers in Identifying 

and Screening for SUDs

3/31/07

Convene workgroup on Training for CWS 

workers

10/10/06

 Research training curriculum 12/16/06

 Select or draft curriculum 1/16/07

 Draft training plan 1/16/07

Steering Committee to review training 

curriculum and plan

1/30/07

Workgroup to edit curriculum and plan based 

on Steering Committee feedback

2/13/07

Elicit input from CWS and ADS providers 3/10/07

Workgroup to edit training curriculum and 

plan based on provider input

3/24/07

Steering Committee to approve training 

curriculum and plan

3/31/07

Convene workgroup on Training for CWS 

workers

Ongoing
A-40

Pilot Colocation of ADS Workers in a 

CWS Office

6/1/07

Convene workgroup on training for CWS 

workers and development of colocation pilot

1/20/07

 Research colocation models in other 

 jurisdictions

4/28/07

 Explore interest among CWS offices 4/28/07

 Develop policies and procedures for pilot 5/19/07

Steering Committee to review plan for pilot 5/19/07

Steering Committee to select CWS office for 

pilot

5/19/07

Final touches to plan for pilot 5/26/07

Implement pilot 6/1/07

Review success of pilot to date 12/15/07

Review success of pilot and determine if 

going to scale with colocation

5/31/08

Screen Out Policy Statement 3/31/07

Convene workgroup to develop Screen Out 

policy and develop/select standard screening 

tool

10/10/06

 Research policies in other jurisdictions 1/30/07

 Draft Screen Out policy statement 2/21/07

Steering Committee to review Screen Out 

policy

2/28/07

Workgroup to edit policy based on Steering 

Committee feedback

3/24/07

Steering Committee to approve policy 3/31/07

Implement policy Ongoing

Standard SUD Screening Tool to be Used 

by CWS Workers

5/19/07

Convene workgroup to develop Screen Out 

Policy and develop/select standard screening 

tool

10/10/06

 Research screening tools 1/30/07

 Select existing tool to use or draft new 

 tool

2/21/07

Steering Committee to review screening tool 2/28/07

Workgroup to edit screening tool based on 

Steering Committee feedback

3/24/07

Elicit input from CWS and ADS providers 4/21/07

Workgroup to edit screening tool based on 

provider input

5/5/07

Steering Committee to approve screening tool 5/19/07

Implement use of tool Ongoing
A-41

Guidelines for Referral Follow Up 2/28/07

Convene workgroup to develop guidelines for 

referral followup

10/10/06

 Develop plan for referral follow up 2/21/07

Steering Committee to review and approve 

guidelines for referral followup

2/28/2006

Implement guidelines for referral follow up Ongoing

Training for Judges, Attorneys, and Other 

Judicial Staff on SUDs and Children’s 

Issues

7/21/07

Convene workgroup to develop training and 

standards for judges, attorneys, and other 

judicial staff

10/10/06

 Research judicial training in other 

 jurisdictions

1/20/07

 Conduct meeting with Office of the Court 

 Administrator and the State Bar 

 Association to establish their buy in

1/27/07

 Select or draft curriculum 4/28/07

 Draft training plan 4/28/07

Steering Committee to review training 

curriculum and plan

5/19/07

Workgroup to edit curriculum and plan based 

on Steering Committee feedback

6/2/07

Elicit input from the Office of the Court 

Administrator and the State Bar Association

6/30/07

Workgroup to edit standards based on input 

from the Office of the Court Administrator 

and the State Bar Association

7/14/07

Steering Committee to approve training 

curriculum

7/21/07

Train judges, attorneys, and other judicial 

staff

Ongoing

Standards for Inquiry by Judges into 

Screening for Families

7/21/07

Convene workgroup to develop training and 

standards for judges, attorneys, and other 

judicial staff

10/10/06

 Research standards in other jurisdictions 1/20/07

 Conduct meeting with the Office of the 

 Court Administrator and the State Bar 

 Association to establish their buy in

1/27/07

 Select or draft standards 4/28/07

Steering Committee to review standards 5/19/07

Workgroup to edit standards based on 

Steering Committee feedback

6/2/07
A-42

Elicit input from the Office of the Court 

Administrator and State Bar Association

6/30/07

Workgroup to edit standards based on input 

from the Office of the Court Administrator 

and the State Bar Association

7/14/07

Steering Committee to approve training 

curriculum

7/21/07

Train judges, attorneys, and other judicial 

staff

Ongoing

Standards for Judges to Order Screenings 

When They Have Not Taken Place

7/21/07

Convene workgroup to develop training and 

standards for judges, attorneys, and other 

judicial staff

10/15/06

 Research standards in other jurisdictions 1/20/07

 Conduct meeting with the Office of the 

 Court Administrator and the State Bar 

 Association to establish their buy in

1/27/07

 Select or draft standards 4/28/07

Steering Committee to review standards 5/19/07

Workgroup to edit standards based on 

Steering Committee feedback

6/2/07

Elicit input from the Office of the Court 

Administrator and the State Bar Association

6/30/07

Workgroup to edit standards based on input 

from Office of the Court Administrator and 

State Bar Association

7/14/07

Steering Committee to approve training 

curriculum

7/21/07

Train judges, attorneys, and other judicial 

staff

Ongoing

Reasons why a deadline was not been met:

 Changes in product deliverables:

 Key accomplishments achieved: 

 Barriers encountered in the collaborative relationships:

 Resources developed or discovered for collaborative work: 

 Fiscal and non-fiscal challenges anticipated in the future:
A-43

Evaluating the Benefit to Families

In developing the plan to evaluate the benefit to families, the Oversight and Steering Committees should 

explore existing data systems and determine what information about critical evaluation criteria or 

performance measures can be easily obtained. The Steering Committee or a Subcommittee should look 

at how data from different systems can be used to help all agencies understand the benefits to families 

they serve in common. 

Federal data will likely be a useful resource for evaluating changes in families. In addition to other 

Federal data sources, the Steering Committee should review how its State scored on the Child and 

Family Services Review outcomes assessed by the Federal team in its most recent review. The Steering 

Committee should try to use those outcomes and the State’s Program Improvement Plan to inform this 

collaborative initiative.

Key to evaluating the benefit to families is the development of collaborative outcome measures. Unless 

all partners are held jointly accountable to the outcomes, the collaborative will not succeed in creating 

“best practice” policies and practices. A critical aspect of successful collaboration is that each system 

feels the same level of accountability to improving family outcomes.

It is recommended that a professional evaluator be hired early in the process of designing the 

collaborative initiative. The insight a professional evaluator can provide regarding methodology, 

variables, potential analyses, and other aspects of the process can save program staff time and help 

ensure meaningful conclusions from data compiled.

Task 1: Develop Collaborative Outcome Measures

The Oversight Committee or Steering Committee may choose to develop collaborative outcome 

measures by selecting from measures already in use by each system, it may develop new outcome 

measures specifically for this project, or it may use both existing and new measures. The Federal 

Government has changed the way it views outcome measures and the paper Child Welfare and Alcohol 

and Drug Treatment and Prevention Outcomes included at the end of this section describes the outcome 

measures used by the Children’s Bureau and the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. In whatever 

way outcome measures are selected, the team should be able to use them in conjunction with State data 

systems to provide qualitative and quantitative information to illustrate the successes and shortcomings 

of their collaborative work.

The figure below is a logic model format to help Committees determine outcome measures. Completing 

the logic model as a group may facilitate an understanding of how the group’s activities lead to desired 

outcomes and help to determine what should be evaluated. For more information on logic models 

and outcomes, see Nonprofit Leadership Institute 2002 The Power of Evaluation: Achieving Service 

Excellence Outcomes What are They? at www2.uta.edu/sswmindel/Presentations/Handout%20NPLI.pdf.
A

-44

What WeInvest

PRIORITIES

Situation

Inputs Outputs

What We Do Who We

Reach

What the

Short-Term Results Are

What theMediumTerm Results Are

What the

Ultimate

Impact Is

Activities Participation Short Term Medium Term Long Term

Outcomes – Impact

Assumptions Environment

• Situation: the conditions that give rise to the program• Inputs: the resources and contributions made to the effort• Outputs: activities and products that reach the people who participate• Outcomes: changes or benefits for individuals, families, groups, communities, organizations, and systems.• Assumptions: beliefs we have about the program, the people, the environment, and the way we think the program will work• External Factors: context and external conditions in which the program exists and which influence the success of the program
A-45

Supplemental Worksheets and Tools for Facilitators

The following pages provide samples of tools and other resources that may be useful to facilitators, 

Steering Committee members, and Subcommittee members. These include—

• The Collaborative Values Inventory;

• The Collaborative Capacity Instrument;

• The Collaborative Values Inventory/Collaborative Capacity Instrument Analysis;

• Principle statements developed by Sacramento County, California, Cuyahoga County, Ohio; and the 

NCSACW Consortium: Americam Public Human Services Association (APHSA), 

 Child Welfare League of America (CWLA), National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse

 Directors (NASADAD), National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), and

 National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA).

• Child Welfare and Alcohol and Drug Treatment and Prevention Outcomes.

A-47

Collaborative Values

Inventory

A-49

 

 

COLLABORATIVE VALUES INVENTORY

What Do We Believe About Alcohol and Other Drugs, Services to Children and Families, and 

Dependency Courts?

Many collaboratives begin their work without much discussion of what their members agree or disagree 

about in terms of underlying values. This questionnaire is a neutral way of assessing how much a group 

shares ideas about the values that underlie its work. It can surface issues that may not be raised if the 

collaborative begins its work with an emphasis on programs and operational issues, without addressing 

the important value issues affecting their work. Learning that a group may have strong disagreements 

about basic assumptions that affect its community’s needs and resources may help the group clarify later 

disagreements about less important issues that are really about these more important underlying values. 

After reviewing the results from a collaborative’s scoring of the CVI, it is important to discuss the areas 

of common agreement and divergent views. That discussion should lead to a consensus on principles 

that the collaborative members agree can form the basis of State or local priorities for implementing 

practice and policy changes, leading to improved services and outcomes for families.

Identify your own role in your organization: 

1. Staff Level: 2. Gender: 

 Frontline staff  Male

 Supervisor  Female

 Manager

 Administrator

 Other (specify): __________________

3. Area of Primary Responsibility: 4. Age: __________Years

 Substance Abuse Services

 Child Welfare Services

 Dependency Court Judicial Officer

 Attorney Practicing in Dependency Court

 Domestic Violence

 Mental Health

 Other (specify): _________________

5. Jurisdiction of Agency or Court: 6. Race/Ethnicity:

 Federal Government/National  African-American

 State Office  Asian/Pacific Islander

 Within State Regional Office  Caucasian

 County  Hispanic

 Community-Based Organization  Native American

 Reservation  Other: __________________

 Other (specify): __________________
A-50

7. Years of professional experience in my primary program area: ______

Circle the response category that most closely represents your extent of agreement with each of the 

following statements:

1. Dealing with the problems caused by alcohol and other drugs would improve the lives of a

 significant number of children, families, and others in need in our community.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

2. Dealing with the problems caused by alcohol and other drugs should be one of the highest

 priorities for funding services in our community.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

3. Dealing with the problems of child abuse and neglect should be one of the highest priorities for

 funding services in our State.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

4. Illegal drugs are a bigger problem in our community than use and abuse of alcohol.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

5. People who abuse alcohol and other drugs have a disease for which they need treatment.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

6. People who are chemically dependent have a disease for which they need treatment.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

7. People who abuse alcohol and other drugs should be held fully responsible for their own

 actions.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

8. There is no way that a parent who abuses alcohol or other drugs can be an effective parent.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

9. There is no way that a parent who uses alcohol or other drugs can be an effective parent.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

10. There is no way that a parent who is chemically dependent on alcohol or other drugs can be an

 effective parent.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree
A-51

11. In assessing the effects of the use of alcohol and other drugs, the standard we should use for

 deciding when to remove or reunify children with their parents is whether the parents are fully

 abstaining from use of alcohol or other drugs.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

12. Parents who have been ordered to remain clean and sober should face consequences for

 noncompliance with those orders.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

13. Parents who are noncompliant with dependency court orders should face jail time as a

 consequence. 

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

14. We have enough money in the systems that respond to the problems of alcohol and other drugs

 today; we need to redirect the money to use it better.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

15. We should fund programs that serve children and families based on their results, not based on

 the number of people they serve, as we often do now.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

16. We should fund programs that treat parents for their abuse of alcohol and other drugs based

 on their results, not based on the number of people they serve, as we often do now.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

17. We should provide incentive funds and penalties to courts based on their results in meeting

 statutory timelines. 

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

18. If we funded programs based on results, some programs would lose some or all of their

 funding.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

19. In our community, agencies should involve people from the community and the court system in

 planning and evaluating programs that respond to the problems of substance abuse.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

20. In our community, agencies should involve people from the community in planning and

 evaluating programs that serve families affected by child abuse and neglect.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree
A-52

21. In our community, dependency courts do a good job of involving people from the community in

 planning and evaluating services and programs in the dependency court.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

22. Judges have a responsibility to be involved with planning communitywide responses to the

 problems associated with alcohol and other drug use.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

23. Children of substance abusers who are also in children’s services should be a high- priority

 group for targeted substance abuse prevention services.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

24. Substance abuse treatment outcome measures should include indicators regarding the safety,

 permanency, and well-being of the children of parents who are in their treatment programs.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

25. Child welfare service outcome measures should include indicators regarding the substance

 abuse recovery status of parents of the children they seek to protect. 

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

26. Child welfare service outcome measures should include indicators regarding the parents’

 ability to be effective parents.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

27. Persons who are in recovery and have successfully transitioned out of the child welfare system

 should play a significant role in supporting and advocating for parents in the child welfare and

 family court systems.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

28. Changing the system so that more services were delivered closer to the neighborhoods and

 communities would improve the effectiveness of services.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

29. Services would be improved if agencies were more responsive to the cultural differences

 between client groups.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

30. The problems of Native American children and families are significant in our community. 

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree
A-53

31. Our agencies and courts do a good job in responding to the needs of Indian children and

 families in the child welfare and treatment systems. 

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

32. Services would be improved if all clients, regardless of income, who receive services made some

 kind of payment for the services with donated time, services, or cash.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

33. In our community, the judges and attorneys in the dependency court and the agencies

 delivering services to children and families often are ineffective because they don’t work

 together well enough when they are serving the same families. 

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

34. The dependency courts should provide increased monitoring of parents’ recovery as they go

 through substance abuse treatment, and should use the power of the court to sanction parents

 if they don’t comply with treatment requirements. 

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

35. The most important causes of the problems of children and families cannot be addressed by

 government; they need to be addressed within the family and by nongovernmental

 organizations such as churches, neighborhood organizations, and self-help groups.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

36. Judges should be the leaders of collaboratives seeking to solve problems associated with

 substance abuse and child welfare. 

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

37. Our judges’ and attorneys’ responses to parents with problems of addiction is generally

 appropriate and effective. 

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

38. The problems caused by use of tobacco by youth are largely unrelated to the problems caused

 by the use of alcohol and other drugs by youth.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

39. A neighborhood’s residents should have the right to decide how many liquor stores should be

 allowed in their neighborhood.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree
A-54

40. The messages that youth receive from the media, TV, music, and other forms of entertainment

 are a big part of the problem of abuse of alcohol and other drugs by youth.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

41. The price of alcohol and tobacco should be increased to a point where it pays for the damage

 caused in the community by use and abuse of these legal drugs.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

42. I believe that the significant barriers to interagency cooperation would be resolved if children’s

 services, substance abuse staff, and dependency court staff were involved in a comprehensive

 training program for child welfare staff.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

43. I believe that confidentiality of client records is a significant barrier to allowing greater

 cooperation among alcohol and drug treatment, children’s services agencies, and the courts. 

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

44. I believe that publicly funded alcohol and drug treatment providers should give higher priority

 in allocating treatment slots than they do now to women referred from child protective services

 (CPS).

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

45. Judicial ethics should be interpreted to mean that judges not participate in collaborative efforts

 involving attorneys who may appear in their courts.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

46. Attorneys who represent parents in dependency court proceedings have an ethical conflict if

 they advise parents either to admit that they have a substance abuse problem or to seek

 treatment prior to the court taking jurisdiction in a case. Parents’ substance abuse admission

 could be negatively interpreted during the investigation of the child abuse and neglect

 allegations.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

47. Some parents with problems with alcohol and other drugs will never succeed in treatment.

 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

48. The proportion of parents who will succeed in treatment for alcohol and other drug problems is

 approximately (circle one).

 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A-55

49. The proportion of parents in substantiated CPS cases who will succeed in family services,

 regain custody of their children, and not reabuse or reneglect is (circle one).

 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

50. The most important causes of problems affecting children, families, and others in need in our

 community are (circle only three):

A lack of self-discipline The level of violence tolerated by the community

A loss of family values Lack of skills needed to keep a good job

Racism The harm done by government programs

Drug abuse Too few law enforcement personnel

Mental illness Fragmented systems of service delivery

Domestic violence Deteriorating public schools

Alcoholism The way the welfare program works

Poverty Children born and raised in single-parent homes

Child abuse A lack of business involvement in solutions

Low intelligence Too few jails and prisons

Illiteracy Inadequate support for families of low income who work

The drug business Economic changes that have eliminated good jobs

Incompetent parenting An overemphasis upon consumer values

Illegal immigration Media concentration on negatives

Other: _____________________________

Collaborative Capacity

Instrument

A-59

 

COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY INSTRUMENT

Reviewing and Assessing the Status of Linkages Across Alcohol and Drug Treatment, Child 

Welfare Services, and Dependency Courts

This tool is intended to be used as a self-assessment by State and/or local jurisdiction alcohol and 

other drug (AOD) service and child welfare service (CWS) agencies and dependency courts* who are 

preparing to work with each other or who may be seeking to move to a new level of cooperation after 

some initial efforts. The questions have been designed to elicit discussion among and within both sets of 

agencies and the court about their readiness for closer work with each other.

Responses from this assessment should be tabulated and distributed, along with the total from all 

participants, to each State team. The results can be used to compare the jurisdiction with the matrix of 

progress in linkages (see “Framework and Policy Tools for Improving Linkages between Alcohol and 

Drug Services, Child Welfare Services and Dependency Courts” at http://ncacsw.samhsa.gov) and to 

prioritize any needed action. The NCSACW has the ability to tabulate these responses via the Internet 

for interested sites.

Identify your own role in your organization: 

1. Staff Level: 2. Gender: 

 Frontline staff  Male

 Supervisor  Female

 Manager

 Administrator

 Other (specify): __________________

3. Area of Primary Responsibility: 4. Age: __________Years

 Substance Abuse Services

 Child Welfare Services

 Dependency Court Judicial Officer

 Attorney Practicing in Dependency Court

 Domestic Violence

 Mental Health

 Other (specify): _________________

5. Jurisdiction of Agency or Court: 6. Race/Ethnicity:

 Federal Government/National  African-American

 State Office  Asian/Pacific Islander

 Within State Regional Office  Caucasian

 County  Hispanic

*Dependency court is used in this document to include the courts that have jurisdiction in cases of child abuse or neglect, or 

both, and include judicial officers as well as the attorneys who represent parents, children, social services, and the State.
A-60

 Community-Based Organization  Native American

 Reservation  Other: __________________

 Other (specify): __________________

7. Years of professional experience in my primary program area: ______

Circle the response category that most closely represents your extent of agreement with each of the 

following statements:

I. Underlying Values and Principles of Collaborative Relationships

1. Our State has included the judicial officers and attorneys from the dependency court as

 partners in the development of new approaches to serving parents with substance abuse

 problems in the child welfare system.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

2. Our State alcohol and other drug (AOD) and CWS agencies and dependency courts have used

 a formal values assessment process to determine how much consensus or disagreement we

 have about issues related to AOD use, parenting, and child safety.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

3. Our State AOD and CWS agencies and dependency courts have negotiated shared principles

 or goal statements that reflect a consensus on issues related to families with AOD-related

 problems in child welfare and the dependency court.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

4. Our State has prioritized parents in the CWS system for receipt of AOD treatment services.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

5. In our State, CWS staff and the courts view alcohol abuse as being as important as other

 drugs as a contributing factor in child abuse and/or neglect.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

6. Our State has discussed and developed responses to the conflicting timeframes associated

 with CWS, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and AOD treatment and child

 development.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know
A-61

II. Daily Practice—Screening and Assessment

1. Our State has developed a joint AOD-CWS-Dependency Court policy on its approach to

 standardized screening and assessment of substance abuse issues among families in child

welfare.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

2. Our State has successfully outstationed AOD workers at CPS offices and/or the dependency

 court to help with screening and assessment of clients.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

3. Our State has multidisciplinary service teams who include both AOD and CWS workers.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

4. Our State has developed coordinated AOD treatment and CPS case plans.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

5. Our State supplements child abuse and neglect risk assessment with an indepth assessment of

 AOD issues and their impact on each family member.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

6. Our State’s child welfare intake process is able to identify prior AOD treatment episodes

 based on previously negotiated information-sharing protocols.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

7. Our State’s AOD intake process identifies parents who are involved in the CWS system based

 on previously negotiated information-sharing protocols.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

8. Our State’s AOD providers have sufficient information about the child welfare case to conduct

 quality assessments among families referred by child welfare to treatment.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

9. Our State routinely documents AOD factors from its screening and assessment process in the

 information system.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know
A-62

10. When our AOD treatment providers assess clients, they routinely include questions about

 children in the family, their living arrangements, and child safety issues.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

11. Our State routinely monitors the implementation and the quality of its screening and

 assessment protocols.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

III. Daily Practice—Client Engagement and Retention in Care

1. Our State’s CWS staff have the skills and knowledge to talk with their clients about their AOD

 use and related problems.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

2. Our State’s AOD staff have the skills and knowledge to talk with their clients about child 

 safety and CWS involvement.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

3. Our State’s dependency court judges have the skills and knowledge they need to talk with

 their clients about child welfare and substance abuse issues. 

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

4. Our State’s dependency court attorneys have the skills and knowledge they need to talk with

 their clients about child welfare and substance abuse issues. 

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

5. Our systems have assessed common dropout points when clients in care leave the system

 before completing treatment.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

6. Our systems have implemented integrated case plans that include the substance abuse

 recovery plan integrated or linked with the child welfare case plan.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

7. Our dependency court system has adequate access to treatment monitoring information to

 determine whether parents are progressing through treatment in a timely way.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know
A-63

8. Our State’s dependency court system has realistic expectations for CWS parents with AOD

 problems (e.g., approach to relapse and drug testing issues).

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

9. Our State’s CWS staff provide outreach to clients who do not keep their initial AOD

appointment or drop out of treatment.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

10. Our dependency court staff follow up with the substance abuse treatment program that the

 parent is ordered to attend if a parent fails to keep a court date.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

11. Our State AOD staff track the status of their clients’ progress in the CWS system.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

12. Our State has developed and trained our staff in approaches with clients that improve rates of

 retention in treatment once they enter it.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

13. In our State, CWS and AOD agencies have agreed on the level of information about clients’

 progress in treatment that will be communicated from treatment agencies to CWS workers

 and the courts.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

14. In our State, there is an adequate system for monitoring jointly agreed-upon outcomes of child

 welfare, substance abuse, and dependency court programs and interventions.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

15. In our State, client relapse typically leads to a collaborative intervention to reengage the client

 in treatment and to reassess child safety.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

16. In our State, drug testing is used effectively and in conjunction with a treatment program to

 monitor clients’ compliance with treatment plans.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know
A-64

17. Rate your State’s AOD treatment services in the following areas:

 Poor Fair Excellent

 Gender specific 1 2 3 4 5

 Culturally relevant 1 2 3 4 5

 Geographically accessible 1 2 3 4 5

 Family focused 1 2 3 4 5

 Age-specific responses to children’s needs 1 2 3 4 5

 Adequacy of adolescent treatment 1 2 3 4 5

18. Rate your State’s AOD treatment services in the following areas:

 Poor Fair Excellent

 Gender specific 1 2 3 4 5

 Culturally relevant 1 2 3 4 5

 Geographically accessible 1 2 3 4 5

 Family focused 1 2 3 4 5

 Age-specific responses to children’s needs 1 2 3 4 5

 Adequacy of adolescent treatment 1 2 3 4 5

IV. Daily Practice—Services to Children

1. Our State has implemented substance abuse prevention and early intervention services for

 most children in the CWS system.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

2. Our State targets children of substance abusers in the child welfare system for specialized

 substance abuse prevention programming.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

3. Our State ensures that all children in the child welfare system have a comprehensive mental

 health assessment that includes screening for developmental delays, neurological effects of 

 prenatal AOD exposure, and the emotional and mental effects of their parents’ substance use.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

4. Our State ensures that all children in CWS are screened for:

a) Neurological effects of prenatal substance exposure

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

b) Developmental delays associated with parental substance abuse

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know
A-65

c) Emotional and mental health problems associated with parental substance abuse

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

d) Substance use disorders

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

5. Our State’s Independent Living Program includes significant content on the impact of AOD

 use.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

6. Our State has developed a range of programs for children of parents who have substance

 abuse problems that are targeted on the special developmental needs of these children.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

7. Our State is familiar with national models of prevention and intervention for children affected

 by AODs.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

V. Joint Accountability and Shared Outcomes

1. Our State’s AOD agency has identified system outcomes and has communicated them to the

 CWS agency and the dependency court.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

2. Our State’s CWS agency has identified system outcomes and has communicated them to the

 AOD agency and the dependency court.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

3. Our State’s dependency court has identified system outcomes and has communicated them to

 the AOD and CWS agencies.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

4. Our State AOD and CWS agencies and the courts have developed shared outcomes for CWS

 AOD involved families and have agreed on how to use this information to inform policy

 leaders.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 
A-66

5. Our State has developed outcome criteria in their contracts with community-based providers

 (who serve CWS–AOD clients) to measure their effectiveness in achieving shared outcomes.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

6. Our State has shifted funding from providers who are less effective in serving clients in the

 CWS–AOD systems to those who are more effective.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

7. In our State, CWS–AOD involved parents are referred to parenting programs that have

 demonstrated positive results with this population.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

8. Our State CWS agency shares accountability with its AOD counterpart for successful

 treatment outcomes for their mutual clients.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

9. Our State AOD agency shares accountability for positive child safety outcomes for clients who

 have enrolled in treatment programs.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

10. In our State, drug testing is used in the court system as the most important indicator of clients’

 status in resolving their AOD problem.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

VI. Information Sharing and Data Systems

1. Our State has assessed its data system to identify gaps in monitoring clients involved in CWS

 and AOD systems.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

2. Our State’s data system can retrieve the percentages of families that receive services in AOD

 and CWS agencies.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

3. Our State has identified the confidentiality provisions that affect CWS–AOD and dependency

 court connections and has devised means of sharing information while observing these

 regulations.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know
A-67

4. Our State has developed formal working agreements with the courts that include how child

 welfare and treatment agencies will share information about clients in treatment with the

 court system.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

5. Our State consistently documents AOD factors related to the case in our management

 information system.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

6. Our State’s AOD services have supplemented the alcohol and drug data system to generate

 data on their clients’ children and their clients’ CPS involvement.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

7. Our State has developed the capacity to automate data about the characteristics and service

 outcomes of the clients who are in CWS and AOD caseloads.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

8. Our State is using data that can track CWS–AOD clients across information systems to

 monitor system outcomes.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

VII. Training and Staff Development

1. Our State CWS ensures that all managers, supervisors, and workers receive training in

 working with families affected by AODs.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

2. Our State AOD agency ensures that its staff and providers receive training in working with

 families in the CWS system.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

3. Our State has trained court staff in the principles of effective drug treatment and gender

 specific services for mothers. 

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

4. Our State has trained attorneys who practice in the dependency court regarding effective

 advocacy and basic education regarding substance abuse and addiction.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know
A-68

5. Our State has developed joint training programs for AOD, CWS, and court staff and

 providers to learn effective methods of working together.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

6. Our State has a multiyear staff development plan that includes periodic updates to the

 training and orientation received by the staff of both CWS and AOD agencies on working

 together.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

7. Our State has training programs that include cultural issues to improve staff’s cultural

 relevance and competency in working with diverse AOD–CWS client groups.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

8. Our State has revised the State university and social work preservice educational programs so

 that future staff are prepared to work across systems on substance abuse and child welfare

 issues.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

9. Foster parents, guardians, kinship placement providers, and group home providers are

 sufficiently trained to work on issues related to families with substance abuse problems.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

10. Training programs regarding substance abuse, child welfare, and dependency court issues

 that are offered in our State are multidisciplinary in their approach and in their delivery.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

VIII. Budgeting and Program Sustainability

1. Our State CWS agency currently uses a portion of its funding for AOD treatment services

 (excluding drug testing).

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

2. Our AOD treatment agencies currently use a portion of their funding for services to improve

 clients’ parenting skills.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 
A-69

3. Our AOD treatment agencies currently use a portion of their funding for children

 development screenings for AOD effects on children of their clients.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

4. Our State uses a portion of its TANF allocations to fund programs for AOD–CWS clients.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

5. Our State’s CWS and AOD agencies and dependency courts have jointly sought funding for

 pilot projects to work more closely together.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

6. Our State has identified the full range of potential funding from all sources that could support

 the changes needed to work more closely across CWS–AOD agencies.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

7. Our State has identified whether Federal waivers would be appropriate to fully utilize

 available funds for families in the CWS–AOD systems.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

8. Our State has a multiyear budget plan to support integrated CWS–AOD services.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

9. Our courts have sought additional funding to take dependency drug court programs to a

 countywide scale of operations.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

IX. Working With Related Agencies

1. Clinical services to address mental health and trauma issues are included in comprehensive

 assessments and case plans for all families.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

2. Domestic violence advocacy and services are included in comprehensive assessment and case

 plans for all families in the CWS and AOD service systems.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know
A-70

3. Our State ensures that primary health care and dental care are available for families in the

 child welfare and AOD service systems.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

4. Specialized health services for parents with substance abuse problems regarding HIV

 AIDS, Hepatitis C, and other diseases frequently transmitted among intravenous drug users

 are accessible in our State. 

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

5. Our State CWS staff know how to identify and link families with the support services that are 

frequently needed by CWS–AOD-involved clients (e.g., transportation, child care, employment, 

and housing) and make effective referrals to those agencies.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

6. Our State routinely assesses for rates of referral and service completions for all clinical and

 supportive services needed by families and monitors barriers to access for these services.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know 

7. Our State AOD staff and providers know how to identify and link CWS-involved families with

 other services that are frequently needed services (e.g., transportation, child care, family

 violence services, and mental health services) and make referrals to those agencies.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

8. Our State has AOD support and recovery groups that include a special focus on CWS and 

child safety issues.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

9. Our State coordinates with law enforcement, AOD, and CWS to meet the needs of parents and

 their children affected by the criminal justice system (e.g., visitation for children with

 incarcerated parents and treatment while parents are incarcerated).

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

X. Working With the Community and Supporting Families

1. Our State has developed strategies to recruit broad community participation in addressing the

 needs of AOD–CWS- and dependency court-involved families.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know
A-71

2. Our State includes community members in its planning and program development for 

 ubstance abuse issues in child welfare and dependency court services.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

3. In our State, prevention of child abuse and neglect and substance abuse operates at the

 community level as well as statewide.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

4. Our State has developed a formal mechanism to solicit support and input from community

 members and consumers, and this mechanism is widely used. 

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

5. CWS and AOD staff members have access to up-to-date resource directories to locate family

 support centers and resources.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

6. Communitywide accountability systems or “report cards” are used to monitor AOD and CWS

 issues with specific indicators for both systems.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

7. Our State assists in supporting sober living communities and housing for parents in recovery.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

8. Consumers, parents in recovery, and program graduates have an active role in planning,

 developing, implementing, and monitoring services for families with substance abuse

 problems in the child welfare system.

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know

9. Our State provides aftercare services to parents in the AOD and CWS systems that include the

 full array of family income support programs (Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Child

 Support, State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), Food Stamps, Housing

 Subsidies, and others).

 Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Not Sure/Don’t Know
A-72

Use of the Collaborative Values Inventory (CVI)

As directed by the introduction of the CVI, all team members should fill the instrument out anonymously 

and submit it to the persons assigned to tabulate the responses. When possible, team members should 

complete the survey in time for tabulation and analysis to be done in advance of a team meeting that 

is designed to discuss the responses. This advance response can be done online if the team has such 

resources.

When advance submission and analysis are not possible, depending on staffing resources and the format 

of the day’s agenda, in some cases it will be possible to provide participants with feedback. Ideally, in 

a 1- to 2-day workshop, providing feedback should be done as early in the day as possible. A simple, 

preformatted Excel chart and graph can be used for each question, with tabulators entering the results 

of each survey in the charts. This process will yield a series of bar graphs that can then be shown to the 

participants later in the day, or at a subsequent meeting.

The power of the survey is to show graphically and anonymously how much consensus or disagreement 

exists within the group. A chart that looks like the one below reveals consensus. Clicking on the chart 

will show the format that underlies it and that would need to be prepared from participants’ responses:

But a chart that looks like the one below reveals significant disagreement among all participants and 

across different groups as well:
A-73

Analysis of the Results

Multiple levels of analysis are possible with the CVI, including–

• An overview of the questions on which agreement and disagreements are most evident among the

 entire group of respondents;

 • An analysis of how different professional groups and other subdivisions among the respondents

 agree and disagree with other groups;

 • A statistical analysis of whether the differences are significant based on profession, age and

 experience of respondents, and other characteristics of the participants; and

 • A statistical analysis of whether there are any patterns among the responses that suggest some 

 topics are connected in the attitudes of the respondents.

The latter two kinds of analysis can be provided by local university faculty, loaned executives from local 

corporations, or staff of local nonprofits familiar with statistical analysis.

Once this analysis has identified the areas of strongest consensus and those in which disagreements 

are most visible, the task is to develop a narrative that summarizes the strengths of consensus and the 

challenges of disagreement. The narrative may discuss underlying reasons for the disagreement, such 

as differences in training and educational backgrounds, recent crises, or funding shifts that may affect 

team members’ responses, or other factors that help explain the responses. Facilitation of discussion of 

these issues requires skill and careful pacing; facilitators should not attempt to dive immediately into 

the areas of greatest disagreement and resolve them. In some cases, small group discussions among 

same-profession or same-agency teams may make it easier to surface and understand disagreements. 

Facilitators also should point out areas of consensus as collaborative strengths, which the group can 

build on in their work together. 

Use and Analysis of the Collaborative Capacity Instrument (CCI)

The CCI has been used in numerous conferences and regional workshops in which teams from State 

and local governments have filled out the capacity self-assessment as the opening element of a thorough 

discussion of an interagency team’s strengths and problems. The questions in the CCI cover all 10 

dimensions of the linkages framework developed by the NCSACW for assessing the components of 

collaborative (see Section IV, Appendix 1, Matrix of Progress in Linkages Among Alcohol and Drug 

and Child Welfare Services and the Dependency Court System, in “Framework and Policy Tools for 

Improving Linkages between Alcohol and Drug Services, Child Welfare Services and Dependency 

Courts” at http://ncacsw.samhsa.gov). The format allows team members to make their own ratings on 

where the team has formed effective working relationships across agency lines. The questions have been 

designed to elicit discussion among and within both sets of agencies and the courts about their readiness 

for closer work with each other.

Responses from this assessment should be tabulated in a spreadsheet that shows scores for each 

question, broken out by respondents from different agencies. This overview of the responses should 

then be distributed. The results can be used to compare the jurisdiction with the “Matrix of Progress in 

Linkages Among Alcohol and Drug and Child Welfare Services and the Dependency Court System” 

and to prioritize any needed action. Team members facilitating the completion of the CCI and analyzing 

responses need to determine whether they have the resources to collect and analyze responses online.
A-74

The analysis should review at least three different facets of the responses:

• Responses grouped by agency and professional background, for example, compare the perceptions

 of the child welfare staff on budgeting issues with those of the substance abuse counselors and the 

 courts;

 • Responses grouped by topic area, for example, compare how positive the participants’ responses

 are on daily practice issues compared with their views of interagency cooperation on joint training;

 and 

• Responses grouped by participants’ own characteristics, such as tenure, role in organization,

 ethnicity, and age.

When teams come together and begin discussion of the responses, strong facilitation is needed in order 

to ensure that the discussion focuses on the most useful areas to explore. The facilitator should not only 

point out areas of agreement and disagreement, but also encourage members of the group to explain 

why they ranked capacity higher in certain areas than others. This process will go better if the initial 

discussion is positive, for example, raising the question of why a majority of participants rated an area 

high, rather than starting first with the areas that appear to be lower rated problem areas. Once the group 

has become accustomed to sharing its attitudes across agency lines, the discussion can move toward the 

more problematic areas.

Current Research Examining the Reliability of the CVI and the CCI

Dr. Laurie Drabble, Assistant Professor, San Jose State University College of Social Work, will be 

studying both the CVI and the CCI as part of a larger research project. There are three primary aims 

of the research project on “Pathways to Collaboration: Understanding the Role of Values and SystemRelated Factors that Contribute to the Adoption of Promising Practices Between Child Welfare and 

Alcohol and Drug Systems:”

1. Factor analysis and reliability testing of both the CVI and the CCI;

2. Examination of areas of commonality and difference between ADS and CWS systems based on

 data using CVI and CCI instruments (from approximately 300 respondents representing 11 counties

 in California); and

3. Exploration of factors that help or hinder collaboration (from a subset of California counties).

The first aim, which includes factor analysis and reliability testing of the CVI, will be conducted to 

explore how the items on the inventory may interrelate to define key “factors” or underlying dimensions 

of the construct of “values” that impact collaboration. This process also will help identify items that are 

the strongest measures of these different dimensions as well as items that may not work well and that 

might be dropped in a future version of the inventory. Finally, the reliability tests will help evaluate the 

internal consistency of the instruments, or how the items that make up the instrument fit together. All of 

this will help in the process of refining the instruments and considering how they may best be used in the 

future.
Examples of Principle

Statements

A-77

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

DEPENDENCY DRUG COURT PLANNING

PROPOSED VALUES AND WORKING PRINCIPLES

August 2000

1. Alcohol and other Drug (AOD) abuse negatively affects the well being of children, families and

 communities.

2. Effectively addressing AOD abuse and related problems among families involved in CWS and the

 Dependency Court system would contribute to better results for children and their families.

3. Most AOD/CWS involved families can reduce risk in their lives and achieve self-sufficiency,

 particularly when they have access to a full continuum of prevention and treatment services that are

 tailored to their needs.

4. Interventions and decision-making for AOD/CWS involved families should be based on a thorough

 assessment, which includes addressing the impact of AOD use on child safety, child development,

 parental competency and self-sufficiency.

5. Removal of children from AOD involved families should only occur when there are no other

 options to ensure the child’s safety. 

6. AOD/CWS parents must be held accountable for maintaining expectations of compliance with case

 plans and court orders, while at the same time, treated with dignity, understanding and fairness.

7. While sobriety is a necessary goal for parents who abuse or are dependent upon AOD, other 

 measures of client success must be acknowledged and valued.

8. Sustained abstinence must be demonstrated prior to decision making about family reunification

 when AOD use is identified as a contributing risk factor in the court petition.

9. The use of sanctions is appropriate when done in conjunction with treatment monitoring and

 balanced against the potential negative impact on children and families.

10. Empowered individuals are capable of defining their needs, identifying their strengths, building

 solutions and taking charge of their own change process.

11. A wide range of treatment modalities, including narcotic replacement therapy (e.g. methadone

 treatment), are effective, especially when appropriately matched to client needs.

12. Parents and children respond best to services, which are family focused, culturally sensitive and

 address a broad array of family needs.
A-78

CUYAHOGA COUNTY 

BASIC TENETS AND PHILOSOPHY OF START

Those involved with the ADAPT project spent much time clarifying their basic values and assumptions 

about their work and were pleased with the foundation that they developed. In developing START, we 

further clarified and supplemented those tenets as follows.

1. We acknowledge that addiction is a disease that requires total abstinence. We support the recovery

 philosophy and understand that relapse may occur, requiring modified and/or intensified services.

2. We believe that the neglect and abuse of children is often associated with addiction. The potential

 for losing custody of a child can be the key to bringing a parent into treatment.

3. We understand that other needs of the parent are often rooted in addiction, so that initial services

 should be directed toward assessment and treatment of the addiction.

4. We believe that a sober, supportive living environment is critical to the recovery process.

5. We are aware that no one agency has the resources and expertise to respond adequately to the needs

 of the parent who is addicted and who has abused or neglected children.

6. We are committed to modifying agency policies or procedures to support a family’s participation in

 a treatment plan with all service providers.

7. We commit ourselves to a family team approach to work cooperatively, together with the parents

 and the children, to develop and implement treatment/case plans to meet each family member’s

 individual needs.

8. We believe that keeping the parents and children closely connected is an essential factor in

 enhancing or preserving their relationship.

9. When a child must be removed from his or her family for protection, we believe the child has the

 right to frequent visits with the family during the parent s treatment.

10. We agree to work cooperatively toward reunification of the family and child as quickly as the child’s

 protection can be assured.

11. We believe that both the family and the child have the right to continuity of health care services.

12. We are committed to creative approaches to child care, improving parenting skills, building family

 support systems, etc. for those willing to enter treatment.
A-79

Synthesis of Cross System Values and Principles:

A National Perspective

Introduction

The purpose of this statement is to guide the collaborative efforts of NCSACW’s Consortium members 

as they work together to improve systems and practice for families with substance use disorders who are 

involved in the child welfare and family judicial systems by assisting local and State agencies and tribal 

governments.

Family members who have substance use disorders undermine family stability and negatively affect 

child safety, well-being, psychological and emotional development.

Substance abuse prevention, treatment, and recovery support need to be delivered to family members in 

the context of other issues, such as providing parenting skills classes; addressing mental and physical 

health needs; providing housing, education, employment, and nutrition services; and addressing 

domestic violence and criminal justice issues. It is important that sufficient resources and systems are 

in place to provide families with an adequate chance to recover from substance use disorders through 

immediate and effective service delivery. 

This document reflects the shared values and principles of the NCSACW Consortium Member 

Organizations and forms the basis for developing collaborative solutions for identified cross-system 

issues in order to improve outcomes for children and families. 

Background 

A number of resources were thoughtfully reviewed in order to develop this document, which represents 

the “best thinking” that has resulted in multiple efforts at both the State and National level to establish 

shared cross-system values and guiding principles. Among the resources reviewed are: 

• AACAP/CWLA Values and Principles for Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services and

 Supports for Children in Foster Care (2001)

• NASADAD Policy Guide on Collaborative Models for State Alcohol and Other Directors and 

 Child Welfare Administrators (Nardini, 2004)

• NAPCWA Guidelines for a Model System of Protective Services for Abused and Neglected 

 Children and Their Families (1999, an affiliate of APHSA)

• NCJFCJ - Key Principles for Permanency Planning for Children (October 1999) 

 • Building a Better Collaboration: Facilitating Change in the Court and Child Welfare System (S. 

 Dobbin, Ph.D., S. Gatowski, Ph.D., and D. Maxwell, Ph.D., NCJFCJ, April 2004)

 Courts, Agencies and Communities Working Together: A Strategy for Systems Change, National 

 Judicial Curricula Series (NCJFCJ, 2000)

DRAFT
A-80

• NICWA Principles of Collaboration (2001)

 • NCSACW Ten-Element Framework for System Linkages among Alcohol and Drug and Child

 Welfare Services and the Dependency Court System (2003)

• NCSACW Collaborative Values Inventory (2003)

Shared Values and Guiding Principles

Joint Accountability and Shared Outcomes

• The child welfare agency has accepted a shared role in facilitating recovery outcomes for its

 clients and the AOD treatment agency has accepted a shared role for facilitating child safety for

 the children of its clients and the court has accepted responsibility for monitoring the outcomes for

 children and families in the court system.

• All three systems have a shared role in achieving safety, permanency and well-being outcomes for

 children and families. Outcome data from across the three systems will be used to inform policy

 leaders and communities to develop, fund, and prioritize services that are known to be effective in

 improving outcomes.

Principles of Daily Practice

• AOD treatment will be available and accessible for children and families who suffer from a

 substance use disorder and/or co-occurring disorder.

• There is no “wrong door” for accessing services and creating opportunities for children and

 families to receive court, agency, and community-based services within their local service systems.

• It is our professional responsibility to provide all children and their families with access to the

 timeliest, most appropriate, and most effective treatment/prevention services and supports to

 children and their families in the least intrusive environment possible to ensure the best outcomes.

• Field practice and service delivery will be:

  child-focused

  family-driven

  culturally appropriate

  strengths-based

  age-appropriate

  community-centered

• A continuum of prevention, intervention, treatment and recovery supports are incorporated into the

 daily practice of all three systems.

 • A cross-systems multi-disciplinary team approach will be used to treat children and families in

 need of services.

• Given the complexity of serving children and families, it is crucial to have a comprehensive array

 of services.
A-81

Information and Data Sharing

• Professionals and caregivers at both the state and community level need to develop common

 knowledge and shared values about child protection and AOD issues in order to assist children

 and families with AOD problems to achieve positive outcomes.

• Federal, State, and Tribal government confidentiality laws and HIPAA Privacy provisions will

 guide and direct the client information sharing process between the AOD and child welfare

 systems, the courts, and other related systems.

• Information systems are needed that can be linked to share information and monitor family and

 treatment outcomes, and enable decision makers to manage resources and monitor performance.

• Memorandum of Understandings (MOU) will be jointly prepared across systems to guide system

 collaboration and information sharing and communications protocols.

Training and Staff Development

• Services and supports for families affected by substance abuse disorders in the child welfare and

 the court systems will be provided by knowledgeable, skilled service providers who understand

 the cultural diversity of the families and communities they serve.

• Policies will support culturally competent service delivery in procedures, outreach, advocacy,

 and training throughout the service delivery system, and incorporates knowledge of ICWA and

 tribal governments.

• Competencies - Federal and state confidentiality laws and HIPAA Privacy provisions will guide

 and direct the client information sharing process between the AOD and child welfare systems, the

 courts, and other related systems.

• Community colleges, universities, graduate and law schools need to develop and offer classes that

 satisfy professional accreditation requirements.

• Professionals in these fields need to pariicipate in cross and joint-training opportunities. 

Budgeting and Sustainability

• It is essential to coordinate services and funding streams (flexible, joint, multiple) across systems

 to maximize the use of limited resources. Planning across systems makes better use of limited

 dollars and reduces potential duplication of services while increasing the availability of services

 and supports for the child and family.

• Sustainability is fostered by cross-system coordination and joint advocacy for the availability

 of sufficient resources in each system to adequately serve families who have co-occurring

 problems affecting their parenting, family stability, and risks to children. 

Working with Related Agencies

• Collaboration is an essential element to effectively achieving the jointly identified outcomes of

 multiple systems. This approach requires a commitment to effective communication a willingness

 to be non-judgmental, and an understanding of how other systems work.
A-82

• Communications by and about collaborators must be respectful and positive and any collaboration

 issues and concerns need to be expressed and resolved privately between collaborating entities.

• As appropriate, a family’s substance use disorder will be addressed when working with related

 agencies, such as health care providers, housing, employment, education, domestic violence

 advocacy, and mental health services; and when working with the family involved in other courts

 such as domestic violence, criminal, and delinquency.

Working with the Community and Families

• When services are being designed and funding priorities are being set, family and community

 input needs to be part of the process.

• The family will be part of the process at each level of planning, service delivery, and evaluation. 
Child Welfare and

Alcohol and Drug Treatment

and Prevention Outcomes

A-85

Children’s Bureau’s Children and Family Services Review Outcomes

Safety Outcomes

 Children are first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect.

 Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate.

Permanency Outcomes

 Children have permanency and stability in their living situations.

 The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children.

Child and Family Well-Being Outcomes

 Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs.

 Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs.

 Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs.

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant 

Voluntary Treatment and Prevention Performance Measures

Treatment Performance Measures

 Employment Status—The change in percentage of all clients receiving treatment who reported 

 being employed (including part-time) at discharge.

 Living Status—The change in percentage of all clients receiving treatment who reported being 

 homeless at discharge.

 Criminal Justice Involvement—The change in percentage of persons arrested in the last 30 days at 

 discharge for all clients receiving treatment.

 Alcohol Use—The change in percentage of all clients receiving treatment who reported abstinence 

 at discharge.

 Other Drug Use—The change in percentage of all clients receiving treatment who reported 

 abstinence at discharge.

 Infectious Diseases—Degree to which the Single State Agency provides and/or coordinates 

 delivery of appropriate infection control practices within its service system for substance abuse 

 treatment and prevention services.

 Social Support of Recovery—The change in percentage of all clients receiving treatment who 

 reported participation in one or more social and/or recovery support activity at discharge.

 Retention—Length of stay (in weeks), Average number of services per client, and proportion of 

 clients completing treatment.
A-86

Prevention Performance Measures

 Number of people served by: age, gender, race/ethnicity

 Number of services, by service type

 Number and percent of evidenced-based programs and strategies

 Perception of risk/harm of substance use

 Attitudes about substance use

 30 day substance use

Reference

Young, N. K., & Gardner, S. L. (2002). Navigating the pathways: Lessons and promising practices 

 in linking alcohol and drug services with child welfare (SAMHSA Publication No. SMA 02-3752). 

 Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance 

 Abuse Treatment.
B-1

Appendix B

Fact Sheets

B-3

Fact Sheet 1—The Extent of People’s Involvement With Alcohol and Drug Services, Child Welfare 

Services, and the Dependency Court Across Systems

Relatively few empirically sound studies or nationally representative data exist on the number of 

children in either child welfare services (CWS) or dependency courts who are impacted by their parents’

substance abuse or dependence. The two systems that could systematically monitor this population, 

CWS and substance abuse treatment, are not required in the Federal data systems to capture the data elements that would identify families receiving services in both systems. Several States have added those 

data elements to their automated data systems; however, they are not accumulated at the Federal level.

Therefore, estimating the number of families affected by substance use disorders and child abuse and/or 

neglect is extrapolated based on analyzing data collected in specific studies and applying those findings 

to national statistics of alcohol and drug services and child abuse and neglect. States and communities 

assessing their own systems’ responses may want to take a similar approach using prevalence data and 

their own State or community’s statistics on overall numbers of cases. Therefore, this fact sheet presents 

the national systems data, the data on the prevalence of the population that crosses over between 

systems, and explains the sources of the estimates. 

Alcohol and Drug Treatment - 2004

 • 1.88 million adults were admitted to the public treatment system (U.S. Department of 

 Health and Human Services [DHHS], Office of Applied Studies [OAS], 2006).

 • 590,261 (31.5% of 1.84 million) were women (DHHS, OAS, 2006).

 • 1.09 million parents (59% of 1.88 million) are estimated to be those of minor children

 (Hser et al., 2003; Ahmed, 2006).

 • 295,000 parents (27.1% of 1.09 million) are estimated to have had one or more children

 removed by CWS (Hser et al., 2003).

 • 108,000 parents (36.6% of 295,000) are estimated to have had their parental rights

 terminated for at least one child (Hser et al., 2003).

Because there are no national data on the number of children of persons in substance abuse treatment, 

the percentage of parents of minor children is taken from two sources: the California Treatment 

Outcome Project (CalTOP) study and Center for Substance Abuse Treatment’s (CSAT’s) Treatment 

Outcomes and Performance Pilot Studies (TOPPS-II). The CalTOP study, California’s implementation 

of CSAT’s TOPPS-II, found that 60% of persons in treatment were parents (Hser et al., 2003). The 

cross-State analysis of the TOPPS-II study included primary data from 16 States and also found that 

58.5% of persons admitted to treatment had a child younger than age 18 (Ahmed, 2006). Applying those 

prevalence data to the annual number of adults admitted to treatment results in the estimate that 1.09 

million parents of minor children were admitted to substance abuse treatment in 2004. 

The Hser et al. (2003) study also found that 27.1% of parents had one or more children removed from 

their custody and that 36.6% of those parents with a child who was removed had their parental rights 

terminated. 
B-4

Applying the percentage of parents with a child removed (27.1%) to the 1.09 million parents in 

treatment results in 295,000 parents in substance abuse treatment with a child who has been placed 

in protective custody. Of those parents, approximately 108,000 (36.6%) had their parental rights 

terminated. 

However, the percentage of parents varied significantly by the type of treatment they received. Among 

parents with a child removed by child protective services (CPS), 29% in outpatient programs, 53% 

in residential programs, and 80% in narcotic treatment (primarily methadone maintenance) had their 

parental rights terminated. Similar analyses of the TOPPS-II data set by Ahmed (2006) found that 22% 

of parents in the 16-State data set had a child removed by CPS and that only 10% of those had their 

parental rights terminated. However, 36.6% of parents had parental rights terminated or a child removed. 

In the cross-State data set, termination of parental rights also varied by type of treatment program. Of 

parents with a child removed by CPS, 66% of those in outpatient programs, 29% in residential care, 3% 

in narcotic treatment, and 1% in other programs had their parental rights terminated (Ahmed, 2006).

Child Welfare Services - 2004

 • 5.5 million children were reported for abuse or neglect DHHS, Administration on Children,

 Youth and Families [ACYF], 2006a).

 • 3.5 million children received an investigation (62.7% of referrals made to CPS) 

 (DHHS, ACYF, 2006b). 

 • 1.24 million children received postinvestigation services (DHHS, ACYF, 2006c).

 • 872,000 children (47.8% of those receiving an investigation or assessment) were victims of

 neglect (64.5%); physical abuse (17.5%); sexual abuse (9.7%); emotional or psychological

 abuse (7%); medical neglect (2.1%); and other (14.5%) (DHHS, ACYF, 2006d).

 • 268,000 children entered out-of-home care (DHHS, ACYF, 2006c).

 • One-third to two-thirds of families in child welfare services are affected by substance use

 disorders (DHHS, 1999).

 • In a study of children served in their home, an estimated 11% of children had a caretaker

 who met diagnostic criteria of substance dependence (Gibbons, Barth, & Martin, in press).

 • Studies using a case review method have found that a range of 43% (Murphy et al., 1991)

 to 79% (Besinger, Garland, Litrownik, & Landsverk, 1999) of children had a parent with a

 substance use disorder).

The data on the number of children who received postinvestigation are derived from the

Children’s Bureau’s report that states that 62.7% of children reported (5.5 million) received an 

investigation (DHHS, ACYF, 2006). The percentages of children by type of victim do not add up to 

100% because children can be found to be victims of multiple types of abuse and/or neglect.

In one nationally representative study conducted with families, the children remained in the home 

and caregivers were assessed for substance use disorder with a diagnostic tool using criteria to 

determine substance dependence (Gibbons, Barth, & Martin, in press). They found a rate similar to the 

approximately 11% rate of parental substance use disorders in the general population (DHHS, 1999). 

Studies conducted using case review procedures specifically looking for notations of substance use 

problems among parents of children placed in protective custody have found rates from 43% (Murphy et 

al., 1991) to 79% (Besinger et al., 1999). 
B-5

Based on these percentages, it is estimated that 66,440 children (872,000 child victims less 268,000 

children who were placed in custody x 11%) were victims of child abuse and/or neglect and received inhome services and had parents who would have met criteria for substance dependence. 

It is estimated that 115,240 to 211,720 child victims in out-of-home care (268,000 child victims served 

out of home x 43% and x 79%) had parents with a substance use disorder.

Dependency Court - 2002

 • 1.81 million juvenile court cases were filed (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006a).

 • 1.62 million delinquency cases were filed in juvenile court (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006b).

 • 193,200 cases (about 12% of 1.62 million) were for drug-related offenses (Snyder &

 Sickmund, 2006).

 • The total number of dependency cases filed is not known; however, 268,000 children were 

 court involved because of placement in foster care (DHHS, ACYF, 2006e).

 • The number of children who were court involved but not removed from parents’ custody

 (often referred to as “in home” cases), and for whom a petition alleging parental abuse or

 neglect was filed in court, is not known.

The national number of child abuse and/or neglect court cases in a given year is not known. Cases filed 

in the juvenile court are recorded for juvenile offenses; the number of total cases filed was derived 

from the total juvenile offender cases added to the number of children placed in out-of-home care who 

would have had a court case filed as a dependent of the court. The national number of court cases filed in 

which the child is not removed from the home (i.e., court-order in-home cases) is not known. Each case 

represents a new referral to juvenile court for one or more offenses. A youth may be involved in more 

than one case in a year. However, it is not known how many children are represented in these court cases 

because the Juvenile Court Statistics series does not provide a count of individual juveniles brought 

before juvenile courts.
B-6

The figure below, Children and Parents in Three Systems, illustrates how each system interacts with 

the other for part of the population it serves. While the overlap across the three systems is extensive, 

none of the systems have a specific mandate to differentially address the portion of parents and families 

with substance use disorders.

Children and Parents in Three Systems
B-7

References

Ahmed, K. (2006). Data analysis of the interstate Treatment Outcomes and Performance Pilot Project 

(TOPPS-II) data set from the 16 TOPPS II primary data States. These data were analyzed by Dr. Kazi 

Ahmed of Johnson, Bassin & Shaw under contract to the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment on 

January 29, 2006. Unpublished data.

Besinger, B., Garland, A., Litrownik, A., & Landsverk, J. (1999). Caregiver substance abuse among 

maltreated children placed in out-of-home care. Child Welfare, 78(2), 221–239.

Gibbons, C. B., Barth, R. P., & Martin, S. L. (in press). Substance abuse among caregivers of maltreated 

children. Child Abuse & Neglect.

Hser, Y. I., Evans, E. Teruya, C., Ettner, S., Hardy, M., Urada, D., Huang, D., Picazo, R., Shen, H., 

Hsieh, J., & Anglin, D. (2003). The California Treatment Outcome Project (CalTOP) final report (chap. 

IX), pp. 15–16. Retrieved April 9, 2006, from http://www.uclaisap.org/caltop/FinalReport/Chapter%20I

X%20Treatment%20Outcomes.pdf 

Murphy, J. M., Jellinek, M., Quinn, D., Smith, G., Poitrast, F. G., & Goshko, M. (1991). Substance 

abuse and serious child maltreatment: Prevalence, risk, and outcome in a court sample. Child Abuse and 

Neglect, 15(3), 197–211.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Applied Studies. (2006). Treatment Episode 

Data Set (TEDS). Highlights - 2004: National admissions to substance abuse treatment services (DASIS 

Series: S-31, DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 06-4140). Rockville, MD: Author.

Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006a). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National 

Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court (pp. 154–193). Accessed 

April 9, 2006, at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/nr2006/downloads/chapter6.pdf 

Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006b). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National 

Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Chapter 6: Juvenile offenders in court (p. 157). Accessed April 9, 

2006, at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/nr2006/downloads/chapter6.pdf 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Blending perspectives and building common 

ground: A report to Congress on substance abuse and child protection. Washington, DC: Author. The 

full report can be downloaded at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families. 

(2006a). Child maltreatment 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved April 

9, 2006, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/chaptertwo.htm#screen

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families. 

(2006b). Child maltreatment 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved April 

9, 2006, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm03/chaptertwo.htm#backnotethree
B-8

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families. 

(2006c). Child maltreatment 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved April 

9, 2006, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/chaptersix.htm#prevent

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families. 

(2006d). Child maltreatment 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved April 

9, 2006, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/chapterthree.htm#types

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families. 

(2006e). The AFCARS report #10: Preliminary FY 2003 estimates as of April 2005. Retrieved April 9, 

2006, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report10.htm
B-9

Fact Sheet 2—Special Issues During Pregnancy

Estimating the number of infants who were exposed to substances in the prenatal period has been 

conducted in two primary ways: (1) collecting information about substance use from pregnant women 

or conducting drug tests on them and (2) testing infants at birth. The results vary based on the timing of 

the verbal screen with the mother, the type of drug test conducted, and the method used to test the infant 

(e.g., urine or meconium at birth). Each of these methods measures exposure to the substance and does 

not quantify or assess the number of babies who may be affected by the mothers’ substance use. 

There are several Federal efforts to monitor substance use among pregnant and recently pregnant 

women. There are no ongoing national efforts to document the number of substance-exposed infants 

or those who are identified as substance affected, but several site-specific studies have been conducted. 

These estimates of prenatal exposure to drugs and alcohol include—

• National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). The latest Federal data available from the 

 NSDUH report on 2003 to 2004 annual averages of substance use by pregnant women. The

 NSDUH found that 4.6% of pregnant women aged 15 to 44 used illicit drugs in the past month.

 Rates varied by length of gestation, however; 8% of first trimester women, 3.8% of second

 trimester women, and 2.4% of third trimester women reported past month illicit drug use (U.S.

 Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS], 2005). 

 Alcohol use was reported by 11.2% of pregnant women, with 22.2% of women in their first

 trimester reporting alcohol use and with the rates declining to 7% and 4.9% in the second and third

 trimesters, respectively. Binge drinking, five or more drinks on the same occasion, was reported

 by 4.5% of pregnant women. Again, rates varied by length of gestation, with 10.6% of first

 trimester women, 1.9% of second trimester women, and 1.1% of third trimester women reporting

 binge drinking (DHHS, 2005). 

 Projecting these percentages to the approximately 4 million infants born each year results in a

 wide range of estimated substance-exposed infants, depending on substance and trimester of use

 (see Table 1) (DHHS, 2005).
B-10

Table 1: Substance Use by Pregnant Women by Length of Gestation, 

and Estimated Number of Infants Exposed

(2003-2004 annual average)

Substance Used

(past month) 1st Trimester 2nd Trimester 3rd Trimester

Any Illicit Drug 8.0% women 

327,440 infants

3.8% women 

155,534 infants

2.4% women 

98,232 infants

Alcohol Use 22.2% women 

908,646 infants

7.0% women 

286,510 infants

4.9% women 

200,557 infants

Binge Alcohol Use 10.6% women 

433,858 infants

1.9% women 

77,767 infants

1.1% women 

45,023 infants

From the same NSDUH data set, cigarette use was reported by 18% of pregnant women. In contrast 

to other substance use, which declines as the pregnancy progresses, cigarette use by trimester went 

from 22.7% in the first trimester, down to 13.4% in the second trimester, and then increased to 18% 

in the third trimester (DHHS, 2005). Prior studies based on this annual survey have found similar 

rates of substance use. For example, Ebrahim and Gfroerer (2003) estimated that in 1998 there were 

202,000 pregnancies exposed to illicit drugs, 1,203,000 pregnancies exposed to cigarettes, and 823,000 

pregnancies exposed to alcohol. 

Rates of substance use among pregnant women also vary by age groups, with both past month illicit 

drug and alcohol use highest among teenagers. For instance, 16% of pregnant teens aged 15 to 17 

reported past month illicit drug use, compared to 7.8% of those aged 18 to 25 and 2.1% of pregnant 

women aged 26 to 44. The trend was similar for alcohol use, though the differences were not quite as 

stark: 14.9% of pregnant teens aged 15 to 17 drank alcohol in the past month, compared to 10.6% of 

young women aged 18 to 25 and 11.3% of those aged 26 to 44. And, there was a similar trend among 

those reporting binge drinking, with 8.8% of pregnant teens 15 to 17 reporting binge drinking, compared 

to 5.1% of those 18 to 25 and 3.8% of those ages 26 to 44. And more than one-fourth (26%) of 

pregnant teens aged 15 to 17 and 28% of young women aged 18 to 25 reported past month cigarette use, 

compared to 11.7% of pregnant women aged 26 to 44 (DHHS, 2005). Table 2 summarizes these data.
B-11

Table 2: Substance Use by Pregnant Women by Age

(2003-2004 annual average)

 Age Group

Substance Used

(past month) 15-17 18-25 26-44

Any Illicit Drug 16.0% 7.8% 2.1%

Alcohol Use 14.9% 10.6% 11.3%

Binge Alcohol Use 8.8% 5.1% 3.8%

Tobacco Use 26.0% 28.0% 11.7%

The NSDUH also provides information beyond substance use to capture the number of individuals 

who need alcohol or drug treatment for substance abuse or dependence. Table 3 shows the results 

of an analysis using the 2003 NSDUH public use file on the percentage of females classified as 

needing alcohol or drug treatment, by pregnancy status (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration, 2005).

Table 3: Percentage of Females Aged 15-44 

Classified as Needing Treatment by Pregnancy Status: 2003

(Source: Online Analysis of NSDUH Public Use File)

Needed Treatment in Prior Year for: Pregnant Not Pregnant

Alcohol or Illicit Drug Use 8.6% 10.4%

Illicit Drug Use 4.6% 4.0%

Alcohol Use 5.4% 8.1%

• Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Surveillance Network (FASSNet) and State-Based FAS Prevention

 Program. From 1997 to 2003, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded

 FASSNet, a statewide, population-based surveillance network to determine the prevalence of Fetal

 Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) within a geographically defined area. The five States participating in

 FASSNet were Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, New York, and Wisconsin. CDC studies from FASSNet

 showed FAS prevalence rates ranging from 0.2 to 1.5 cases per 1,000 live births in different areas

 of the United States (CDC, 2005)

 Other prenatal alcohol-related conditions, such as alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorder

 (ARND) and alcohol-related birth defects (ARBDs) are believed to occur about three times as

 often as FAS (CDC, 2005). Though the FASSNet cooperative agreements with five States ended

 in 2003, its methodology has been adapted for use by the CDC’s more recently funded FAS

 Prevention Program, which includes cooperative agreements with seven States. The seven States

 currently participating in the FAS Prevention Program are Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota,

 Missouri, Oregon, South Dakota, and Wisconsin (Miller et al., 2002). The CDC also monitors

 the prevalence of alcohol use among women of childbearing age through the Behavioral Risk

 Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey.
B-12

• Screening During Pregnancy. In a study of more than 7,800 pregnant women enrolled in

 prenatal care clinics in five communities who were screened for substance use with the 4P’s

 Plus©, approximately one-third (32.7%) had a positive screen. Four of the communities conducted

 followup assessments on all women with a positive screen and found that 15% of those continued

 to use substances after learning of the pregnancy (Chasnoff et al., 2005).

• The Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS). PRAMS, currently used in 32

 States, collects data based on self-reported maternal behaviors and experiences that occur before,

 during, and shortly after pregnancy. Through cooperative agreements between the CDC and these

 32 State governments, information on the use of alcohol and tobacco before and during pregnancy

 is compiled; questions on illegal drug use are included in the survey at the discretion of the State

 (Beck, Johnson, Morrow, Lipscomb et al., 1999). 

 In some of these States, maternal substance use is reported at levels that corroborate States’ other

 estimates and national survey data. For instance, PRAMS indicates that during their last trimester

 of pregnancy 3% to 8% of women used alcohol and 5% to 14% used tobacco (Beck, Morrow,

 Lipscomb, Johnson et al. 2002). 

• Infant Development, Environment, and Lifestyle (IDEAL) Study. This longitudinal study is used

 to assess the outcomes associated with prenatal methamphetamine exposure. Participating sites

 were selected because of their known high rates of methamphetamine problems and include Los

 Angeles, CA; Des Moines, IA; Tulsa, OK; and Honolulu, HI. The prevalence of drug use has

 been determined by both mothers’ self-report of substance use during pregnancy and testing of

 infants’ meconium at birth. The results of the IDEAL study, which are not representative of

 the country as a whole, were collected in 2004. These data have been compared to the National

 Pregnancy and Health Survey (NPHS) that was collected in 1992 to 1993. Nearly half (44%) of

 the methamphetamine users had used other illicit drugs. Table 5 shows the results (Arria et al.,

 2006).
B-13

Table 5: Infant Development, Environment, and Lifestyles (IDEAL)

and the National Pregnancy and Health Survey (NPHS)

Substance IDEAL (2004) NPHS (1992-1993)

Alcohol 22.8% 18.8%

Tobacco 25.4% 20.4%

Marijuana 6.0% 2.9%

Methamphetamine 5.2% 0.1%

Any Illicit Drug 10.7% 5.5%

When the figures in each table are evaluated together, the data can be summarized as follows:

• An estimated 8% to 11% of the 4.1 million live births (in 2004) involved prenatal exposure to

 illegal drugs.

• Binge alcohol drinking ranges from nearly 11% of women in the first trimester to 1% in the third

 trimester.

• Prenatal exposure to alcohol includes an estimated 22% of pregnant women during the first

 trimester and 5% of women in the third trimester.

 • Tobacco use by pregnant women exposes approximately one-quarter of babies with mothers

 younger than age 26.

 • When tobacco data are included, the three types of exposure—prenatal use of illicit drugs, alcohol,

 and tobacco—are the basis for the statement that “more than one million” children are affected

 by prenatal substance exposure (McGourty & Chasnoff, 2003). This figure differs from the

 400,000 to 440,000 estimated infants who test positive, because the smaller figure measures only

 prenatal use that can be detected at a point in time—birth—whereas the surveys that are the basis

 for the larger figure cover prenatal substance use during the entire period of pregnancy.

References

Arria, M., Derauf, C., LaGasse, L. L., Grant, P., Shah, R., Smith, L., et al. (2006). 

 Methamphetamine and other substance use during pregnancy: Preliminary estimates from the Infant 

 Development, Environment, and Lifestyle (IDEAL) study. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 

 10(3), 293–302.

Beck, L. F., Johnson, C. H., Morrow, B., Lipscomb, L. E., Gaffield, M. E., Gilbert, B. C., et al. 

 (1999). PRAMS 1999 surveillance report: Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System. Retrieved

 August 29, 2006, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve

 dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12004983&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_DocSum 

Beck, L. F., Morrow, B., Lipscomb, L. E., Johnson, M. S., Gaffield, M. E., Rogers, M., et al. 

 (2002). Prevalence of selected maternal behaviors and experiences, Pregnancy Risk Assessment

 Monitoring System (PRAMS), 1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 51(2), 1–27.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2005). Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Retrieved 

 August 29, 2006, from http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/factsheets/FAS.pdf; Tracking Fetal Alcohol

 Syndrome, http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/fas/fassurv.htm
B-14

Chasnoff, I. J., McGourty, R. F., Bailey, G. W., Hutchins, H. S., Lightfoot, S. O., Pawson, L. L., 

 et al. (2005). The 4P’s Plus© screen for substance use in pregnancy: Clinical application and

 outcomes. Journal of Perinatology, 25(6), 368–374.

Ebrahim, S. & Gfroerer, J. (2003). Pregnancy-related substance use in the United States during 

 1996-1998. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 101(2), 374–379.

Miller, L., Tolliver, R., Druschel, C., Fox, D., Schoellhorn, J., Podvin, D., et al. (2002). Fetal 

 alcohol syndrome—Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, and New York, 1995–1997. Morbidity and Mortality

 Weekly Report, 51(20): 433–435. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from 

 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5120a2.htm#top

McGourty, R. F., & Chasnoff, I. J. (2003). Power beyond measure: A community-based approach 

 to developing integrated systems of care for substance abusing women and their children. Chicago:

 NTI Publishing.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. (2005). 

The 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health public use file [Online analysis]. Conducted

 September 12, 2005. Retrieved September 12, 2005, from http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/samhda2.htm

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, 

 Office of Applied Studies. (2005, September). Results from the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use

 and Health: Detailed tables on pregnancy. Rockville, MD: Author. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from

 http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k4nsduh/2k4tabs/Sect7peTabs70to77.pdf
B-15

Fact Sheet 3—Research Studies on the Prevalence of Substance Use Disorders in the Child 

Welfare Population

Despite the recent attention to the prevalence of parental substance use disorders among the families 

in child welfare services, there are few national data on the number of children in foster care due to 

parental substance use disorders. Studies that have examined the prevalence of substance abuse among 

the child welfare population have found widely varying rates. Estimates range from 40% to 80% of 

families involved with child welfare having substance abuse problems, although no established methods 

are available to measure this nationally (Young, Gardner, & Dennis, 1998; Semidei, Radel, & Nolan, 

2001). The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) in its Report to Congress in 1999 

(DHHS, 1999) stated that between one-third and two-thirds of children in the child welfare system were 

affected by substance use disorders. They attributed the lower number to those cases in which children 

were not removed from the parents’ care and the larger percentage to those cases in which children were 

placed in protective custody.

The wide variance in estimates found in studies is attributed to many factors including:

• the population studied (e.g., in-home versus out-of-home cases, urban versus nonurban, and foster

 care versus those being investigated for allegations of abuse or neglect);

• the definition of the substance use disorder (any use versus criteria of substance abuse or

 dependency);

• the method used to determine substance involvement (e.g., risk assessment measures, prospective

 assessment tools, or retrospective case reviews);

 • whether the substance use is a primary or secondary contributing factor in the child welfare case;

 • which program area families are participating in(e.g., family preservation services when children

 have remained in the home versus adoption services when parental rights have been terminated);

 and

• the method of analysis being used.

Only one published study has estimated the prevalence of substance use disorders among child welfareinvolved families in which the children have not been removed from the parent(s)’ custody (often 

referred to as “in-home” cases). The data come from the National Study on Child and Adolescent WellBeing (NSCAW), which has collected data from a nationally representative sample of children in child 

welfare services (Gibbons, Barth, & Martin, in press).

The NSCAW research protocol included assessing caregivers’ substance dependence using the 

Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short Form (CIDI-SF) and questions from the child 

welfare worker interview. The CIDI-SF evaluates criteria of substance abuse or dependence in the year 

before the data collection. Among caregivers retaining custody of their children, 9.6% had a problem 

with alcohol or drugs according to the child welfare worker assessment, and only 3.9% were alcohol 

or drug dependent according to the CIDI-SF. Overall, 11.1% of caregivers whose children live at home 

with them had a substance abuse problem (Gibbons et al., in press). This rate is lower than what has 

generally been estimated (Semidei et al., 2001) and is similar to the percentage of children in the general 

population (11%) who are living with a parent who is alcoholic or needs treatment for illicit drug abuse 

(DHHS, 1999). The prevalence rate may be lower because the CIDI-SF measures dependence, not use 

or abuse, and is limited to the past 12 months. In a group of families receiving Temporary Assistance 

to Needy Families, Phinney and colleagues (2005) found that “very few respondents satisfy criteria for 
B-16

drug (3.4%) or alcohol (4.1%) dependence in any given year, but that a significant group (20.5%) had a 

disorder at some point in their lifetime.”

Another analysis of the NSCAW examined the prevalence of substance abuse problems among 

caregivers of different race/ethnicities who had retained custody of their children (Libby et al., 2006). 

Rates of substance abuse problems were found to be lowest among Hispanic (6.1%) and American 

Indian (7.5%) caregivers. African American (11.3%) and Caucasian (13.2%) caregivers had the highest 

prevalence of substance abuse problems based on child welfare worker reports. 

It is important to note that child welfare workers in the NSCAW study did not identify a substance abuse 

problem among 61% of caregivers who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 

4th Edition (DSM IV), criteria for alcohol or drug dependence (Gibbons et al., in press). Child welfare 

workers were even more likely to miss potential alcohol or drug problems among caregivers who used 

but were not dependent on the substance. In addition, child welfare workers were significantly more 

likely to identify substance abuse problems with open in-home cases compared to closed in-home cases 

(Gibbons, et al., in press).

Among cases in which children have been removed, a higher percentage of parental substance use 

disorders is often reported. Over the last decade, several studies reported substance use with various 

methods and operational definitions of substance abuse; a selection of these studies is summarized 

chronologically below. 

The NSCAW study found that among children who were in out-of-home care, 46.1% of their caregivers 

had a problem with alcohol or drugs according to the child welfare worker assessment. This finding 

compares to 10% of the in-home caregivers having an active alcohol or drug problem (DHHS, 2005).

For parental substance abuse to be included in their study, Murphy and colleagues required that 

substance abuse be noted in reports from a psychiatrist or psychologist or in a court-ordered screening 

(Murphy et al., 1991). In their sample of 206 cases from Boston, they found that in 43% of the cases, at 

least one of the parents had a documented problem with either alcohol or drugs. The percentage rose to 

50% when they included allegations of substance use in the court report. Alcohol, cocaine, and heroin 

were the three most frequently mentioned abused substances. Parents with documented substance abuse 

were significantly more likely than non-substance-abusing parents to have been referred previously to 

child protective agencies, to be rated by court investigators as presenting a high risk to their children, to 

reject court-ordered services, and to have their children permanently removed (Murphy et al., 1991).

A study by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) in 1994 found that in random samples of case 

files in California, New York, and Pennsylvania, 78% of foster children’s cases that were reviewed had 

at least one parent who was abusing drugs or alcohol (GAO, 1997). At the request of the Senate Finance 

Committee, another study by the GAO reviewed case records in Los Angeles and Chicago in 1998. The 

GAO report estimated that about two-thirds of all foster children in both California and Illinois had at 

least one parent who abused drugs or alcohol, and most had been doing so for at least 5 years. Most of 

these parents abused one or more drugs, such as cocaine, methamphetamines, and heroin (GAO, 1998). 

Besinger and colleagues (1999) operationally defined substance abuse to include any known history of 

substance abuse and therefore found relatively higher rates of substance-abusing parents in their study. 

They studied case records of 639 urban children placed in out-of-home care due to maltreatment and 

reported that 79% of children in foster care had a parent with “parental substance abuse.” 
B-17

McNichol and Tash (2001) reported that the percentage of children in specialized foster care with a 

primary reason of parental substance abuse was 14%. Another 76% of children were “affected in some 

way by parental substance abuse.” 

Sun and colleagues (2001) explored the impact of caregiver alcohol and other drug use (AOD) on child 

protective services (CPS) case substantiation among 2,756 families from the Department of Family and 

Youth Services in a Nevada county. They found that 11% of investigated cases and 16% of substantiated 

cases had an indication of caregiver AOD use. In addition, the authors found that CPS cases with 

indications of AOD use were more likely to be substantiated than cases without AOD use. The authors 

attributed the low prevalence rate to the fact that social workers in Nevada are not required to document 

AOD use in their case records.

A similarly low rate of 11.2% for caregiver substance abuse was found among 447 children in kinship 

care in a large urban southeastern county while under CPS supervision (Rittner & Dozier, 2000). 

Women who delivered newborns who were substance exposed represented 32.9% of total complaints. 

Caregivers were considered substance abusers if records referred to arrests for possession of substances, 

if paraphernalia were found at the residence, or if evaluations provided by substance abuse programs 

indicated substance abuse histories. The requirement of possession or paraphernalia may explain the 

low prevalence rates found in this study. It is unclear why the prevalence rate would be so low when the 

substance abuse treatment evaluations were also used. It is possible that some caregivers in this study 

may not have completed an AOD assessment or that CPS failed to inform the treatment provider that the 

caregiver was being referred because of suspected substance abuse. Thus, if the caregiver denied having 

a substance abuse problem, the AOD treatment provider would have no information to justify further 

assessment.

Finally, in a recent study using a random sample of 443 children with substantiated child abuse or 

neglect cases in an urban setting, Jones found that 68% of the children had mothers who abused alcohol 

or drugs and that 37% of the children had mothers who abused both alcohol and drugs (Jones, 2005).

It is important to note that the prevalence of the substance use disorder does not yet tell us the nature 

and extent of the substance use disorders and, more important, how the parents’ substance use might 

be affecting the risk or safety factors associated with the child abuse or neglect. The prevalence of 

substance use disorders alone does not provide sufficient information on which to base decisions 

about the custody status of children or how parents’ substance use disorder must be addressed in the 

case plan so that reunification might occur. To emphasize this point, the data on the cocaine/crack and 

methamphetamine epidemics and their relationship to child welfare caseloads will be examined.

The number of methamphetamine users has increased over the past several years and has spread 

from the West throughout the Midwest and into the Eastern States. In 2003, according to the National 

Survey on Drug Use and Health, 607,000 persons reported methamphetamine use in the prior 30 days 

(DHHS, OAS, 2004). In the same survey, 2.281 million persons reported cocaine use in the prior 30 

days, indicating that the number of methamphetamine users was considerably smaller than the number 

of cocaine users (DHHS, OAS, 2004). Despite the relatively rapid increase in methamphetamine use 

across the Nation, the population of children in out-of-home care in the country has been on a steady 

decline since 1999, with 523,000 children in care in 2003.
B-18

Summary

• In a study of the prevalence of substance abuse and dependence in a representative sample of in

 home cases, a lower level of prevalence was found than has previously been reported; 

• Caseworkers misidentified caregivers with a substance use disorder most of the time; and 

• Case reviews and various methodologies among cases in which children have been removed

 generally report two-thirds to three-quarters of cases are affected by parental substance use.

Although finding substance use disorders alone does not constitute substantiated child abuse or neglect, 

knowledge about these disorders is essential to assess contributions they may make to risks for children, 

and such findings always represent an opportunity for treatment.
B-19

References

Besinger, B., Garland, A., Litrownik, A., & Landsverk, J. (1999). Caregiver substance abuse among

 maltreated children placed in out-of-home care. Child Welfare, 78(2), 221–239.

Gibbons, C. B., Barth, R. P., & Martin, S. L. (in press). Substance abuse among caregivers of 

 maltreated children. Child Abuse and Neglect.

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NHSDA/2k3tabs/Sect1peTabs1to66.htm#tab1.1a

Jones, L. (2005). The prevalence and characteristics of substance abusers in a child protective service 

 sample. Journal of Social Work Practice in Addictions, 4(2), 33–50.

Libby, A. M., Orton, H. D., Barth, R. P., Webb, M. B., Burns, B. J., Wood, P., et al. (2006). 

 Alcohol, drug and mental health specialty treatment services and race/ethnicity: A national study of 

 children and families involved with child welfare. American Journal of Public Health, 96(4), 

 628–631.

McNichol, T., & Tash, C. (2001). Parental substance abuse and the development of children in 

 family foster care. Child Welfare, 80(2), 239–256.

Murphy, J. M., Jellinek, M., Quinn, D., Smith, G., Poitrast, F. G., & Goshko, M. (1991). 

 Substance abuse and serious child mistreatment: Prevalence, risk, and outcome in a court sample.

Child Abuse and Neglect, 15(3), 197–211. 

Phinney, R. Seefeldt, K., Danziger, S., & Pollack, H. (2005). Lifetime and annual substance use, 

 abuse and dependence among current and former welfare recipients. Available at 

 http://www.fordschool.umich.edu/research/poverty/pdf/WES-SubstanceUse.pdf#search=’women%2

 s%20employment%20study%20and%20phinney’

Rittner, B., & Dozier, C. D. (2000). Effects of court-ordered substance abuse treatment in child 

 protective services cases. Social Work, 45(2), 131–140.

Semidei, J. Radel, L. F., & Nolan, C. (2001). Substance abuse and child welfare: Clear linkages 

 and promising responses. Child Welfare, 80(2), 109–128.

Sun, A.-P., Shillington, A. M., Hohman, M., & Jones, L. (2001). Caregiver AOD use, case substantiation,

 and AOD treatment: Studies based on two southwestern counties. Child Welfare, 80(2), 151–177.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Blending perspectives and building 

 common ground. A report to Congress on substance abuse and child protection. Washington, DC:

 U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). National Survey of Child and Adolescent 

 Well-Being (NSCAW): CPS sample component wave 1 data analysis report. Washington, DC:

 Administration for Children and Families. 
B-20

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Applied Studies. (2003). Results from

 the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed tables. (NSDUH Series H–25, 

 DHHS Publication No. SMA 04–3964). Rockville, MD: Author. Retrieved August 29, 2006,

 from http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/2k2nsduh/html/Sect4peTabs1to76.htm#tab4.13a and 

 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and 

 Families. (2006). The AFCARS report #10. Preliminary FY 2003 estimates as of June, 2006.

 Rockville, MD: Author. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from 

 http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report10.htm 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Applied Studies. (2004). Results from

 the 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed tables. (NSDUH Series H–25, 

 DHHS Publication No. SMA 04–3964). Rockville, MD: Author. Retrieved May 2, 2006, 

 from http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NHSDA/2k3tabs/Sect1peTabs1to66.htm#tab1.1a

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997). Parental substance abuse: Implications for children, the 

 child welfare system, and foster care outcomes (GAO/T-HEHS-98-40). Washington, DC: Author.

 Retrieved April 22, 2006, from http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/he98040t.pdf 

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1998). Report to the Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. 

 Senate. Foster care agencies face challenges securing stable homes for children of substance abusers

(GAO/HEHS-98-182). Washington, DC: Author.

Young, N., Gardner, S., & Dennis, K. (1998). Responding to alcohol and other drug problems in 

 child welfare. Washington, DC: CWLA Press.
C-1

Appendix C

Understanding the Needs of Children 

in Families Involved in the 

Child Welfare System Who Are

Affected by

 Substance Use Disorders

C-3

Understanding the Needs of Children in Families Involved in the Child Welfare System Who Are 

Affected by Substance Use Disorders

Introduction and Purpose

The impact of parental alcohol and drug use and abuse on children creates complex and sometimes 

controversial issues. Research on the effects of prenatal and postnatal exposure to alcohol, tobacco, 

and other drugs has produced limited and conflicting results. A key challenge to this research has been 

determining the impact of prenatal exposure versus postnatal environmental risks, as well as differentiating the effects of specific substances and specific doses of substances. Despite these challenges, 

there is substantial evidence that children who are prenatally substance exposed or experience postnatal 

environments impacted by parental substance use disorders (SUDs) are at risk for poor developmental 

outcomes. (The term “substance use disorders (SUDs) is more precise and indicates diagnostic criteria of 

the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of substance abuse or dependency.) In addition, increases 

in the number of children in out-of-home care throughout the late 1980s and 1990s have been attributed 

to increased drug use among pregnant women (Lester, Andreozzi, & Appiah, 2004).

This appendix highlights how parental substance use disorders can affect children both prenatally and 

postnatally, how to improve screening of children by raising awareness of signs to look for in children, 

and provides information about potential referral sources for assessments and services.

Most studies have estimated that 10% to 20% of children who were prenatally exposed to alcohol and/or 

drugs enter the child welfare system around the time of birth and about one-third of them enter out-ofhome care within the first few years (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS], 1999). 

These children are more likely to have mothers who have had previous involvement with the child welfare service system and to have siblings in foster care (McNichol, 1999). In addition, once in foster care, 

children from families with substance use disorders are more likely to remain there than are maltreated 

children from families without those disorders (DHHS, 1999). Inconsistent parenting and a chaotic family life can be a primary effect of substance use disorders, which result in children lacking safe, predictable home environments.

Importance of Federal Legislation

Major pieces of legislation highlight the importance of timely screening and intervention with children 

whose parents have substance use disorders, as well as the importance of communicating the needs of 

children across service systems.

There are several provisions in the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 regarding the timing 

of case processing. Two provisions that have potential impact on families with substance use disorders 

are (1) that child welfare agencies develop a permanency plan within 12 months after a child enters foster care, and (2) that States initiate proceedings to terminate parental rights if the child has been in outof-home care for 15 of the most recent 22 months. Although 12 or 15 months is a long time in the life 

of a child, it is a relatively short time in the recovery process of a parent who is emerging from a history 

of years, or even decades, of alcohol and/or drug abuse. Without intervention, the child’s unaddressed 

needs may impede a parent’s recovery or interfere with the timely resolution of the child’s permanent 

plan. In addition to the time limits on reunification under ASFA, the Federal legislation’s “fast track” 

provision gives States the option of bypassing efforts to reunify families in certain egregious situations. 

Depending on how a State views parental substance use disorders, there is the possibility that they will 
C-4

fast track termination of parental rights for these families, particularly those in which an infant has been 

prenatally exposed to illicit drugs.

Another recent legislative change with implications for screening and assessment of children is the Child 

Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), as reauthorized in the Keeping Children and Families 

Safe Act of 2003. CAPTA amendments include new requirements for responding to the identification of 

infants known to be prenatally exposed to drugs. States must assure through a certification that they are 

operating a statewide program relating to child abuse and neglect, or have in effect a State law, which 

includes policies and procedures for appropriate referrals to child protection service systems. The State 

law also includes policies and procedures for other appropriate services that address the needs of infants 

born and identified as affected by illegal substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug exposure. This law further includes a requirement that health care providers involved in the 

delivery or care of such infants notify the child protective service system. CAPTA amendments state 

that such notification shall not be construed to establish a definition under Federal law of what constitutes child abuse, or require prosecution for any illegal action. However, they require the development 

of a plan of safe care for the infant. Even though screening of infants is generally conducted by hospital 

personnel, child welfare agencies will require access to effective screening and assessment information 

so that the plan of care can be developed and implemented. 
C-5

1. Promote awareness of effects of 

prenatal substance use

2. Screen pregnant 

women for substance use

2. Initiate enhanced 

prenatal services

3. Screen newborns 

for substance exposure

4. Ensure newborn’s 

safety and respond to 

newborn’s needs

4. Respond to 

immediate needs of 

family members

5. Identify and respond 

to ongoing needs of 

family members

5. Identify and respond 

to needs of

Infant Preschooler

Child Adolescent

Multiple Opportunities for Interventions

Figure 1 (below) illustrates the intervention points for services and supports needed by children and their 

families: (1) pre-prenatal (i.e., health and conditions of parents prior to pregnancy); (2) prenatal; (3) the 

birth event itself; (4) the perinatal period of newborns; and (5) infancy, preschool, middle childhood, 

and adolescence. At each of these intervention points, there is an opportunity to intervene to achieve a 

healthy birth, progress in child development, and parents’ recovery. If the opportunity is missed at one 

stage—for example, if prenatal care does not result in a non-substance-exposed birth—the challenge is 

to seek another opportunity at the next stage.

Figure 1: Policy and Practice Intervention Points for Children and Families

This context of sequences of multiple opportunities highlights the critical importance of prenatal 

services, but the fact is that most prenatally exposed infants’ exposure is not detected and the great 

majority of these infants go home with their birth mothers. This reality underscores the importance 

of ongoing screening, as well as effective links among the several agencies involved in prenatal and 

pediatric care and their connections to interventions for parents. Effective screening practices and 

communication among multiple agencies, as noted in all the sections of the SAFERR guidebook, are the 

key to success with children’s services as well.

Of equal importance, however, is the difficulty of separating out substance abuse effects from the many 

other effects of poverty, parental mental illness, violence and trauma, and other co-occurring issues in 
C-6

the family. Intervention must be aimed at the right problem, and sometimes, when multiple issues need 

to be addressed, a single-focused program approach can become part of the problem itself, by ignoring 

critical facets of the child’s and family’s reality.

Prenatal Substance Exposure: Extent of the Problem

The latest Federal data available from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) report 

on 2003 to 2004 annual averages of substance use by pregnant women. As summarized in Table 1, the 

NSDUH found that 4.6% of pregnant women aged 15 to 44 used illicit drugs in the past month. Rates 

varied by length of gestation, however, with 8% of first trimester women, 3.8% of second trimester 

women, and 2.4% of third trimester women reporting past month illicit drug use. 

Alcohol use was reported by 11.2% of pregnant women, with 22.2% of women in their first trimester 

reporting alcohol use and the rates then declining to 7% and 4.9% in the second and third trimesters, 

respectively. Binge drinking, five or more drinks on the same occasion, was reported by 4.5% of 

pregnant women. Again, rates varied by length of gestation, with 10.6% of first trimester women, 1.9% 

of second trimester women, and 1.1% of third trimester women reporting binge drinking (Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2005). 

Projecting these percentages to the approximately 4 million infants born each year results in a wide 

range of estimated substance-exposed infants depending on substance and trimester of use. 

Table 1: Substance Use by Pregnant Women by Length of Gestation, 

and Estimated Number of Infants Exposed

(2003-2004 annual average)

Substance Used

(past month) 1st Trimester 2nd Trimester 3rd Trimester

Any Illicit Drug 8.0% women 

327,440 infants

3.8% women 

155,534 infants

2.4% women 

98,232 infants

Alcohol Use 22.2% women 

908,646 infants

7.0% women 

286,510 infants

4.9% women 

200,557 infants

Binge Alcohol Use 10.6% women 

433,858 infants

1.9% women 

77,767 infants

1.1% women 

45,023 infants

From the same NSDUH data set, cigarette use was reported by 18% of pregnant women. In contrast 

to other substance use, which declines as the pregnancy progresses, cigarette use by trimester went 

from 22.7% in the first trimester, down to 13.4% in the second trimester, and then increased to 18% 

in the third trimester (SAMHSA, 2005). Prior studies based on this annual survey have found similar 

rates of substance use. For example, Ebrahim and Gfroerer (2003) estimated that in 1998 there were 

202,000 pregnancies exposed to illicit drugs, 1,203,000 pregnancies exposed to cigarettes, and 823,000 

pregnancies exposed to alcohol; the study used data from the 2000 National Household Survey on Drug 

Abuse.

Rates of substance use among pregnant women also varied by age groups, with past month illicit drug 

and alcohol use highest among teenagers. For instance, 16% of pregnant teens aged 15 to 17 reported 

past month illicit drug use, compared to 7.8% of those aged 18 to 25 and 2.1% of pregnant women aged 
C-7

26 to 44. The trend was similar for alcohol use, though the differences were not quite as stark: 14.9% of 

pregnant teens aged 15 to 17 drank alcohol in the past month, compared to 10.6% of young women aged 

18 to 25 and 11.3% of those aged 26 to 44. And more than one-fourth (26%) of pregnant teens aged 15 

to 17 and 28% of young women aged 18 to 25 reported past month cigarette use, compared to 11.7% of 

pregnant women aged 26 to 44 (SAMHSA, 2005).

It is important to note that these estimates of alcohol and drug use during pregnancy and the number of 

substance-exposed infants are likely lower than what actually occurs, due to individuals underreporting 

substance use and limited screening and testing done by physicians and hospitals. In one large-scale 

study of newborns in a high-risk urban obstetric population, 44% tested positive for illegal drugs, while 

only 11% of mothers admitted to illegal drug use (Ostrea, Brady, Gause, Raymundo, & Stevens, 1992). 

A study assessing the long-term effects of methamphetamine exposure on children recently published 

estimates on the prevalence of use by pregnant women. The sites included in the study are Des Moines, 

Honolulu, Los Angeles, and Tulsa. These cities are known to have higher rates of methamphetamine use; 

thus, the results are not representative of the country as a whole. Researchers used mothers’ self-report 

or drug testing of the infant’s meconium to ascertain the prevalence of substance exposure. They found 

that 25% of pregnant women smoked tobacco, 22.8% drank alcohol, 10% had used any illicit drug with 

6% using marijuana, 5.2% used methamphetamine, and 1.3% used barbiturates (Arria et al., 2006).

Prenatal alcohol exposure can lead to changes in brain structure and have long-term consequences for 

the children as well as societal costs (Riley & McGee, 2005). It has been estimated that between 2,000 

and 8,000 babies are born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) (0.2 to 2.0 per 1,000 live births) (May & 

Gossage, 2001). The estimate of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders is 1% of live births or approximately 

40,000 babies each year (Sampson et al., 1997). The financial cost of substance use during pregnancy, 

attributed primarily to extended hospital stays, has been estimated at between $22.3 million and $125 

million per year (James Bell Associates, 1993). The cost of medical care, special education, and 

residential care for persons with mental retardation has been estimated at $1.6 million for each person 

with FAS (Lupton, Burd, & Harwood, 2004).

Screening for Use During Pregnancy (prenatal or at birth)

In an ideal situation, screening for prenatal substance exposure would happen well before birth through 

high-quality prenatal care, so that the use of alcohol, tobacco, and/or drugs is treated and the impact to 

the unborn child reduced. It has been noted that if alcohol use is detected and treated, and use stopped 

by the third trimester, the rate of fetal alcohol syndrome can be reduced (Little, Young, Streissguth, 

& Uhl, 1984). Similarly, if a pregnant woman using cocaine is able to stop her drug use, the medical 

complications commonly seen with prenatal cocaine exposure such as premature birth are significantly 

reduced (Chasnoff, Griffith, MacGregor, Dirkes, & Burns, 1989). However, the identification of use and 

abuse of alcohol and/or drugs by pregnant women is one of the most often missed diagnoses in prenatal 

care (Chasnoff, Neuman, Thornton, & Callaghan, 2001). Many factors contribute to the infrequency of 

detection of use and abuse during pregnancy including a physician’s lack of knowledge about substance 

abuse and addiction or how to respond if use and/or abuse is detected; misconceptions about the liability 

surrounding treating pregnant women with substance use disorders; and bias in testing and a physician’s 

personal beliefs about whether or not the patient is likely to be using or abusing substances (Chasnoff et 

al., 2001; Lester et al., 2004).

In addition to the physician-focused factors that reduce the likelihood of detecting substance use and/or 

abuse among pregnant women is the fact that many pregnant women who use drugs receive little or no 
C-8

prenatal care. One key reason for this lack of prenatal care is fear on the part of the pregnant woman of 

punitive action and/or the possible loss of custody of the child as a result of her drug use (Lester et al., 

2004). Because quality prenatal care is such a critical factor in increasing the likelihood of good birth 

outcomes, everything possible should be done to ensure that the physician’s office is seen as a safe and 

supportive resource to all pregnant women.

Because of barriers regarding the identification of substance use and abuse during pregnancy, many 

instances of prenatal substance exposure are left undetected until birth, and whether or not it is even 

detected at that point is dependent on many other factors including hospital policies, medical staff bias, 

and methods of screening. Screening at birth can be implemented through either a universal (everyone 

is tested at birth) or targeted (selective testing as determined by risk factors selected by the institution) 

approach. Each approach has its limitations, including the possibility that a hospital using universal 

testing could deter use of that hospital by mothers giving birth to infants who have been substance 

exposed, and the significant bias possible in deciding who is screened under a targeted approach 

(Ondersma, Simpson, Brestan, & Ward, 2000; Lester et al., 2004).

This discussion leads to a final note about the context of screening during pregnancy: these data, 

combined with what is known about hospital screening practices, make clear that the great majority 

of children who are prenatally exposed to alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs go home with their birth 

parents with these effects totally undetected. One analysis suggests that as many as 95% of all prenatally 

exposed children—children whose mother used alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs at some point during 

her pregnancy—are not detected by screening methods at birth (Gardner & Otero, 2004). The screening 

methods discussed below include tools that can be used prenatally or at the time of birth or shortly 

thereafter.

Commonly Used Screening Tools

As discussed in Section III of this guidebook, “Collaborative Practice at the Frontline,” the issues 

specific to screening for substance use during pregnancy are most often germane to prenatal care staff 

and physicians. However, child welfare agencies may be involved if there are older children in the 

family, and substance abuse treatment agencies may be involved with the family if the mother has 

entered treatment.

Prenatal substance exposure can be screened for in a variety of ways. Most commonly, the methods 

used, either alone or in combination, include:

• Verbal screen with mother;

• Review of mother’s history and medical records;

• Observation of mother and/or newborn; and

• Drug testing (urine, blood, hair, or meconium).

Verbal Screens

Screening techniques that include questions about quantity, frequency, and heavy episodic drinking, as 

well as behavioral consequences of drinking, have proven to be most beneficial; simple questionnaires 

have been developed to screen for problematic alcohol use among adults in multiple populations and 

settings (see Section III for additional information on specific screening tools for prenatal care settings) 

(Cherpitel, 2002). It is suggested that primary care physicians and obstetricians incorporate basic 
C-9

questions about substance use into the larger context of prenatal health evaluations and refer women 

for complete alcohol and drug assessments if yes is the answer to any of the questions (Morse, Gehshan, 

& Hutchins, 1997; Chasnoff et al., 2001). The summary of these and other tools, including information 

on the tools’ features, strengths, and concerns, can be accessed at http://www.nofas.org/healthcare/

screen.aspx. 

Review of History/Medical Records and Observation

A review of the mother’s history and medical records may reveal a previous substance-exposed birth or 

other potential risk factors including a history of substance abuse or dependence. The observation of the 

mother and infant by a trained professional may reveal signs of substance exposure such as indications 

of substance use disorder in the mother (e.g., the smell of alcohol, withdrawal symptoms, and needle 

punctures), or tremors or irritability in the newborn (more signs of exposure in infants are detailed 

below).

Drug Testing

Urinalysis testing at birth has traditionally been the most common technique for identifying prenatal 

substance exposure (Lester et al., 2004; Ondersma et al., 2000). However, this method of testing is 

limited, since the detection of substances in urine is only possible for a few days after use. Such a test 

does not provide information about use throughout pregnancy if a mother has stopped use as the birth of 

her child draws closer.

Because of the limitations of urinalysis, scientists have been working to find more effective testing 

methods. Both meconium (the first stool eliminated by the newborn) and hair analysis have shown 

promising results for detecting substance use over a broader window of time (Lester et al., 2004; 

Chan, Caprara, Blanchette, Klein, & Koren, 2004; Ondersma et al., 2000). Meconium analysis is seen 

as superior to traditionally used biological matrixes such as blood and urine because it is a discarded 

material for which collection is easy and noninvasive. In addition, meconium is a cumulative matrix 

in which substances accumulate from the 13th week of gestation through birth, allowing for a much 

greater window of opportunity for detection (Chan et al., 2004). Hair begins to develop in a newborn at 

approximately 6 months’ gestation, with substances accumulating in the hair shaft and remaining there 

until the hair is cut, thus allowing for the possible detection of substances used during the last 3 months 

of pregnancy (Chan et al.).

Postnatal Alcohol/Drug Environment

Children from families with substance use disorders not only face the risk of prenatal substance 

exposure, but can also be exposed to a harmful postnatal environment. Approximately 11% of children 

in the United States (8.3 million) live with at least one parent who is an alcoholic or in need of treatment 

for the abuse of illicit drugs. An estimated 2.3 million of these children live with a parent who abuses 

both alcohol and illicit drugs (DHHS, 1999). Postnatal risk factors associated with parental substance 

use disorders include a parent who may still be involved in a chaotic lifestyle of drug- and/or alcoholseeking behavior, such as illicit drug sales or drug manufacturing, and a lack of adult interpersonal 

support systems. Postnatal drug use by parents may expose children to violent or traumatic events, 

the effects of living in poverty, lack of parental education, lack of proper health care, and inconsistent 

caregivers. 
C-10

The growing body of literature on the effects of childhood trauma underscores the continuing effects 

of this overlapping problem as it is affected by parents’ substance abuse. Recent work conducted by 

treatment centers that are part of the National Child Traumatic Stress Network has documented how 

child development can be affected by childhood trauma (Schnoll & Wilford, 1997). Parental mental 

illness is another important postnatal risk factor, because maternal depression is associated with serious 

cognitive and social-emotional outcomes for children (Karr-Morse, Brazelton, & Wiley, 1997).

When a postnatal environment becomes so severe that a child must be removed from the family for 

abuse or neglect, the child may also be subjected to various risk factors associated with multiple outof-home placements and inconsistent caregiving environments. Children placed in foster care who have 

been prenatally exposed to alcohol and/or drugs often place higher demands on caregivers, resulting in 

foster parent burnout and a higher rate of returning those children to the child welfare system (Burry, 

1999). These children face difficulty in forming meaningful attachments with a primary caregiver. The 

lack of development of secure attachment early on is shown to result in subsequent behavioral problems 

for children (Kronstadt, 1991). It should also be noted that a substantial number of children who are 

removed from parents with substance use disorders remain within their own family environments, 

with some of these children placed with relatives who are part of the overall family system affected by 

alcohol, drugs, and co-occurring problems.

A Note on Issues Related to Methamphetamine Production

In looking at the postnatal environment, special consideration must be given to the issues related to 

manufacturing, distribution, and trafficking of methamphetamine. Methamphetamine is relatively 

inexpensive and easy to make, and children may be exposed to dangers of home-based labs, including 

the risks of lab-related explosions and fires, exposure or ingestion of the toxic chemicals and waste 

products associated with methamphetamine production, and exposure to the highly psychoactive 

stimulant itself. The developing brain and other organ systems of children are more susceptible than 

adults to the damages caused by the chemicals and drugs resulting in neurological and developmental 

problems (Drug Endangered Children Resource Center, 2000).

Prenatal Substance Exposure and Postnatal Environment Factors: Consequences for Children

To understand the forces influencing the futures of children exposed to alcohol and drugs, it is necessary 

to assess many different factors that affect their lives. The consequences of alcohol and drug use are the 

products of a complex interchange of biological, psychological, and sociological events. The complexity 

of screening and assessment for these children is compounded by two realities: (1) there is no absolute 

profile of developmental outcomes based on a child’s exposure to parents’ substance use, abuse, or 

dependence (Chasnoff, 1997); and (2) other problems arising in parental behavior, competence, and 

disorders interact with substance use, abuse, and dependence to cause multiple co-occurring problems in 

the lives of these children.

Although prenatal substance exposure has been noted to be “...the single largest preventable cause of 

developmental compromise of American Children today (Malanga & Kosofsky, 2003),” research is both 

complex and tentative on the short- and long-term effects of prenatal exposure on children. In addition 

to the lack of consensus of the short- and long-term impacts of parental substance use disorders on 

children, it is difficult to determine the independent effects of a single substance on brain development, 

or the effects of prenatal exposure weighed against the child’s postnatal environment (Malanga & 

Kosofsky, 2003; Chiriboga, 2003; Lester et al., 2004; Kronstadt, 1991; Mathis, 1998). These difficulties 
C-11

arise because substance use during pregnancy is most commonly polydrug use (more than one 

substance), with illegal substance use being combined with the use of alcohol and/or cigarettes, and is 

often accompanied by a lack of proper nutrition, other medical complications, and no prenatal care.

At the same time, postnatal environmental risk factors, such as inadequate parenting skills and support, 

violence, living in poverty, and parental mental illness, have been shown to result in or exacerbate 

developmental and behavioral problems in children (Carta et al., 2001; Ondersma et al., 2000; 

Kronstadt, 1991). In the same way that environmental factors can negatively impact the development of 

a child, longitudinal research on the developmental effects of prenatally exposed children suggests that a 

stable, nurturing postnatal environment can ameliorate many of the negative effects of prenatal exposure 

(McGourty & Chasnoff, 2003).

Lester and his colleagues describe three types of consequences of maternal use of alcohol, tobacco, and 

illegal drugs (MATID) on child development:

• Immediate drug effects—the direct teratogenic consequences, or those that can cause birth defects,

 of MATID exposure occurring during the first year prior to postnatal environmental effects

 becoming salient;

• Latent drug effects—also direct teratogenic effects that affect brain functioning but do not become

 relevant until later in development; and

• Postnatal environment effects—environmental factors such as 

 sociodemographics, caregiving context (such as mother’s stress or neighborhood safety) and style, 

 and caregiver characteristics (both risk and protective factors) (Lester et al., 2004). 

Although it may be hard to separate the effects of prenatal substance exposure and a child’s postnatal 

environment, children whose parents have substance use disorders are at an increased risk for disabilities 

and have a higher incidence of demonstrable disabilities, as well as involvement with the child 

welfare service system (Lagasse & Lester, 2000; National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, 

1999; Byrd, Neistadt, Howard, & Brownstein-Evans, 1999; DHHS, 1999). Below is a discussion of 

commonly noted consequences of parental substance use disorders on children, designed to inform 

alcohol and drug, child welfare, and court professionals.

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS)

In contrast to the mixed results in research on prenatal exposure to illicit drugs, alcohol use during 

pregnancy has shown to have clear and demonstrable impacts on the child. FAS is one of the most 

widely recorded problems associated with alcohol use during pregnancy (Lester et al., 2004). Individuals 

with FAS exhibit a pattern of neurological, behavioral, and cognitive deficits that affect growth, learning, 

and socialization and consist of the following four major components:

• A characteristic pattern of facial abnormalities, including small eye openings, indistinct or flat

 philtrum (the midline groove in the upper lip that runs from the top of the lip to the nose), and a

 thin upper lip;

• Growth deficiencies, including low birth weight;

• Brain damage, including a small skull at birth, structural defects, and neurologic signs such as

 impaired fine motor skills, poor eye-hand coordination, and tremors; and

• Maternal alcohol use during pregnancy (SAMHSA Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders Center of

 Excellence, 2004, February).
C-12

The behavioral and cognitive impacts associated with FAS can include the following:

• Global functioning—global limitations on learning and problem solving and lower IQ;

• Executive functioning—the way information is organized and activities planned, for example,

 remembering all the steps required for a specific task or the order of those steps;

• Auditory processing—inability to effectively understand a sequence of sounds, affecting the

 understanding of language and remembering instructions and simple problems;

• Visual/spatial skills—disabilities in the perception of visual information and understanding spatial

 relationships, affecting fine and gross motor skills and handwriting;

 • Specific math disability—difficulty learning arithmetic and other math concepts;

 • Memory—difficulty learning new information and retrieving stored information; and

 • Attention—different from the effects of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, there may be

 a difficulty learning new information being focused on and in shifting attention to another task, or

 multitasking (Streissguth, Barr, Kogan, & Bookstein, 1996). 

While an estimated 0.5 to 3 cases per 1,000 births per year (2,000 to 12,000 births) result in a child with 

FAS (May & Gossage, 2001), not all individuals exposed to alcohol in utero are later diagnosed with 

FAS. However, nearly 40,000 babies are born per year within the broader category of Fetal Alcohol 

Spectrum Disorders (FASD). The term “FASD” is used to describe individuals with FAS as well as those 

with behavioral, cognitive, and other deficiencies who do not have the physical facial abnormalities of 

individuals with FAS. FASD is not a clinical diagnostic term but refers to the following conditions: FAS, 

alcohol-related birth defects, and alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorder (ARND). Alcohol-related 

birth defects can include abnormalities of the heart, eyes, ears, kidneys, and skeleton (e.g., holes in the 

heart, underdeveloped kidneys, and fused bones) (SAMHSA Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders Center 

of Excellence, 2006, January). Because many of the deficiencies seen in individuals with ARND are 

similar to those seen as a result of exposure to other substances, they will not be detailed here but are 

included in the discussion in the following section.

ARND and Other Effects of Parental Substance Use Disorders

Child development occurs along a continuum including prenatal/birth/newborn (0 to 1), toddler/

preschool (2 to 5), middle childhood (6 to 12), and adolescent (13 to 18). Each of these developmental 

phases brings specific tasks and challenges to the developing child. For example, brain development 

occurs at the fastest rate throughout the prenatal and toddler stages. Critical social-emotional 

developmental tasks occur in infancy as a child bonds with caregivers and develops secure attachments. 

The preschool child has unique challenges to acquire language and cognitive skills and to develop 

autonomy and prosocial behaviors, while physical and motor skills are advancing. Middle childhood 

brings increased physical challenges and cognitive maturation. A major transition in this phase occurs as 

children adapt to the educational environment and new peer influences in their widening social circle. In 

adolescence, youth develop cognitive skills that advance their moral development and ability to reason 

while seeking independence and identity, but youth lack full executive function control of impulsivity. 

As a result, this time increasingly becomes one of exploration, risk taking, and sexual experimentation.

When the impacts of parental substance use disorders on children are observed or assessed, it is 

important to take note of the chronological age of the child and the child’s expected corresponding stage 

of development. Screening and assessment protocols must be geared to the specific developmental 

level of the child being screened or assessed. Knowing the developmental skills that are expected will 

help determine whether or not a child is exhibiting deficits or delays. Attending to the child’s current 
C-13

developmental phase is important, because behaviors that may be considered appropriate at one stage 

may be considered maladaptive at a different developmental phase. Further, children from families 

affected by substance use disorders may not go through the developmental continuum in the normal 

sequential phases. For example, children in middle childhood may display inappropriate attentionseeking behaviors with strangers because of their lack of attachment to a primary caregiver as infants 

and toddlers. 

When staff have been given basic understanding of child development, observing or screening for the 

effects of alcohol and drugs on children is possible. The ability to observe or screen for effects of alcohol 

and drugs on children may not be feasible for people with no training. Research has shown that these 

effects can manifest themselves in multiple areas, including—

 • Physical Health Consequences

 • Lack of Secure Attachment

 • Psychopathology

 • Behavioral Problems

 • Poor Social Relations/Skills

 • Deficits in Motor Skills

 • Cognition and Learning Disabilities

It is important to note that the deficits or delays exhibited by children who have been substance exposed 

may arise at different times in the child’s development. For example, many of the physical health 

consequences detailed below are likely to be noticed in a newborn, whereas cognitive and learning 

disabilities are more likely to become apparent in school-aged children. Also, there is not consensus on 

how short-term effects may translate into longer term consequences. Because a child exhibits negative 

outcomes as a newborn does not predict that the child will suffer long-term dysfunction. Outcomes 

for children will depend upon a variety of dynamics including the child’s postnatal environment and 

exposure to other risk factors. It should also be noted that children may have some of these defects for 

reasons other than prenatal exposure to substances.

Physical Health Consequences

Children who have been prenatally exposed to alcohol, tobacco, and drugs often exhibit a variety of 

physical health consequences including being born prematurely and having lower birth weights, lengths, 

and head circumferences (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2001). Premature birth and low birth weight 

are important factors in a child’s overall health and development, and these children are more likely to 

have serious medical problems that often require extended periods of hospitalization (National Resource 

Center for Respite and Crisis Care Services, 1997). Newborns who have been prenatally exposed may 

appear to be in great distress. They may be jittery, suffer from tremors, and become irritable with mild 

environmental stimuli. Their muscles may be unusually stiff; they can exhibit prolonged persistence 

of early reflexes, cry a great deal, and have trouble feeding and falling and staying asleep (Kronstadt, 

1991). There is evidence that prenatal exposure to alcohol alters brain development, causing cell 

loss, gross reductions in brain size, and altered connections between brain regions and the ability for 

communication among neurons (Sher, 2004; Chen, Maier, Parnell, & West, 2003).

A further set of health problems may result from the parents of these children being unable to keep 

regular pediatric appointments and to keep track of immunizations and medical records.
C-14

Lack of Secure Attachment

As toddlers, these children are often seen to be less securely attached to their caregivers than children 

who have not been substance exposed. Their inability as infants to achieve a calm state, or to tolerate 

touch, may impede mutual interaction with their primary caregiver and may affect their capacity to form 

secure attachments (Ondersma et al., 2000; Kronstadt, 1991). This lack of attachment may be exhibited 

in the child moving from one adult to another, showing no preference for any one in particular, or in 

seeking response from all adults. The child may also overreact to separation from a primary caregiver 

(National Resource Center for Respite and Crisis Care Services, 1997). 

Psychopathology

Children who have been prenatally exposed to alcohol and drugs have been shown to display a variety 

of psychopathologies, including attention deficit disorder (ADD) and attention deficit hyperactivity 

disorder (ADHD) (Lester et al., 2004). They tend to exhibit more internalizing behaviors, including 

anxiety, depression, and somatic complaints, than nonexposed children (Delaney-Black et al., 2000; 

Chasnoff et al., 1998; Goldschmidt, Richardson, Cornelius, & Day, 2004). In addition, they may appear 

passive and apathetic (Kronstadt, 1991). In most cases, it is important to review birth parents’ mental 

health status—which may be difficult for children who have been adopted or in long-term foster care—

to ensure that children are not misdiagnosed as ADHD when bipolar, autistic spectrum disorders or other 

psychopathologies with genetic components may be present.

Behavioral Problems

These children may possess poor internal controls, lack tolerance for frustration and stress, and have 

difficulty delaying gratification. These issues may result in the expression of their wants, needs, and 

fears in inappropriate behaviors such as frequent temper tantrums or aggression (National Resource 

Center for Respite and Crisis Care Services, 1997; Kronstadt, 1991; Mathis, 1998; Chasnoff et al., 

1998). They may exhibit aggressive and antisocial behaviors, such as conduct disorder, oppositional 

defiant disorder, and delinquency (Lester et al., 2004). In addition, they may be easily distracted, 

behave impulsively, have trouble focusing their attention, and have difficulty organizing their behavior 

(Kronstadt, 1991; Mathis, 1998). When these deficits are not recognized in early assessment and 

diagnoses during the preschool period, they may be detected in behavior problems that occur in early or 

middle elementary school, when schools’ rules of acceptable behavior prove difficult for these children 

to obey consistently.

Poor Social Relations/Skills

Prenatally exposed children may exhibit poor social skills and adjustment (Kronstadt, 1991). Despite 

a drive to connect with adults, they may often have problems with their peers, showing deficits in their 

interpersonal relations (Schonfeld, 2003). As children grow older, their deficits in socio-emotional 

functioning may become more apparent, especially with regard to social judgment, interpersonal skills, 

aggression, and antisocial behavior (Jacobson & Jacobson, 2003). They may find it difficult to sustain 

relationships, since their drive to control their environment at times leads to their being overcontrolling 

in their relations with peers and unable to read signals about peers’ responses to them.
C-15

Deficits in Motor Skills

These children may exhibit difficulties with gross or fine motor skills (Lester et al., 2004). A difficulty 

with gross motor skills may be exhibited through problems with swinging, climbing, throwing, catching, 

jumping, running, and balancing (National Resource Center for Respite and Crisis Care Services, 1997). 

Below-average handwriting may be an obvious indicator of problems with fine motor skills.

Cognition and Learning Disabilities

Learning problems may be some of the most common and lasting disabilities experienced by children 

from families with substance use disorders. These children may exhibit delayed receptive and expressive 

language development, difficulties with expressive language articulation, poor performance on memory 

and verbal tests, impairments in executive functioning, poor task organization and processing, and poor 

academic skills (Lester et al., 2004; Kronstadt, 1991; National Resource Center for Respite and Crisis 

Care Services, 1997). Figurative language and metaphors may be very hard for them to decode, and they 

may have a very literal approach to language. In school, understanding multiple directions and recording 

them accurately may be very difficult, due to their difficulty in filtering out different stimuli. They may 

be easily annoyed by other children, due to sensory overload. It may also be difficult for them to connect 

actions and consequences logically (Emory School of Medicine Maternal Substance Abuse and Child 

Development, n.d.).

It is important to remember that while a child who has been prenatally exposed to alcohol, tobacco, 

or drugs may display some of the characteristics noted above, there is no guarantee that in utero 

exposure will lead to these negative consequences. And again, the positive and negative impact of 

the postnatal environment cannot be ignored. Because many postnatal risk factors can contribute to 

similar developmental problems in a child, the combined influence of biological factors, prenatal 

substance exposure, and the postnatal environmental risk and protective influences must be examined 

simultaneously.

Special Concerns for Youth

Prevalence of Substance Use/Abuse Among Youth

The 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) reported that in 2005, of youth ages 12 to 

17 years old, 16.5% admitted to current alcohol use or use in the past 

30 days. Current binge drinking (5 or more drinks on one occasion) at least once in the past 30 days 

was reported by 9.9%. Of the youth surveyed, 9.9% admitted to current illicit drug use in the past 

month. Current (past month) alcohol use was slightly higher among females (17.2%) than among males 

(15.9%), but males (10.1%) reported illicit drug use at a higher rate than females (9.7%). The NSDUH 

report also noted that 142,000 youth received treatment in a specialty facility for an illicit drug use 

problem and that 119,000 youth received treatment at a specialty facility for an alcohol use problem 

(SAMHSA, 2006).

Special Concerns for Children From Families With Substance Use Disorders

Alcohol and drug, child welfare, and court professionals working with families affected by substance 

use disorders should be mindful of the potential for a child’s own substance use, abuse, or dependence 

in addition to the impact of the parental substance use disorders on that child. Children who have 

been prenatally exposed to alcohol, tobacco, and/or drugs, as well as those who have been raised in an 
C-16

environment in which substance use and/or abuse is present, have an increased likelihood for their own 

substance use and addiction.

Children of alcoholics have been found to be three to four times likelier to develop alcoholism than 

children whose parents are not alcoholics (Children of Alcoholics Foundation, n.d.). Studies have also 

shown a link between mothers who smoked and/or drank during pregnancy and their children being 

more likely to smoke and drink as adolescents (Lester et al., 2004). In a 14-year followup study, prenatal 

alcohol exposure was linked more often to adolescent alcohol use and the negative consequences 

associated with its use than was a family history of alcohol problems (Baer, Barr, Bookstein, & 

Sampson, 1998). In addition, being the victim of child abuse and neglect is considered a precursor to 

developing a substance use disorder (DHHS, 1999).

Also of importance is children’s experience in out-of-home care and their increased likelihood of 

developing their own substance use disorder. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) 

conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has found that youth 

who had ever been in foster care were more likely to use illicit substances and more likely to need drug 

treatment than youth who had never been in foster care. Based on analyses of the 2002 and 2003 survey 

among youth aged 12 to 17, 37.6% of youth who had ever been in foster care used alcohol in the prior 

year and 33.6% had used illicit drugs. This finding compares to 34.4% of non-foster-care youth using 

alcohol and 21.7% using illicit drugs (OAS, 2005). 

About 10% of youth who had ever been in foster care needed treatment for alcohol problems, 13% 

needed treatment for illicit drugs, and 17.4% needed treatment for either alcohol or drugs. These findings 

compare to much lower rates among youth who had not been in foster care; only 5.9% needed treatment 

for alcohol, 5.3% needed treatment for illicit drugs, and 8.8% needed treatment for either alcohol or 

drugs (OAS, 2005).

Substance Use/Abuse Screening for Youth

Screening with youth should be used to uncover the potential of a serious substance-related problem. 

Positive indicators on a screen should be followed by a referral for a full assessment with a professional 

trained in assessing youth. Screening should be looked at as a process, rather than just the administration 

of a single tool. It should include the examination of multiple domains related to the youth’s self and 

environment, including family history, social/peer group, mental health, and child abuse/neglect. While 

many screening tools provide cutoffs in scoring to assist in the decision to make a referral, these results 

should be used in conjunction with other observations and indications that there may be substance use 

disorders, including family history of disorders and prenatal substance exposure. For adolescents at high 

risk for substance use disorders, it is recommended that a negative screening result be followed up with 

a reevaluation in approximately 6 months (SAMHSA, 1999).

A list of screening tools commonly used with adolescents can be found in Appendix D on substance 

abuse screening tools. Also included are several diagnostic and assessment tools to provide an 

understanding of the types of tools used by professionals trained in assessment. 

Self-Harm and Suicide

Adolescents affected by substance use disorders are also at risk for harming themselves and for 

committing suicide. These issues too often manifest themselves among youth who also have mental 

illness. Studies indicate that more than 90% of suicide victims have a mental or substance use disorder 
C-17

(McKeon, 2005). In addition, the combination of childhood trauma, particularly childhood sexual abuse, 

and mental illness have been shown to increase suicide risk (Goldsmith, Pellmar, Kleinmann, & Bunney, 

2002).

Suicide rates in the United States among adolescents rose steadily from the 1950s, and then leveled off 

in the 1990s and began declining. There is some evidence more recently that this trend has ended and 

that teen suicide rates are now essentially flat. More frequent female attempts at suicide are typically 

contrasted with more frequent male successes. Teens between the ages of 15 and 19 are the highest risk 

group (President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, 2003).

Children and adolescents who are suicidal report intense emotional distress including depression, anger, 

anxiety, hopelessness, and worthlessness. They report feeling that they are unable to change frustrating 

circumstances and to find solutions to their problems (Kienhorst, De Wilde, Diekstra, & Wolters, 1995; 

Ohring et al., 1996). Another class of risk factors is related to family discord often characterized by poor 

communication, disagreements, and lack of common values, goals, and activities. 

In an extensive study of suicides in Utah, the agencies that victims had most frequently had contact 

with prior to their suicide were the juvenile justice and child protective services agencies, which led 

the researchers to the conclusion that suicide prevention efforts should focus on institutions, rather than 

individuals (Silverman & Felner, 1995). In this group, 63% of the suicide victims had contact with the 

juvenile justice agency, and of those, 54% were substance related. In 27% of completed suicide cases, 

the individual or a family member had been referred to child protective services. Of the individuals 

referred, 83% were victims of abuse. Only 5% to 20% of suicide completers were in psychiatric 

treatment at the time of their deaths (Gray et al., 2002).

Suicide risk is difficult to assess (Goldsmith et al., 2002). Any assessment instrument should be used 

in combination with professional and clinical judgment. While suicide risk is difficult to assess, there 

is evidence that adolescents provide accurate information about their suicidal thoughts and direct 

questioning using a nonthreatening approach suggested for screening. The questions should include 

information about (1) previous suicide attempts; (2) recent, serious, suicidal preoccupations; (3) 

depression; or (4) complications of alcohol and substance use. Youth identified as being at risk should be 

referred to mental health professionals for further assessment and treatment (Shaffer & Craft, 1999).

The term “self-harm,” or “self-injury,” is another issue that seems to disproportionately affect 

adolescents. Included under the term is a broad range of behaviors one inflicts upon oneself, including 

cutting, burning, hitting the body with an object or fists, biting, bruising, and ingesting toxic substances. 

While the majority of research on self-harm has been conducted in Europe, it is estimated that in the 

United States, almost 3 million people, most of whom are adolescents, engage in self-injury (University 

of Michigan Health System, 2003). An Australian study found that 6.2% of Year 10 and Year 11 students 

(11.1% of the female respondents) had a lifetime history of self-injury (De Leo & Heller, 2004).

As noted in the Australian study, adolescent females are more likely to engage in self-harm than are 

males. Self-harming behaviors cut across a wide range of familial, cultural, and economic backgrounds. 

Some constants that do exist among those who self-harm are depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, 

feelings of guilt, emptiness, numbness, invalidation, and an inability to cope with emotions (Selekman, 

2002; Martinson, 2002). A history of abuse is common among individuals who engage in self-injury; 

however, not all who self-injure were abused. In nonabuse instances, it appears that feelings of 

invalidation and a lack of role models for coping may be enough of a precursor (Selekman, 2002).
C-18

Self-harm is intentional, impulsive, and repetitive (University of Michigan Health System, 2003). 

Self-harming behaviors release endorphins into the bloodstream, resulting in a pleasurable or numbing 

sensation that takes away the unpleasant thoughts or feelings the individual has been feeling. This 

endorphin effect can become addictive to adolescents trying to cope with the emotions and stresses 

of their lives (American Association for Marriage and Family Therapists, 2002). Indications that an 

adolescent might have a problem with self-harm include—

• Cut or burn marks on their arms, legs, and abdomens;

 • Finding knives, razor blades, box cutters, and other sharp objects hidden in the teen’s bedroom;

 • Regularly locking herself or himself up in the bedroom or bathroom after a bad day at school,

 negative encounters with peers, and family conflicts for lengthy periods of time;

• The family physician, a teacher, or other adult observes cut or burn marks, or that the teen appears

 to be regularly removing bodily hairs;

• The teen’s peers cut or burn themselves; and

 • Reports from a sibling indicating that he or she found blood encrusted razors or caught the teen in

 the act of self-injuring (American Association for Marriage and Family Therapists, 2002).

Therapeutic approaches exist, and more are being developed, to help individuals who engage in selfharm to develop new coping mechanisms to replace the self-harming behaviors. It is believed that once 

the self-harming behaviors can be stabilized, work can be done on the issues that underlie the self-harm. 

In addition, research into the use of medications that reduce depression, anxiety, and stabilize mood for 

those who self-harm is being conducted (American Self-Harm Information Clearinghouse, n.d.).

Referral Resources

As children from families with substance use disorders can be affected both by the physiological effects 

of alcohol and drugs and the psychological and social effects of living in a family in which alcohol and 

drugs are used and/or abused, a multiservice response from a wide variety of disciplines, including child 

welfare, alcohol and drug, mental health, primary health, domestic violence, education, and juvenile 

justice is needed. 

Services for children vary across jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions may have services that are designed 

to specifically work with children from families with substance use disorders, while others may be able 

to work with these children through services created to serve other vulnerable children. Each State or 

community will need to assess what resources are available to them for referral of children for further 

assessment and services. Examples of resources that might be available include:

• Early Intervention Services

 • Mental Health Services

 • School-Based Resources

 • Substance Abuse Treatment

Early Intervention Services

Providers of early intervention services might include child care; Head Start and Early Head Start, and 

prekindergarten/preschool programs. In the case of children who have received an early diagnosis of 

special needs, regional developmental disabilities agencies may provide services to both parents and 
C-19

children; some home visiting programs that are based in maternal and child health agencies may also 

have links with services for children with special needs.

An additional resource available to young children and their parents is services available under Part C of 

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Congress established this program in 1986 to—

• Enhance the development of infants and toddlers with disabilities; 

 • Reduce educational costs by minimizing the need for special education through early intervention; 

 • Minimize the likelihood of institutionalization, and maximize independent living; and

 • Enhance the capacity of families to meet their child’s needs (National Early Childhood TA Center,

 2006, January).

Part C of IDEA is a Federal grant program that supports States in operating comprehensive statewide 

programs of early intervention services for children ages birth through 2 years, who have disabilities, 

and their families. Currently, all States and eligible territories are participating in the program, and 

receive annual funding based upon census figures of the number of children age birth to 2 years old 

in their general population. The Federal requirements under Part C specify the minimum components 

that must be included in a comprehensive statewide early intervention system. However, there is 

some discretion in setting criteria for eligibility, including whether or not to serve children at risk. As 

a result, eligibility and services can differ significantly from State to State. Each State and territory 

must designate a lead agency. Lead agencies also can vary from State to State but typically include 

departments of health/public health/human services, education, and mental health/mental retardation. 

The following link provides information about lead agencies in each State and territory: 

http://www.nectac.org/partc/ptclead.asp.

Mental Health Services

Children from families with substance use disorders may qualify for services under their local children’s 

mental health department. Many jurisdictions provide a system of care (SOC) to children with serious 

emotional disorders who are in need of mental health services under the federally funded grant program 

Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services Program for Children and Their Families. Since 

1992, this program has funded 92 sites across the country. The program promotes the development of 

service delivery systems based upon the following philosophies:

 • Mental health service systems should be driven by the needs and preferences of the child and

 family, and address these needs through a strength-based approach;

• The focus and management of services should occur within a multiagency collaborative

 environment and be grounded in a strong community base;

• The services offered, the agencies participating, and the programs generated should be responsive

 to the cultural context and characteristics of the populations served; and

• Families should be partners in the planning, implementing, and evaluating of the system of care

 (Center for Children’s Mental Health Services, 2004).

A 2001 report on promising practices from the SOCs detailed that services supporting the mental health 

of young children should include the following components:

• Family-Centered—designed around the family’s strengths, needs, and preferences;

 • Individualized—respecting family’s race, ethnicity, culture, socioeconomic background, values,

 and beliefs;
C-20

• Comprehensive—provide a variety of interventions to meet the developmental, physical health,

 and mental health needs, and address the needs of the whole family;

• Community-Based—including informal supports that exist in the community and in settings

 familiar to the child and family, such as in the home or daycare center;

• Coordinated—services provided by multiple agencies or disciplines;

• Based on Developmental Needs—awareness of age-appropriate behavior and cognitive and social

 development; and

• Built on Strength and Resilience—designed to promote resiliency in children, to enhance self

 esteem, to improve coping skills, and to increase positive social supports (Simpson, Jivanjee,

 Koroloff, Doerfler, & Garcia, 2001).

School-Based Resources

Schools have multiple roles in responding to substance use, abuse, and dependence by their students 

and as these problems affect their students. Schools are critical venues for identifying and responding 

to conditions related to the effects of substance use disorders on children’s lives. Child welfare 

professionals, as well as all other professionals who work with children outside a school setting, need to 

understand how schools can respond to the needs of children and youth affected by substance disorders.

In general, schools are far more focused on adolescent patterns of use, abuse, and dependence than the 

academic and behavioral effects of parents’ and caretakers’ substance use disorders on their children. 

Schools are sometimes focused on substance abuse and violence prevention programs aimed at preteen 

or adolescent groups while underestimating the importance of intervention and treatment programs for 

younger students whose parents and caretakers are involved with alcohol and drugs in ways that affect 

students’ learning and behavior.

For the youngest, pre-school-aged children, the effects of parental substance use disorders may begin 

to show up as a result of developmental screening. The effects may occur when parents take a child to 

be assessed. Under Federal special education legislation, every school district is obligated to identify, 

locate, and evaluate all children between the ages of birth and 21 who may need special education and 

related services. Anyone (a parent, teacher, service provider, and others) may request that a child be 

considered for special education, and most professionals, including doctors, mental health workers, 

and counselors must notify the State Superintendent of Public Instruction of any child who appears to 

be disabled but is not receiving special education services. If a child is younger than 5 years old, the 

school district will likely refer the family to a local referral and evaluation agency (After the evaluation, 

a disabled child may be provided with specific programs and services to address his or her special 

needs. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) defines “children with disabilities” as 

individuals between the ages of birth and 21 with one or more of 10 specific categories of disabilities 

(Council for Exceptional Children, 1998). 

Assessments may also happen when a child is taken into the child welfare or mental health systems as 

a result of a referral for abuse or neglect. The Early Head Start program mentioned above has worked 

on making a “good handoff” to school districts that their “graduates” will be attending, and emphasizes 

continuity of care for children identified in preschool settings.

Those school districts that operate or work closely with school-based or school-linked health centers 

have an additional resource to assist with the task of identifying children affected by their own or their 

parents’ substance use disorders, but staff in such centers need the training to identify these disorders. 
C-21

In studies of adolescents receiving mental health services, about half had a co-occurring substance use 

disorder (Greenbaum, Foster-Johnson, & Petrila, 1996). The study found that depression and conduct 

disorders were the most frequent mental disorders diagnosed in the presence of a substance use disorder. 

School personnel and their collaborating partners must be able to differentiate between mental illness 

and substance use disorders, while recognizing the substantial overlap.

For children in adolescence who are 14 or older, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 

requires that the Individual Education Plan (IEP) team consider vocational and advanced-placement 

needs and courses, and any needed involvement with noneducational agencies that provide vocational 

and other support services for individuals with disabilities. For some children, Section 504 plans may 

provide a less rigorous approach to accommodations required by children with special needs, such as 

more time for homework and changes in the ways tests are given.

While the discussion above highlights some of the common referral sources available throughout the 

country, every jurisdiction will have its own set of services. It is important for alcohol and drug, child 

welfare, and court professionals to become familiar with the resources available to vulnerable children 

and their families in their area. The following are a number of national resources providing further 

information on children and families affected by substance use disorders.

Substance Abuse Treatment Services

The advancement of specialized substance abuse treatment for adolescents—treatment different from 

that offered to adults—has emerged in the field over the past 20 years. Since then, many programs for 

treating adolescents have been established. Until recently, however, little was known regarding which of 

the programs or treatment strategies were effective. 

To address this lack of information, in 1997 the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) began by 

sponsoring the Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) study. Under CYT, CSAT supported the operation and 

evaluation of several programs that used one of five theory-based models to treat adolescent marijuana 

use. The research found that these models substantially reduced adolescent substance abuse. 

In 1998, CSAT launched the Adolescent Treatment Models (ATM) project. The ATM project evaluated 

a range of promising existing programs for adolescents. Models evaluated included inpatient, 

residential, and outpatient programs. The ATM study was not restricted to marijuana. Overall, the 

ATM programs produced fairly substantial reductions in substance use, emotional problems, and illegal 

activities in the year after admission. For example, there was a 56% to 60% reduction in the number of 

days adolescents used drugs.

An e-mail discussion group called the Society for Adolescent Substance Abuse Treatment Effectiveness 

listserv—an outgrowth of the ATM project—facilitates ongoing conversation and sharing of information. 

The listserv is open to anyone in the field. To learn more about the listserv for the Society for Adolescent 

Substance Abuse Treatment Effectiveness, e-mail Donna Williams at dwilliam@samhsa.hhs.gov.

For additional information about the CYT and ATM studies, please visit 

http://www.samhsa.gov/samhsa_news/VolumeXI_2/article8.htm.

There are some other steps that States and counties can take to facilitate access to substance abuse 

treatment. For example, adolescent substance abuse treatment is an optional service under the State 
C-22

Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Covering these services under SCHIP removes a 

financial barrier to entering treatment.

Federal Medicaid regulations require States to offer “Early, Periodic, Screening, Diagnosis, and 

Treatment” (EPSDT) services to all Medicaid recipients younger than age 21. EPSDT was established 

to ensure that young Medicaid recipients receive routine health checks, screenings for possible illnesses, 

and a range of preventive and treatment services. Many States and communities have used EPSDT

services to enhance their adolescent programs and to ensure that youth in the child welfare system have 

access to substance abuse treatment. 

Resources

The Administration on Children and Families (ACF) supports 61 University Centers for Excellence 

in Developmental Disabilities, Education, Research, and Service (UCEDDs), which can be accessed 

through http://www.aucd.org/aucd_aboutuce.htm. 

ACF’s Head Start Bureau has information about the program including grants and services, resources 

for families and communities, and research. This information can be accessed at 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/hsb/. 

The Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for Early Learning is a national center 

dedicated to strengthening the capacity of child care and Head Start programs to improve the social and 

emotional outcomes of young children. The Web site for the center is http://csefel.uiuc.edu. 

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration supports a variety of services and 

technical assistance centers related to children and adolescents. They include the following:

• The Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) operates the National Mental Health

 Information Center at 1-800-789-2647. The Center has a variety of fact sheets and information

 available. The Center’s Web site is at http://www.mentalhealth.samhsa.gov.

• The National Technical Assistance Center for Children’s Mental Health at Georgetown

 University at http://gucchd.georgetown.edu/programs/ta_center/index.html is an excellent

 resource for children with special mental health needs.

• The Substance Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) Center of Excellence for technical

 assistance, information, and training on FASD http://fascenter.samhsa.gov/.

 • The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention has developed the Children’s Program Kit:

 Supportive Education for Children of Addicted Parents. This multimedia education kit is geared

 toward substance abuse treatment staff, community groups, and schools. The kit can be obtained

 through the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information (NCADI) at 

 1-800-729-6686 or http://www.ncadi.samhsa.gov.

• SAMHSA’s National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (NREPP). The

 NREPP Web site serves as a comprehensive resource for learning about and/or implementing

 model programs. The programs featured on the Web site have been tested in communities, schools,

 social service organizations, and workplaces across the country, and have provided evidence that

 they have prevented or reduced substance abuse and other related high-risk behaviors. The NREPP

 Web site can be accessed at http://modelprograms.samhsa.gov/template.cfm?page=default.
C-23

• The National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN). Its purpose is to improve the quality,

 effectiveness, provision, and availability of therapeutic services delivered to all children and

 adolescents experiencing traumatic events http://www.nctsnet.org/nccts/nav.do?pid=abt_main.

• The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment operates a Web-based facility locator for substance

 abuse services. The locator can be accessed at http://www.findtreatment.samhsa.gov/.

  CSAT has approved Treatment and Assessment Protocols for Adolescent Treatment. They

 can be accessed at http://www.chestnut.org/LI/apss/CSAT/protocols/.

  In partnership with the ACF, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

 supports the National Center on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare (NCSACW). The

 Center provides technical assistance to States and communities to improve outcomes for

 families affected by substance use disorders in the child welfare and dependency court

 systems http://ncsacw.samhsa.gov.

The Department of Education has a number of offices that may provide useful information about 

services to children who are vulnerable. These include:

• The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS). OSERS assists in

 educating children with disabilities and rehabilitating adults with disabilities and conducts

 research to improve the lives of individuals with disabilities regardless of age. OSERS can be

 accessed at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/index.html?src=oc.

  The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) under OSERS is dedicated to improving

 results for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities ages birth through 21 by

 providing leadership and financial support to assist States and local districts. OSEP supports

 a variety of technical assistance resources, and can be accessed at 

 http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/index.html?src=mr.

 

  The Center for Evidence-Based Practice: Young Children with Challenging

 Behavior is funded by OSEP. The center is dedicated to promoting the use of

 evidence-based practice to meet the needs of young children who have, or are at risk

 for, problem behavior, and can be accessed at 

 http://challengingbehavior.fmhi.usf.edu/index.html.

  The National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center provides information

 on the early childhood provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and

 can be accessed at http://www.ectac.org/.

  The National Center on Educational Outcomes provides national leadership in the

 participation of students with disabilities in national and State assessments,

 standards-setting efforts, and graduation requirements, and can be accessed at 

 http://education.umn.edu/nceo/.

  The Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice is designed to improve

 services to children and youth with emotional and behavioral problems by helping

 communities create schools that promote emotional well-being, effective instruction,

 and safe learning, and supporting effective collaboration at the local, State, and

 national levels. More information is available at http://www.air.org/cecp/about.htm.
C-24

  The National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities provides

 information on disabilities in children and youth; programs and services for infants,

 children, and youth with disabilities; IDEA; No Child Left Behind, the Nation’s

 general education law; and research-based information on effective practices for

 children with disabilities. More information is available at 

 http://www.nichcy.org/index.html.

• The Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS). OSDFS supports efforts to create safe

 schools, respond to crises, prevent drug and alcohol abuse, ensure the health and well-being of

 students, and teach students good citizenship and character. OSDFS can be accessed at 

 http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osdfs/index.html?src=oc.

  The Health, Mental Health, Environmental Health, and Physical Education

 (HMHEHPE) under OSDFS administers programs that promote the health and well-being

 of students and families as outlined in Title IV, Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities

 Act (SDFSCA), authorized by the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994. Programs

 authorized under this legislation provide financial assistance for activities that promote

 the health and well-being of students in elementary and secondary schools, and institutions of

 higher education. HMHEHPE can be accessed at 

 http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osdfs/programs.html#health.

  The Drug-Violence Prevention (DVP) State Programs group under OSDFS administers

 Title IV, SDFSCA, authorized by the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 and other

 programs related to developing and maintaining safe, disciplined, and drug-free schools.

 Programs authorized under this legislation provide financial assistance for drug and violence

 prevention activities in elementary and secondary schools, and institutions of higher

 education. DVP State Programs can be accessed at 

 http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osdfs/programs.html#health.

  The Drug-Violence Prevention (DVP) National Programs group administers Title IV,

 SDFSCA authorized by the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 and other programs

 related to developing and maintaining safe, disciplined, and drug-free schools. Programs

 authorized under this legislation provide financial assistance for drug and violence prevention

 activities in elementary and secondary schools, and institutions of higher education. DVP

 National Programs can be accessed at 

 http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osdfs/programs.html#health.
C-25

References

American Association for Marriage and Family Therapists. (2002). AAMFT consumer update:

 Adolescent self-harm. Accessed at 

 www.aamft.org/families/Consumer_Updates/Adolescent_Self_harm.asp 

American Self-Harm Information Clearinghouse. (n.d.). About self-harm. Accessed at 

 www.selfinjury.org

Arria, A. M., Derauf, C., LaGasse, L. L., Grant, P., Shah, R., Smith, L., et al. (2006, May).

 Methamphetamine and other substance use during pregnancy. Preliminary estimates from the Infant

 Development, Environment, and Lifestyle (IDEAL) study. Maternal and Child Health Journal,

 10(3), 293–302.

Baer, J. S., Barr, H. M., Bookstein, F. L., Sampson, P. D., & Streissguth, A. P. (1998). Prenatal alcohol

 exposure and family history of alcoholism in the etiology of adolescent alcohol problems. Journal of

 Studies on Alcohol, 59(5), 533–543.

Burry, C. (1999). Evaluation of a training program for foster parents of infants with prenatal substance

 effects. Child Welfare, 78(1), 197–214.

Byrd, R., Neistadt, A., Howard, C., & Brownstein-Evans, C. (1999). Why screen newborns for cocaine: 

Service patterns and social outcomes at age one year old. Child Abuse and Neglect, 23(6), 523–530.

Carta, J. J., Atwater, J. B., Greenwood, C. R., McConnell, S. R., McEvoy, M. A., & Williams, R. (2001).

 Effects of cumulative prenatal substance exposure and environmental risks on children’s

 developmental trajectories. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30(3): 327–337.

Center for Children’s Mental Health Services, Division of Service and Systems Improvement, Child,

 Adolescent and Family Branch. (2004, April). Comprehensive community mental health services

 program for children and their families. Accessed at http://mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/publications

allpubs/CA-0013/default.asp

Chan, D., Caprara, D., Blanchette, P., Klein, J., & Koren, G. (2004, June). Recent developments in

 meconium and hair testing methods for the confirmation of gestational exposures to alcohol and

 tobacco smoke. Clinical Biochemistry, 37(6), 429–438.

Chasnoff, I. J. (1997). Prenatal exposure to cocaine and other drugs: Is there a profile? In P. J. Accardo,

 B. K. Shapiro, & A. J. Capute (Eds.), Behavior belongs in the brain: Neurobehavioral syndromes

 (pp. 147–163). Baltimore: York Press.

Chasnoff, I. J., Anson, A., Hatcher, R., Stenson, H., Iaukea, K., & Randolph, L. A. (1998). Prenatal

 exposure to cocaine and other drugs: Outcome at four to six years. Annals of the New York Academy

 of Sciences, 846, 314–328.

Chasnoff, I. J., Griffith, D. R., MacGregor, S., Dirkes, K., & Burns, K. A. (1989). Temporal patterns of

 cocaine use in pregnancy: Perinatal outcome. Journal of the American Medical Association, 261,

 1741–1744.
C-26

Chasnoff, I. J., Neuman, K., Thornton, C., & Callaghan, M. A. (2001, March). Screening for substance

 use in pregnancy: A Practical approach for the primary care physician. American Journal of

 Obstetrics and Gynecology, 184(4), 752–758.

Chen, W-J. A., Maier, S. E., Parnell, S. E., & West, J. R. (2003). Alcohol and the developing brain:

 Neuroanatomical studies. Alcohol Research and Health, 27(2): 174–180.

Cherpitel, C. J. (2002, November). Screening for alcohol problems in the U.S. general population:

 Comparison of the CAGE, RAPS4, and RAPS4-QF by gender, ethnicity, and service utilization.

Alcohol Clinical and Experimental Research, 26(11), 1686–1691. As cited in Centers for Disease

 Control and Prevention. (2005). Guidelines for identifying and referring persons with fetal alcohol

 syndrome. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 54(RR-11), 1–16. Retrieved March 13, 2006,

 from: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5411.pdf

Children of Alcoholics Foundation. (n.d.). Medical and psychiatric consequences. Accessed at 

 http://www.coaf.org/professionals/medcons.htm

Council for Exceptional Children. (1988). IDEA’s definition of disabilities. Accessed August 31, 2006, at

 http://ericec.org/digests/e560.html

Delaney-Black, V., Covington, C., Templin, T. Ager, J., Nordstrom-Klee, B., Martier, S., et al. (2000,

 October 1). Teacher-assessed behavior of children prenatally exposed to cocaine. Pediatrics, 106(4),

 782–791.

De Leo, D., & Heller, T. S. (2004). Who are the kids who self-harm? An Australian self-report school

 survey. Medical Journal of Australia, 181(3), 140–144.

Drug Endangered Children Resource Center. (2000, February). Drug endangered children health and

 safety manual. (Previously available from the Drug Endangered Children Resource Center, 14622

 Victory Boulevard, Van Nuys, CA 91411) 

Ebrahim, S. H., & Gfroerer, J. (2003). Pregnancy-related substance use in the United States during 

 1996-1998. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 101(2), 374–379. 

Emory School of Medicine Maternal Substance Abuse and Child Development Project (n.d.). How does

 prenatal alcohol exposure affect educational aptitude and achievement? Retrieved October 4, 2004,

 from http://www.psychiatry.emory.edu/PROGRAMS/GADrug/faqAp.htm

Gardner, S., & Otero, C. (2004, July 14). The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act: 

 Substance-exposed births. A paper presented at the Putting the Pieces Together: The First National

 Conference on Substance Abuse, Child Welfare and the Dependency Court, Baltimore, MD. 

Goldschmidt, L., Richardson, G. A., Cornelius, M. D., & Day, N. L. (2004). Prenatal marijuana and

 alcohol exposure and academic achievement at age 10. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 26(4),

 521–532.

Goldsmith, S. K., Pellmar, T. C., Kleinmann, A. M., & Bunney, W. E., Jr. (Eds). (2002). 

Reducing suicide: A national imperative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
C-27

Gray, D., Achilles, J., Keller, T., Tate, D., Haggard, L., Rolfs, R., et al. (2002, April). Utah Youth Suicide

 Study, Phase I: Government agency contact before death. Journal of the American Academy of Child

 and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41(4), 427–434. 

Greenbaum, P. E., Foster-Johnson, L., & Petrila, A. (1996). Co-occurring addictive and mental disorders

 among adolescents: Prevalence research and future directions. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,

 66(1), 52–60.

Jacobson, S., & Jacobson, J. (2003). FAS/FAE and its impact on psychological child development. 

 In R. E. Tremblay, R. J. Barr, & R. D. Peters (Eds.), Encyclopedia on early childhood development

 [Online]. Montreal: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development.

James Bell Associates. (1993). Report to the Congress: National estimates on the number of boarder

 babies, the cost of their care, and the number of abandoned infants. Washington, DC: 

 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau.

Karr-Morse, R., Brazelton, T., & Wiley, M. (1997). Ghosts from the nursery: Tracing the roots of

 violence. New York: The Atlantic Monthly Press.

Kienhorst, I., De Wilde, E. J., Diekstra, R. F. & Wolters, W. H. (1995, May). Adolescents’ image of their

 suicide attempt. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34(5), 

 623–628. 

Kronstadt, D. (1991). Complex developmental issues of prenatal drug exposure. Future of Children,

 1(1), 36–49.

Lagasse, L., & Lester, B. (2000). Prenatal cocaine exposure and child outcome: From research to public

 policy. In H. Fitzgerald, B. Lester, & B. Zuckerman (Eds.), Children of addiction: Research, health,

 and public policy issues (pp. 29–43). New York: Routledge Falmer.

Lester, B. M., Andreozzi, L., & Appiah, L. (2004). Substance use during pregnancy: Time for policy to

 catch up with research. Harm Reduction Journal, 1(5).

Little, R. E., Young, A., Streissguth, A. P., & Uhl, C. N. (1984). Preventing fetal alcohol effects:

 Effectiveness of a demonstration project. CIBA Foundation Symposium, 105, 254–274.

Lupton, C., Burd, L., & Harwood, R. (2004). Cost of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. American Journal

 of Medical Genetics, 127C, 42–50.

Malanga, C. J., & Kosofsky, B. E. (2003, December 30). Does drug abuse beget drug abuse? Behavioral

 analysis of addiction liability in animal models of prenatal exposure [Review]. Developmental Brain

 Research, 147(1-2): 47–57.

Martinson, D. (2002). Self-injury: A quick guide to the basics. Accessed August 31, 2006, at 

http://www.selfinjury.org/docs/factsht.html

Mathis, R. (1998). Prenatal exposure to drugs of abuse may affect later behavior and learning. 

NIDA Notes, 13(4).
C-28

May, P. A., & Gossage, J. P. (2001). Estimating the prevalence of fetal alcohol syndrome: A summary.

Alcohol Research and Health, 25(3), 159–167.

McGourty, R. F., & Chasnoff, I. J. (2003). Power beyond measure: A community-based approach

 to developing integrated systems of care for substance abusing women and their children. Chicago:

 National Institute Publishing.

McKeon, R. (2005). Co-morbidity: Substance abuse, mental illness and suicide. Presentation at

 the Suicide Prevention Resource Center (SPRC) Suicide Prevention Regional Planning 

 Conference - Regions 1 & 2 on June 6–8, 2005, Meriden, CT. Accessed August 31, 2006, at 

 http://www.sprc.org/featured_resources/trainingandevents/conferences/ct/presentation.asp 

McNichol, T. (1999). The impact of drug-exposed children on family foster care. Child Welfare, 78(1),

 184–196.

Miller Children’s Abuse and Violence Intervention Center—University of Southern California Child and

 Adolescent Trauma Program, downloaded from http://www.nctsnet.org/nccts/nav.do?pid=ctr_main

Morse, B., Gehshan, S., & Hutchins, E. (1997). Screening for substance abuse during pregnancy:

 Improving care, improving health. Arlington, VA: National Center for Education in Maternal and

 Child Health.

National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. (1999). No safe haven: Children of substance

 abusing parents. New York: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at 

 Columbia University.

National Early Childhood TA Center. (2006, January). Early intervention program for infants and

 toddlers with disabilities (Part C of IDEA). Accessed at 

 http://www.nectac.org/partc/partc.asp#overview

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2001, September). Director’s report to the National Advisory Council

 on Drug Abuse. Available at http://www.nida.nih.gov/DirReports/DirRep901/DirectorRepIndex.html

National Resource Center for Respite and Crisis Care Services. (1997, April). Factsheet number 49:

 Children with prenatal drug and/or alcohol exposure. Available from 

 http://www.archrespite.org/archfs49.htm

Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2005).

Substance use and need for treatment among youths who have been in foster care. Available from 

 http://www.oas.samhsa.gov

Ohring, R., et al. (1996, February). State and trait anxiety in adolescent suicide attempters. Journal of

 the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35(2), 154–157.

Ondersma, S. J., Simpson, S. M., Brestan, E. V., Ward, M. (2000). Prenatal drug exposure and social

 policy: The search for an appropriate response. Child Maltreatment, 5(2), 93–108.
C-29

Ostrea, E. M., Jr., Brady, M., Gause, S., Raymundo, A. L., & Stevens, M. (1992). Drug screening of

 newborns by meconium analysis: A large-scale, prospective, epidemiologic study. Pediatrics, 89(1),

 107–113.

President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. (2003, July). Chapter 3—Children and mental

 health. In Final report. Achieving the promise: Transforming mental health care in America.

 Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available from 

http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/reports/reports.htm

Riley, E. P., & McGee, C. L. (2005). Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders: An overview with emphasis on

 changes in brain and behavior. Experimental Biology and Medicine, 230(6), 357–365.

SAMHSA Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders Center for Excellence. (2004, February). The language

 of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Available at 

 http://www.fascenter.samhsa.gov/documents/WYNKLanguageFASD2.pdf

SAMHSA Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders Center for Excellence. (2006, January). Fetal alcohol

 spectrum disorders by the numbers. Accessed August 31, 2006 at 

 http://www.fascenter.samhsa.gov/grabGo/factSheets.cfm

Sampson, P. D., Streissguth, A. P., Bookstein, F. L., Little, R. E., Clarren, S. K., Dehaene, P., et al.

 (1997). Incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome and prevalence of alcohol-related neurodevelopmental

 disorder. Teratology, 56(5), 317–326.

Schnoll, S., & Wilford, B. (1997). Health care needs of drug-affected children and their families. 

 In M. Haack (Ed.), Drug-dependent mothers and their children: issues in public policy and public

 health. New York: Springer Publishing, 110–134.

Schonfeld, A. M. G. (2003). Moral judgment and reasoning in children and adolescents with prenatal

 alcohol exposure. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(8), 3937B.

Selekman, M. D. (2002). Adolescent self harm. Accessed August 31, 2006, at 

 http://www.aamft.org/families/consumer_updates/adolescent_self_harm.asp

Shaffer, D., & Craft, L. (1999). Methods of adolescent suicide prevention. Journal of Clinical

 Psychiatry, 60(2), 70–74. In President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. (2003, July).

 Chapter 3—Children and mental health. Final report. Achieving the promise: Transforming mental

 health care in America. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available

 from http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/reports/reports.htm

Sher, L. (2004). Etiology, pathogenesis, and treatment of seasonal and non-seasonal mood disorders:

 Possible role of circadian rhythm abnormalities related to developmental alcohol exposure. Medical

 Hypotheses, 62(5), 797–801.

Silverman, M. M., & Felner, R. D. (1995). Suicide prevention programs: Issues of design,

 implementation, feasibility, and developmental appropriateness. Suicide and Life- Threatening 

 Behavior, 25, 92–104. 
C-30

Simpson, J. S., Jivanjee, P., Koroloff, N., Doerfler, A., & Garcia, M. (2001). Systems of care: Promising

 practices in children’s mental health, 2001 series (Vol. III). Washington, DC: Center for Effective

 Collaboration and Practice, American Institutes for Research.

Streissguth, A. P., Barr, H. M., Kogan, J., & Bookstein, F. L. (1996). Final report: Understanding the

 occurrence of secondary disabilities in clients with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) and Fetal Alcohol

 Effects (FAE). Seattle: University of Washington Publication Services.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (1999). Screening and assessing

 adolescents for substance use disorders (Treatment Improvement Protocol Series, No. 31). 

 Rockville, MD: Author.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2005, September). Results from the 2004

 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed tables on pregnancy. Rockville, MD: Office of

 Applied Studies. Retrieved August 31, 2006, from 

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k4nsduh/2k4tabs/Sect7peTabs70to77.pdf

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2006, September). Results from the 2005

 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National findings (NSDUH Series H-30, DHHS

 Publication No. SMA 06-4194). Rockville, MD: Office of Applied Studies. Accessed September 13,

 2006, at http://www.drugabusestatistics.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k5NSDUH/2k5results.htm#2.2

University of Michigan Health System. (2003, November). UMHS Health-e News. Accessed at 

 www.med.umich.edu/health-e_news/nov2003/mentalhealth.html

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999, April). Blending perspectives and building

 common ground: A report to Congress on substance abuse and child protection. Washington, DC:

 U.S. Government Printing Office.
D-1

Appendix D

Examples of Screening and 

Assessment Tools

 for Substance Use Disorders

D-3

Examples of Screening and Assessment Tools 

for Substance Use Disorders

This appendix provides information about and samples of screening and assessment tools for substance 

use disorders. In the description of each tool, the definition follows the tool acronym.

These tools should be used to support ongoing processes that involve regular communication among 

staff and between staff and families. Tools by themselves do not provide answers to complicated issues 

such as substance use disorders and child maltreatment. They can, however, contribute to decisions 

about whether problems exist, the nature and extent of those problems and what actions all three systems—child welfare, alcohol and drug, and court— should take to address problems.

Screening Tools for Substance Use Disorders 

Screens for substance use disorders tend to fall into two categories: brief screens of six or fewer items 

that can be asked orally in the context of an interview or other exchange or longer written questionnaires 

that are completed by the respondent. Both types are provided here. The oral screens may be more practical for fieldwork and home visits; however, in office settings, the written screens could be employed to 

collect information while people are waiting for appointments or used as a means by which clerical or 

other staff can collect information.

None of the standard screens address the issue of immediacy in terms of requiring immediate action. Issues of whether immediate actions are required are more likely to involve observations indicating intoxication or withdrawal or indications of impaired functioning. A combination of observational information plus results from systematic screening would be one strategy for formulating a basis for immediate 

action as well as assessing the need for further diagnostic assessment.

These screening tools provide information to answer the questions “Is there a substance abuse issue? 

What is the immediacy of the issue?” They include information about screening tools for adults and 

adolescents. This list is in alphabetical order based on the tool acronym.

In addition, the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) has approved Treatment and 

Assessment Protocols for Adolescent Treatment. They can be accessed at 

http://www.chestnut.org/LI/apss/CSAT/protocols/
D-4

ADULT SUBSTANCE USE SURVEY (ASUS)

The ASUS (Adult Substance Use Survey) is a 64-item self-report survey designed to assess an 

individual’s perceived alcohol and other drug use. This survey also provides a brief mental health 

screen by including questions that might indicate problems of emotional or mood adjustment. Scales 

measuring antisocial tendencies, perceptual defensiveness, and motivation are also included. This 

multivariate instrument is part of the Standardized Offender Assessment package in a number of 

States, including Colorado.

Administrative Issues 64 items

Paper-and-pencil self-administered or orally administered

Time required: 8 to 10 minutes to administer, less than 5 minutes 

to score

Scoring Scored by tester

No computerized scoring or interpretation available

Clinical Utility Norms available

The items are face valid, so the client is clear about what is being 

asked. Items that are difficult to understand can be reworded by 

the tester, or explained, so that the most accurate information is 

obtained. The defensiveness scale is a helpful tool to measure the 

extent to which the client is able to report information openly and 

honestly, or whether information is being distorted by perceptual 

defensiveness. This screen also can be readministered over the 

course of the treatment process, to ascertain whether clients’ level of 

defensiveness has decreased, and whether their perception of their 

substance use and its effects has changed.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted

Test and manual are free; training module costs $75.

Center for Addiction Research and Evaluation, Inc. (CARE)

5460 Ward Road, Suite 140

Arvada, CO 80020

Phone: 303-421-1261
D-5

ALCOHOL USE DISORDERS IDENTIFICATION TEST (AUDIT)

The AUDIT (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test) was developed by the World Health 

Organization to identify persons whose alcohol consumption has become harmful or hazardous to their 

health. The AUDIT is not designed to identify substance use disorders according to diagnostic criteria. 

The AUDIT is designed for written administration, but is short enough to be read to a respondent 

for oral administration. This test is among the more widely used screens, but its utility in identifying 

whether an individual is likely to meet diagnostic criteria is not clear.

Administrative Issues 10 items, 3 subscales

Pencil-and-paper self-administered or interview

Time required: 2 minutes

Administered by health professional or paraprofessional

Training required for administration. A detailed user’s manual 

and a videotaped training manual explain proper administration 

procedures, scoring, interpretation, and clinical management. 

Scoring Time required: 1 minute

Scored by hand

No computerized scoring or interpretation available

Norms available

Normed on heavy drinkers and alcoholics

An easy-to-use brochure has been designed to guide the interviewer 

and to assist with scoring and interpretation.

Clinical Utility The AUDIT screening procedure is linked to a decision process 

that includes brief intervention with heavy drinkers or referral to 

specialized treatment for patients who show evidence of more 

serious alcohol involvement. This screening procedure assesses 

risky drinking rather than the presence of a diagnosable disorder 

other than alcohol use disorder. The AUDIT does not screen for 

drugs.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted

Test and manual are free; training module costs $75.

Programme on Substance Abuse

World Health Organization

1211 Geneva, Switzerland 

or Thomas F. Babor

Alcohol Research Center 

University of Connecticut, Farmington, CT
D-6

CAGE

The CAGE, a very brief screen, is probably the most widely used and promoted for the detection of 

alcohol problems in the United States. It is one of the screens most consistently promoted for use 

among medical professionals to identify individuals likely to have substance use disorders.

Administrative Issues Four items

Paper-and-pencil self-administered or orally administered 

Time required: less then 1 minute

Administered by professional or technician

No training required for administration, easy to learn, easy to 

remember, easy to replicate

Scoring Time required: instantaneous

A total score of 2 or more indicates the need for further

assessment.

Scored by tester

No computerized scoring or interpretation available

Norms available 

Clinical Utility The CAGE is a favorite of physicians and nurses because of its 

brevity. It is not based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 

of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV) and therefore does not 

discriminate between abuse and dependence, is relatively insensitive 

to women, and is subjective; relies on the individual’s ability to 

experience guilt and one of the four items identifies only late stage 

alcohol problems. Some of the items address abuse and dependence 

criteria but, because of some of the limitations, may not be the 

optimal screen for most child welfare applications. In its original 

form, it does not screen for drug-related problems.

Copyright

Cost

Source

No copyright. Published in the American Journal of Psychiatry

None

Copies can be found on a number of Internet sites or by obtaining the 

original 1974 publication.
D-7

CAGE–AID Modification

The CAGE has been modified to screen for drug as well as alcohol problems by adding “or use (using) 

drugs” to the original questions. Some versions of the modification screen for drugs only; most screen 

for both. The CAGE–AID demonstrates all limitations of the CAGE, and there are many different 

variations in the language of the items, including even changes in the original CAGE items. Like the 

CAGE, the modification should be considered a less than an optimal screening instrument for most 

child welfare applications.

CRAFFT

The CRAFFT is a six-item screen for both alcohol and drug use among adolescents. This screen 

focuses more on risky drinking than on diagnostic issues and does not discriminate between risky 

drinking, abuse, and dependence.

Administrative Issues Six items, “yes/no” answers

Paper-and-pencil self-administered or orally administered

Scored by tester

No computerized scoring or interpretation available

Norms unavailable

Scoring Time required: less than 1 minute

Two or more “yes” answers indicate need for further assessment

Scored by tester

No computerized scoring or interpretation available

Clinical Utility The CRAFFT, a relatively new instrument (2002), screens for both 

alcohol and drug problems but focuses more on risky drinking than 

on diagnosing abuse or dependence. Only three of the six items 

are related to the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for substance use 

disorders. One of six items (“Have you ever ridden in a car driven 

by someone (including yourself) who was “high” or who was using 

alcohol or drugs?”) has potential for increasing positive responses 

and lowering specificity.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted by Children’s Hospital Boston, 2001

No cost, but approval for copies must be obtained from the Center 

for Adolescent Substance Abuse Research (CeASAR), Children’s 

Hospital Boston

www.CeASAR-Boston.org
D-8

DRUG ABUSE SCREENING TEST (DAST)

All the DAST (Drug Abuse Screening Test) versions screen for problems with the use of drugs only. 

The DAST-10 (Drug Abuse Screening Test-10) is the shortened and more commonly used version 

of a 20-item (DAST-20) or the original 28-item version. The DAST is sometimes combined with the 

AUDIT or other alcohol screens to cover both alcohol- and drug-related problems. Items apply to overthe-counter, prescription, and illicit drugs. Studies have documented reliability with Spanish versions.

Administrative Issues 10 items, 0 subscales

Paper and pencil self-administered or orally administered

Time required: 2 minutes

Administered by professional or technician

No training required for administration, easy to learn

Scoring Time required: 1 minute

Scored by hand

A total score of 3 or more indicates the need for further assessment 

Scored by tester

No computerized scoring or interpretation available

Norms available

Clinical Utility The original DAST 28-item questionnaire has been modified

to a 20-item version, and to the most commonly used version, a 

10-item version, the DAST-10. The items cover most of the abuse 

and some dependence DSM-IV criteria, and this questionnaire 

is more focused on diagnosis than the AUDIT. The items are 

designed for a timeframe covering the last 12 months. In order to 

do a comprehensive substance use disorder screen, the DAST must 

be paired with a second instrument that screens for alcohol use 

disorders.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted

$12.95 for a package of 100

Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

33 Russell Street

Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2S1
D-9

DRUG USE SCREENING INVENTORY-REVISED (DUSI-R)

The DUSI-R (Drug Use Screening Inventory-Revised) is a commercially available 159-item screening 

instrument that provides scores in 10 domains: alcohol and drug use, behavior patterns, health status, 

psychiatric disorder, social competence, family system, school performance, work adjustment, peer 

relationships, and leisure and recreation. Adult and adolescent versions are available, but norms are 

available only for the adolescent version.

Administrative Issues 159 items, 11 subscales

Paper-and-pencil self-administered or by computer

Time required: 20 to 45 minutes

Administered by professional or technician

No training required for administration

Scoring Time required: manual time not specified if scored by tester Computerized administration, scoring, and interpretation available

Norms listed as available for adolescents, but only the listed reference has a sample of only 25 adolescents.

Clinical Utility No diagnostic cut-scores are provided; clinicians must make 

such decisions. Promotional materials suggest that the instrument 

can also be used to monitor change.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted by The Gordian Group

$3 per paper copy or $495 for the computer version

The Gordian Group

P.O. Box 1587

Hartsville, SC 29550

Phone: 843-383-2201

Web site: www.dusi.com
D-10

MICHIGAN ALCOHOL SCREENING TEST (MAST)

The MAST (Michigan Alcohol Screening Test) is a 25-item screen developed in 1971 and with the 

CAGE has been one of the most widely used to screen for diagnosable abuse or dependence. Briefer 

versions have been developed including the Brief-MAST (10 items), the Malmo Modification of the 

MAST, or Mm-MAST (9 items), and the Short MAST, or SMAST (13 items). There is also a geriatric 

version, the MAST-G. The original instrument is long for a screen, but the shorter versions should be 

viewed as distinct instruments in terms of validity.

Administrative Issues 25 items, 0 subscales

Paper-and-pencil self-administered or interview

Time required: 10 minutes

Administered by practitioner or self

No training required for administration

Scoring Time required: 10 minutes

Scored by staff

No computerized scoring or interpretation available

Norms available

Clinical Utility The MAST focuses on alcohol only and therefore must be paired 

with an instrument like the DAST that screens for drug disorders. 

It is long for a screening instrument. It screens for “alcoholism,” 

a non-diagnostic term, and is not based on the diagnostic criteria 

of the DSM-IV. This instrument makes assumptions that can lead 

to erroneous conclusions (e.g., “Have you ever attended an AA 

meeting?” assumes that attendance was due to the respondent’s 

problems and not the problems of a relative or as part of a 

professional experience). Some items are only appropriate for late 

stage alcohol problems, but others are more subjective.

Copyright

Cost

Source

No copyright

$5 for a copy; no fee for use

Melvin L. Selzer, M.D.

6967 Paseo Laredo

La Jolla, CA 92037
D-11

MASSACHUSETTS YOUTH SCREENING 

INSTRUMENT-VERSION 2 (MAYSI-2)

The MAYSI-2 (Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Version 2) is a 52-item, true–false 

questionnaire designed for screening youth between the ages of 12 and 17 entering the juvenile justice 

system. The questionnaire is designed to detect problem areas in need of attention, but does not 

purport to be diagnostic in its scales. Some of the problem areas incorporate more than one diagnostic 

category (e.g., affective and anxiety disorders).

Administrative Issues Pencil-and-paper questionnaire or as automated CD or online 

questionnaire

Time required: about 10 minutes

Administration by nonclinical staff or online

A Spanish language version is available for the paper version.

Scoring Pencil-and-paper scoring materials for scoring by hand

Computerized scoring for CD-ROM and online versions

Clinical Utility The MAYSI-2 has been developed as part of a research project,

but it appears to have utility in detecting problem areas in need 

of attention such as suicidal ideation, thought disturbance, and 

traumatic experiences as well as indications of substance abuse. 

Some areas, as noted previously, are combined into a single scale.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted

$60 for manual

Professional Resource Press

P.O. Box 15560

Sarasota, FL 34277-1560

E-mail: orders@prpress.com
D-12

PERSONAL EXPERIENCE SCREENING QUESTIONNAIRE (PESQ) 

The PESQ (Personal Experience Screening Questionnaire) is a 40-item substance abuse screening 

instrument to be used with 12 to 18 year olds. The PESQ includes a scale that measures the severity 

of the drinking problem, drug use history, select psychosocial problems, and response distortion 

tendencies. Norms for populations of normal juvenile offenders and drug abusers are available.

Administrative Issues 40 items, 3 subscales: Problem Severity, Psychosocial Items, and 

Drug Use History

Pencil-and-paper self-administered

Time required: 10 minutes

Administered by self

No training required for administration

Scoring Time required: 5 minutes

Automatically scored as administered, using AutoScore Test

No computerized scoring or interpretation available

Norms available

Normed on school sample, school clinic sample, drug clinic sample, 

and juvenile offender sample

Clinical Utility This brief screen helps service providers make appropriate referrals. 

It is especially useful in schools, juvenile detention facilities, 

medical clinics, and other settings where routine screening rather 

than indepth assessment is the goal. Reliability studies show 

internal consistency. Content, criterion, and construct validity have 

been derived.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted by Western Psychological Services, 1991

Reprinted by permission of the publisher

$70 per kit (25 administrations)

Western Psychological Services

12031 Wilshire Boulevard

Los Angeles, CA 90025-1251

Phone: 310-478-2061
D-13

RAPID ALCOHOL PROBLEMS SCREEN (RAPS4)

The RAPS4 (Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen) is a four-item screen designed to detect alcohol 

dependence in emergency room patients. Unlike screens designed to detect risks related to use, the 

RAPS4 attempts to identify those individuals who meet diagnostic criteria for alcohol dependence.

Administrative Issues Four items

Orally administered

Time required: 2 minutes

Administered by professional or technician

No training required for administration, easy to learn

Scoring Time required: 1 minute

Scored by hand

No computerized scoring or interpretation available or necessary

Clinical Utility Some research on the RAPS4 indicates that it performs better 

than the CAGE, AUDIT, Brief-MAST, and TWEAK in the 

identification of dependence. The developer of the tool has 

published extensively on its use in emergency medical settings.

Copyright

Cost

Source

For oral administration, copyright seems irrelevant.

None

Public Health Institute, Alcohol Research Group

2000 Hearst Avenue

Berkeley, CA 94709

E-mail: ccherpitel@arg.org
D-14

TRIAGE ASSESSMENT FOR ADDICTIVE DISORDERS (TAAD)

The TAAD (Triage Assessment for Addictive Disorders) is a brief, 31-item structured interview 

designed as a screen or triage instrument. The items cover all DSM-IV constructs for abuse and 

dependence for alcohol and generically for other drugs. This screen is designed to provide one of 

three conclusions: (1) identify obvious cases and provide initial documentation to support a diagnosis; 

(2) rule out clear negative cases; and (3) target questionable or possible positive cases for further 

assessment. The timeframe is the previous 12 months.

Administrative Issues Designed as an interview, not a paper-and-pencil instrument to be 

completed by the respondent

As a triage instrument, presents more definitive findings than a 

screen

Time required: about 10 minutes

Can be administered by anyone with good interviewing skills, but 

interpretation is reserved for qualified, licensed professionals

Scoring Time required: 2 to 3 minutes

Results can be coded in a template in back of the interview

Interpretation is reserved for qualified, licensed professionals

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted by Norman G. Hoffmann, Ph.D., 1995

$11.50 for administration guide; $62.50 for a package of 30 forms

Evince Clinical Assessment

P.O. Box 17305

Smithfield, RI 02917

Phone: 800-755-6209; 401-231-1993

E-mail: evinceassessment@aol.com
D-15

TWO-ITEM CONJOINT SCREENING TEST (TICS)

The TICS (Two-Item Conjoint Screening Test) is a two-item screen developed for use in primary 

care settings. The two items are well chosen regarding the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for substance 

dependence and tend to be among the items included in longer screens. This test can be easily 

administered verbally from memory and incorporated into other interviews. With only two items, the 

screen is not likely to provide a means of adjusting scoring to vary sensitivity and specificity.

Administrative Issues Two items

Time required: less than 1 minute

Administered by technician

No training required

Scoring Time required: less than 1 minute

Scored by technician

Clinical Utility Screens for current problems; that is, wording is for use in the last

12 months.

Some variations are alcohol related only. 

The TICS is more likely to be used than longer screens. For 

example, even a very small number of well-chosen items can 

detect at least a portion of individuals with alcohol and other drug 

problems with a minimal investment of time.

Copyright

Cost

Source

No copyright

None

Article: Brown, R. L., Leonard, T., Saunders, L. A., & Papasouliotis, O. (1997). A two-item screening test for alcohol and other drug 

problems. Journal of Family Practice, 44, 151–160.
D-16

TWEAK

The TWEAK is a five-item screen developed for detecting high-risk drinking during pregnancy. 

Independent researchers have evaluated the TWEAK against other screens. Although the TWEAK 

tends to perform relatively well, other brief screens have been found to have superior sensitivity and 

specificity.

Administrative Issues Five items

Orally administered

Time required: 2 minutes

Administered by professional or technician

No training required for administration, easy to learn

Scoring Time required: 1 to 2 minutes

Scored by hand

No computerized scoring or interpretation available or necessary

Clinical Utility Research has indicated that the TWEAK performs better in 

identifying at-risk drinking among women including minorities 

than the CAGE, but its statistics suggest no better performance than 

other brief screens such as the RAPS4 or UNCOPE.

Copyright

Cost

Source

For oral administration, copyright seems irrelevant.

None

Article: Chan, A. W., Pristach, E. A., Welte, J. W., & Russell, 

M. (1993). Use of the TWEAK test in screening for alcoholism/

heavy drinking in three populations. Alcoholism: Clinical and 

Experimental Research, 17(6), 1188–1192.
D-17

UNCOPE

The UNCOPE is a six-item screen designed to identify alcohol and/or drug abuse or dependence 

in a broad range of populations. The UNCOPE items identify indications of abuse or dependence 

based on part of the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for substance use disorder. Two items cover abuse, 

and two cover DSM-IV abuse criteria. The instrument was originally developed to identify substance 

dependence in women and older individuals. This screen can be used with adults and adolescents as 

young as age 13.

Administrative Issues Six items

Can be embedded in a paper-and-pencil self-administered 

questionnaire or orally administered by an interviewer

Time required: less than 2 minutes

No training required for administration

Scoring Time required: less than 1 minute

Two or more positive responses indicate possible abuse or dependence and need for further assessment; three or more items are often 

used as the best cut-score for dependence.

Scored by interviewer

No computerized scoring or interpretation available

Norms available for clinical and correctional populations

Clinical Utility The UNCOPE can provide reasonable indications of risk for

abuse and dependence for both alcohol and other drugs. Like the 

other screens, the greater the number of positive responses, the 

greater the probability that the individual will meet criteria for 

dependence.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Not copyrighted

None (attribution requested)

Evince Clinical Assessment

P.O. Box 17305

Smithfield, RI 02917

Phone: 800-755-6209; 401-231-1993

E-mail: evinceassessment@aol.com

Downloadable as a .pdf file from the Web site:

www.evinceassessment.com
D-18

Assessment Tools for Substance Use Disorders

When results of screens or behavioral indicators (e.g., driving under the influence (DUI) or apparent 

intoxication while responsible for children) indicate there may be problems involving alcohol or drugs, 

the next step is to determine the diagnosis. Research has provided strong evidence that substance 

dependence is distinct from substance abuse and also raises the greater potential for child maltreatment 

because of its chronicity and severity. Of the two diagnostic categories (i.e., abuse and dependence), 

only dependence emerges as a chronic condition likely to involve biological predispositions. Substance 

dependencies tend to require service over a period of time to achieve stable recovery, which typically 

involves abstinence from the dependent substance. Abuse appears to be less likely to be chronic and may 

not require abstinence from alcohol.

A variety of assessment instruments are available, but many treatment programs rely on their own 

formats and procedures. Many treatment providers use an interview referred to as the “psychosocial 

interview.” These are typically unstructured interviews during which a therapist makes the diagnostic 

determination. The following list of diagnostic instruments is by no means exhaustive, but is intended to 

provide a perspective on the variety of available instruments. The list is in alphabetical order based on 

the instrument acronym. Since a number of tools are designed for both mental health and substance use 

disorders, these are combined.

For substance use disorders, the American Society of Addiction Medicine has developed criteria for 

treatment planning and placement known as the American Society of Addiction Medicine Patient 

Placement Criteria, Second Edition-Revised (ASAM PPC-2R). These criteria are distinct for adults 

and adolescents, but presume that a substance use disorder has been identified for which some types 

of services are required. One instrument designed to summarize the current functional status of the 

individual and environment is provided for adults and one for adolescents. It is not anticipated that 

caseworkers would use such an instrument, but feedback from addiction treatment providers might be 

provided either by such an instrument or in a format consistent with the ASAM PPC-2R.

These assessment tools provide information to answer the question “What is the nature and extent of the 

substance abuse issue?”
D-19

COMPREHENSIVE ADDICTION AND 

PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION (CAAPE)

The CAAPE (Comprehensive Addiction and Psychological Evaluation) is a structured interview 

covering seven Axis I conditions and six Axis II personality disorders in addition to substance use 

disorders in accordance with DSM-IV criteria. For some conditions such as substance use disorders, 

major depressive and manic episodes, and antisocial personality, the CAAPE provides a foundation 

for supporting a diagnostic determination. For other conditions, such as various anxiety disorders, it 

serves more of a detailed screening function. The CAAPE is designed so that professionals can use the 

information for diagnostic purposes within their areas of expertise and can make focused referrals for 

those areas outside of their areas of practice.

Administrative Issues 141 verbally administered questions and 4 observational items

Time required: about 40 minutes

Administration can be done by a technician or professional; 

minimal, if any, training is required; most professionals can selftrain with the manual.

Interpretation should be done by a properly credentialed 

professional.

Scoring Time required: about 5 minutes

Scoring can be done by a technician or clerk, but interpretation 

requires a professional.

Clinical Utility Designed to be administered and scored within a single clinical 

appointment and to detect mental health conditions commonly 

occurring in conjunction with substance use disorders. Professionals 

can self-train by using the manual.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted

About $2.50 per administration ($62.50 per packet of 25); $15 for 

manual

Evince Clinical Assessments

P.O. Box 17305

Smithfield, RI 02917

Phone: 800-755-6299

Web site: www.evinceassessment.com
D-20

COMPOSITE INTERNATIONAL DIAGNOSTIC 

INTERVIEW VERSION 1.1 (CIDI V1.1)

The CIDI V1.1 (Composite International Diagnostic Interview Version 1.1) was designed for 

compatibility with the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Revision 

10 (ICD-10), and the DSM-III-R under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO). Items 

are indexed to indicate the criteria to which they apply. In addition to substance use disorders, the 

CIDI covers 10 psychiatric diagnoses across timeframes ranging from lifetime to the past 2 weeks. 

This instrument is designed for research and epidemiological use, but is available for clinical practice 

as well.

Administrative Issues 376 items and 14 subscales, but branching can reduce the number of 

items actually administered

Time required: about 70 minutes

Administration can be done by a technician or professional

Training required 

Scoring Time required: about 20 minutes

Computerized scoring available

Clinical Utility The use of the CIDI has been reported in a number of research 

studies including cross-cultural investigations. An update to DSMIV may be available, which would be necessary for many clinical 

applications in the United States.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted by WHO

About $4 for interview forms; $55 for manual

American Psychiatric Press, Inc.

Arlington, VA

800-368-5777 or 703-907-7322
D-21

GLOBAL APPRAISAL OF INDIVIDUAL NEEDS-INITIAL (GAIN-I)

The GAIN-I (Global Appraisal of Individual Needs-Initial) is a structured and semistructured 

interview designed to help clinicians gather information for diagnosis, placement, and treatment 

planning. It is an attempt to standardize the more informal “biopsychosocial” assessments commonly 

used in addiction treatment programs. There are a variety of GAIN instruments for other purposes, 

such as treatment satisfaction and followup.

Administrative Issues Exact number of items difficult to determine

Interview is 84 pages 

Time required: estimated to be over 2 hours

Administration is designed for clinical staff as part of intake 

process.

Scoring Items form more than 100 scales and subscales

Time for scoring is not indicated, but the number of scales suggests 

a significant time commitment.

Clinical Utility The GAIN instruments are designed to standardize the informal 

assessments often used in addiction programs.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted, but the instrument draws heavily on various publicdomain instruments and surveys

Contact Chestnut Health Systems for information.

Chestnut Health Systems

720 West Chestnut

Bloomington, IL 61701

Phone: 309-827-6026

Web site: www.chestnut.org
D-22

STRUCTURED CLINICAL INTERVIEW FOR DSM (SCID)

The SCID (Structured Clinical Interview for DSM) is now a family of instruments. The SCID-I covers 

Axis I conditions in six self-contained modules: mood episodes; psychotic symptoms; psychotic 

disorders; mood disorders; substance use disorders; and a module for anxiety, adjustment, and other 

disorders. The SCID-II covers 10 Axis II personality disorders. Each version of the SCID has its own 

interviews, manuals, and reference guides. The SCID modules are arguably the most frequently used 

in a wide range of research studies. 

Administrative Issues Number of items will vary with module and branching

Time required: estimated at between 60 and 90 minutes for Axis I 

conditions

User’s guides designed for professionals to administer the interview

Scoring Scoring involves interpretation by the professional.

Clinical Utility Uses of specific modules are likely to be the most practical for 

standard clinical practice. Treatment programs for substance use 

disorders may choose to use only that specific module unless there 

are indications of other conditions.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted

$36 for SCID-I interview booklet (88 pages); score sheets about 

$6.60 per interview ($33 for a packet of 5); $39.50 for user’s guide;

$60 for SCID-II user’s guide and interview set 

American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.

1000 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1825 

Arlington, VA 22209-3901

Phone: 800-368-5777

Web site: www.appi.org
D-23

SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER DIAGNOSTIC INTERVIEW-IV (SUDDS-IV)

The SUDDS-IV (Substance Use Disorder Diagnostic Interview-IV) is a structured interview to provide 

DSM-IV-compatible information for specific substance use disorders for both lifetime and current 

problems. This instrument screens for anxiety and depressive disorders. Age of onset of problems by 

substance group provides a means of documenting the patterns of problem development helpful for 

motivational enhancement. Information relevant to treatment placement is summarized on the back of 

the administration booklet.

Administrative Issues 64 basic questions with subparts provide data for each of the 

DSM-IV substance categories

Time required: about 35 to 45 minutes

Administration can be done by a trained technician or professional.

Interpretation should be done by a properly credentialed 

professional.

Scoring Time required: about 5 minutes

Scoring can be done by a technician or a clerk, but interpretation 

requires a professional with appropriate credentialing.

Clinical Utility The SUDDS-IV is designed to be administered and interpreted in a 

single session or appointment. It is used in a wide variety of clinical 

settings. A version for correctional applications is automated.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted

About $2.50 per administration ($62.50 for a packet of 25); $10 

for administration guide; automated version about $3.60 per 

administration

Evince Clinical Assessments

P.O. Box 17305

Smithfield, RI 02917

Phone: 800-755-6299

Web site: www.evinceassessment.com
D-24

The following instrument is concerned with treatment planning and placement. Such instruments 

are designed for intake assessments after a diagnosis has been established and provides a means 

for developing treatment plans.

LEVEL OF CARE INDEX-2 REVISED (LOCI-2R) FOR ADULTS

The LOCI-2R (Level of Care Index-2 Revised) is not a psychometric instrument but rather a checklist 

for operationalizing the ASAM PPC-2R, the criteria most widely used for determining treatment 

placement and for guiding treatment planning. The LOCI-2R provides a means of doing up to six 

summaries on a given individual during the course of treatment. This instrument can also be used for 

monitoring or modifying the treatment plan.

Administrative Issues There are six dimensions to be assessed for the ASAM PPC-2R, 

but this assessment may involve gathering input from different 

professionals. The LOCI-2R is not administered as such, but can be 

used by professionals or treatment staff to summarize findings in a 

convenient way. 

Training in using the criteria is required for proper use.

Scoring There is no formal scoring, but dimensions are assessed in terms of 

level of care required for appropriate treatment.

Interpretation requires professionals trained in the delivery of addiction treatment services.

Clinical Utility The instrument is used in a wide variety of clinical settings.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted

About $2.90 per administration ($72.50 per packet of 25)

Evince Clinical Assessments

P.O. Box 17305

Smithfield, RI 02917

Phone: 800-755-6299

Web site: www.evinceassessment.com
D-25

Substance Use Disorder Assessment Instruments for Adolescents

While some might question the validity of diagnosing adolescents for substance use disorders, 

clinical experience and mounting scientific evidence suggest that among older adolescents, substance 

dependence can be diagnosed. Greater caution is called for with youth because there are developmental 

and subculture, or peer, influences that can result in excessive use or abuse. Like any diagnostic 

question, the final determination rests with an appropriately qualified and credentialed professional.

The following list is not meant to be exhaustive, but is included to provide a perspective on the types of 

instruments available and likely to be used by providers conducting assessments with youth. The list is 

in alphabetical order based on the instrument acronym.
D-26

COMPREHENSIVE ADOLESCENT SEVERITY INVENTORY (CASI)

The CASI (Comprehensive Adolescent Severity Inventory) is a comprehensive, semistructured, 

clinical assessment and outcomes interview. A followup CASI is available for those interested 

in obtaining followup data on youth. The CASI is composed of 10 independent modules, each 

incorporating objective, concrete questions formatted to identify whether certain behaviors have ever 

occurred regularly, how old the adolescent was when they first occurred regularly, and whether they 

occurred regularly during the past year. The CASI also includes questions designed to assess the 

strength-base of youth.

Administrative Issues Number of questions depends upon modules used (e.g., substance 

module has 45 items)

Time required: 45 to 90 minutes depending on modules used

Designed for use by professionals

Two-day training is required.

Scoring The CASI comprises four clinical dimensions, each composed of 

component subscales plus three monitoring dimensions, each composed of component subscales. SAS scoring programs are available 

to trained users free of charge. 

Clinical Utility The CASI is not just a diagnostic instrument but a more 

comprehensive intake system. The diagnostic components are part 

of a more general intake system, often referred to as a “psychosocial 

interview.”

Copyright

Cost

Source

Information on copyright unavailable

Paper version available for duplication fee; computerized version 

$1,299 for a 2-year site license

System Measures, Inc.

P.O. Box 506

Spring Mount, PA 19478
D-27

DIAGNOSTIC INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 

FOR CHILDREN-VERSION IV (DISC-IV)

The DISC-IV (Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children-Version IV) is a diagnostic interview 

covering more than 30 mental disorders of children and adolescents. Timeframes include the past year 

and the past 4 weeks. Diagnoses are based on the DSM-IV and ICD-10 criteria. The DISC comes in 

two forms: the DISC-P for parents of children ages 6 to 17 and the DISC-Y for direct administration to 

children ages 9 to 17.

Administrative Issues 2,930 questions for the DISC-Y and slightly more for the DISC-P, 

but not all are likely to be administered to a given individual

358 stem questions are likely to be used to assess most salient 

concerns and additional questions are asked if one of the stem 

questions is positive 

Time required: about 60 to 120 minutes

Administration can be done by a technician.

Interpretation should be done by a properly credentialed 

professional.

Training of 2 to 3 days is strongly recommended for interviewers.

Scoring Scoring and administration are typically done using a computer to 

display the questions and record the answers for automated scoring.

Clinical Utility This interview, or a component of it, is among the most widely used 

for research purposes. The length of the total interview makes it 

impractical to use the entire interview in clinical practice unless the 

computer version is employed.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyright not determined

Cost of materials not available; cost of training $300 per day at 

Columbia University or $1,000 per day for first 10 people plus 

travel expenses for offsite training

Division of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

Columbia University

For training: fisherp@child.cpmc.columbia.edu
D-28

GLOBAL APPRAISAL OF INDIVIDUAL NEEDS-INITIAL (GAIN-I) 

FOR ADOLESCENTS

The GAIN-I (Global Appraisal of Individual Needs-Initial) for Adolescents is a structured and 

semistructured interview designed to help clinicians gather information for diagnosis, placement, and 

treatment planning. It is an attempt to standardize the more informal “biopsychosocial” assessments 

commonly used in addiction treatment programs. There are a variety of GAIN instruments for other 

purposes, such as treatment satisfaction and followup.

Administrative Issues Exact number of items difficult to determine 

Interview is 84 pages 

Time required: estimated to be over 2 hours

Administration designed for clinical staff as part of intake process

Scoring Items form over 100 scales and subscales

Time for scoring is not indicated, but the number of scales suggests 

a significant time commitment.

Clinical Utility The GAIN instruments are designed to standardize the informal 

assessments often used in addiction programs.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted, but the instrument draws heavily on various publicdomain instruments and surveys

Contact Chestnut Health Systems for information.

Chestnut Health Systems

720 West Chestnut

Bloomington, IL 61701

Phone: 309-827-6026

Web site: www.chestnut.org
D-29

GLOBAL APPRAISAL OF INDIVIDUAL NEEDS-M90 (GAIN-M90)

FOR ADOLESCENTS

The GAIN-M90 (Global Appraisal of Individual Needs-M90) for Adolescents is a followup instrument 

designed for use every 90 days after the GAIN-I. In addition, the GAIN-M90 has questions that 

allow it to be used less frequently (e.g., every 6 or 12 months) as well. The full version takes about 1 

hour; however, there is a core set of items that can be administered in 25 minutes. There are several 

program- or project-specific variations of this instrument, including those for programs funded by 

CSAT and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF).

Administrative Issues Exact number of items difficult to determine

Interview is 68 pages 

Time required: estimated to 1 hour for the full version and 25 

minutes for the core set of questions

Materials available in hard-copy and electronic forms

Can be administered by a clinician or self-administrated by 

individuals with sufficient reading skills 

Scoring Time for scoring is not indicated, but the number of scales suggests 

a significant time commitment.

Clinical Utility The GAIN instruments are designed to standardize the informal 

assessments often used in addiction programs.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted, but the instrument draws heavily on various publicdomain instruments and surveys.

Contact Chestnut Health Systems for information.

Chestnut Health Systems

720 West Chestnut

Bloomington, IL 61701

Phone: 309-827-6026

Web site: www.chestnut.org
D-30

PRACTICAL ADOLESCENT DUAL DIAGNOSTIC INTERVIEW (PADDI)

The PADDI (Practical Adolescent Dual Diagnostic Interview) is a structured diagnostic assessment 

interview designed specifically for children and adolescents aged 12 to 18. It covers 11 diagnostic 

areas of the DSM-IV and substance use disorders. The interview also covers dangerousness to self or 

others and victimization (physical, sexual, and emotional). Professionals who may not be credentialed 

in both mental health and substance abuse can use the PADDI information within the scope of their 

specialty and for referrals to other professionals for problems outside their area of expertise.

Administrative Issues 157 questions and 7 observational items

Time required: about 35 to 45 minutes

Administration can be done by a technician or professional.

Professionals can self-train with the manual.

Scoring Time required: about 5 minutes when familiar with the instrument

Scoring can be done by a technician or a clerk, but interpretation 

requires a professional.

Clinical Utility The interview has been used within a variety of clinical and juvenile 

justice settings for initial assessments and for reviewing status 

subsequent to treatment.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted

About $2.70 per interview (sold in packages of 25 for $67.50); $18 

for manual

Evince Clinical Assessments

P.O. Box 17305

Smithfield, RI 02917

Phone: 800-755-6299

Web site: www.evinceassessment.com
D-31

The following instrument is concerned with treatment planning and placement. 

Such instruments are designed for intake assessments after a diagnosis has been 

established and provides a means for developing treatment plans.

LEVEL OF CARE INDEX-2 REVISED (LOCI-2R) FOR ADOLESCENTS

The LOCI-2R (Level of Care Index-2 Revised) is not a psychometric instrument but rather a checklist 

for operationalizing the ASAM PPC-2R, the criteria most widely used for determining treatment 

placement and guiding treatment planning. The LOCI-2R provides a means of doing up to six 

summaries on a given individual during the course of treatment. This instrument could also be used in 

the monitoring phase and to adjust the treatment plan.

Administrative Issues There are six dimensions to be assessed for the ASAM PPC-2R, 

but this assessment may involve gathering input from different 

professionals. The LOCI-2R is not administered as such, but can be 

used by professionals or treatment staff to summarize findings in a 

convenient way. 

Training in using the criteria is required for proper use.

Scoring There is no formal scoring, but dimensions are assessed in terms of 

level of care required for appropriate treatment.

Interpretation requires professionals trained in the delivery of addiction treatment services.

Clinical Utility The instrument is used in a wide variety of clinical settings.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted

About $2.90 per administration ($72.50 per packet of 25)

Evince Clinical Assessments

P.O. Box 17305

Smithfield, RI 02917

Phone: 800-755-6299

Web site: www.evinceassessment.com
D-32

Planning and Monitoring Tools Regarding Substance Use Disorders

Assessment and planning may be a seamless process in which diagnostic and treatment planning 

information is collected in a single intake process, or the functions can be divided. In the latter case, a 

case manager or referral source (e.g., employee assistance professional or psychiatric social worker) 

may make the initial diagnosis and then refer the person to a treatment program for further evaluation 

and treatment planning.

The most commonly used criteria for treatment placement (as well as for determining the nature and 

extent of problems) is the ASAM PPC-2R criteria of the American Society of Addiction Medicine. These 

criteria consist of six dimensions: intoxication/withdrawal, medical conditions, mental health conditions, 

stage of change/motivation, recovery/relapse risks, and the recovery environment. The assessments 

on these dimensions are used to place people into one of nine different levels of care and five different 

levels of detoxification services, and they are used to change people from one level to another depending 

on progress or lack of it during the treatment process. The criteria also provide a framework for 

treatment planning regarding needs other than the level of care.

Monitoring of treatment progress typically takes the form of chart information kept by the treatment 

program or providers rather than formal assessment instruments designed for that purpose. Some of 

the assessment instruments described in the prior section of this appendix evaluate not only the current 

nature and extent of problems, but also provide a foundation for monitoring recovery efforts or assessing 

outcomes. Rather than repeat those descriptions here, other examples of instruments that can assist in the 

planning and monitoring functions are described.

No single instrument can be expected to fulfill all needs or provide universal utility across all possible 

settings and populations. The challenge for professionals is to select those instruments that best meet 

their needs as part of procedures designed for the setting and the population. A wise strategy is to begin 

by determining the knowledge, or information, required for clinical or administrative purposes and then 

explore which instruments are best suited to providing that information. This list is in alphabetical order 

based on the tool name.

Monitoring can involve several distinct objectives. One is to assess the current status of the individual 

or family to determine whether expected changes are occurring or whether changes need to be made to 

the treatment or case plan. Another distinct, but related, function is the evaluation of the program itself. 

Program evaluation requires similar measures, but the objectives are the documentation of change or 

degree of change rather than indications for clinical decisions relative to the individual case.
D-33

ADDICTION SEVERITY INDEX (ASI) and 

TREATMENT SERVICE REVIEW (TSR)

The ASI (Addiction Severity Index) is one of the most widely used assessment tools in the United 

States. It was designed as a research instrument for program evaluation to determine the extent to 

which addiction treatment programs achieved improvements across seven domains: alcohol use, drug 

use, psychiatric status, employment status, medical status, legal status, and family/social relationships. 

Some of these areas have obvious financial implications (e.g., health care utilization, vocational 

functioning, and arrests). Although frequently used as a primary intake tool, the ASI is best suited 

for secondary assessment and evaluation after the diagnosis and treatment plan are developed. This 

instrument is best suited for secondary assessment because the ASI does not provide a basis for a 

diagnosis, nor does it indicate the urgency for dealing with various conditions.

The TSR (Treatment Service Review) instruments are less well known, but provide a way of 

monitoring what services have been received over a 14- to 30-day period. The TSRs cover not only 

direct clinical services with respect to substance use and mental health disorders, but also whether 

the individual had any assistance with other necessities such as housing, educational or vocational 

training, and public transportation. Although the TSR instruments do not monitor the clinical status of 

the individual, in conjunction with repeated measures of ASI items, they can provide a more complete 

profile of what services are delivered and what the current status is for monitoring.

Administrative Issues The ASI consists of approximately 140 items across the 7 domains.

Time requirement: about 1 hour

Administration can be done by technicians or clinicians.

Extensive training is required to ensure proper administration and 

scoring of the instrument. An abbreviated version, the ASI Lite, is 

also available.

Scoring Scores are produced for each of the seven domains. 

Extensive training is required to ensure consistent scoring.

Clinical Utility Although the ASI covers key areas of concern for both treatment 

planning and program evaluation, it is not adequate as an intake 

tool without being used in conjunction with other instruments. Its 

greatest utility is as a monitoring or program evaluation tool.

Copyright

Cost

Source

The ASI, developed with Federal funds, is in the public domain.

The ASI is free; however, various companies have developed 

automated versions for various costs.

ASI and TSR forms can be downloaded at no cost from the 

Treatment Research Institute at www.tresearch.org
D-34

FAMILY ASSESSMENT FORM (FAF)

The FAF (Family Assessment Form) was developed as a means of providing standardization to family 

assessments, but with the intention that the tool be adapted to meet the needs of specific programs 

and applications. It covers six areas of family functioning and is able to identify strengths as well 

as problems. The form consists of ratings to be completed by the worker based on observations and 

discussions with the family member. This instrument is not to be completed by the family member.

Administrative Issues About 90 ratings covering 6 areas of family functioning

Paper-and-pencil form is completed by a professional

Time required: variable, depending upon the professional or the 

technician

Training and supervision are required for the appropriate use of the 

tool.

Scoring Time required: variable, depending upon circumstances

The FAF Pro software application was designed to increase the 

value of the Family Assessment Form to practitioners and agencies 

as a tool to expedite assessment, facilitate service planning, document casework, gather and analyze data, and measure and report on 

program activity and client outcomes.

Clinical Utility The FAF provides a vehicle for establishing some structure and 

consistency to family evaluations. Statistics indicate that with 

proper training and supervision, raters can achieve good reliability 

so that there is consistency among different workers’ ratings.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Children’s Bureau of Southern California

The price list for the FAF package including software can be 

accessed at: http://www.familyassessmentform.com/purchase_

pricelist.html.

Children’s Bureau of Southern California

Children’s Bureau Headquarters

3910 Oakwood Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90004

Phone: 323-953-7356/323-661-7306

Toll-free: 888-ALL 4 KIDS (888-255-45437)

Fax: 323-661-7306

Web site: www.all4kids.org

Contact person for information: Sandy Sladen

fafsupport@all4kids.org
D-35

GLOBAL APPRAISAL OF INDIVIDUAL NEEDS-M90 (GAIN-M90)

The GAIN-M90 (Global Appraisal of Individual Needs-M90) is a followup instrument designed for 

use every 90 days after the GAIN-I. In addition, this instrument has questions that allow it to be used 

less frequently (e.g., every 6 or 12 months) as well. The full version takes about 1 hour; however, there 

is a core set of items that can be administered in 25 minutes. There are several program- or projectspecific variations of this instrument, including those for programs funded by CSAT and RWJF.

Administrative Issues Exact number of items difficult to determine 

Interview is 68 pages 

Time required: estimated to be 1 hour for the full version and 25 

minutes for the core set of questions

Materials are available in hard-copy and electronic forms.

Can be administered by a clinician or self-administrated by persons 

with sufficient reading and writing ability

Scoring Time for scoring is not indicated, but the number of scales suggests 

a significant time commitment.

Clinical Utility The GAIN instruments are designed to standardize the informal 

assessments often used in addiction programs.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted, but the instrument draws heavily on various publicdomain instruments and surveys.

Contact Chestnut Health Systems for information.

Chestnut Health Systems

720 West Chestnut

Bloomington, IL 61701

Phone: 309-827-6026

Web site: www.chestnut.org
D-36

LEVEL OF CARE INDEX-2 REVISED (LOCI-2R)

The LOCI-2R (Level of Care Index-2 Revised) consists of two forms—one for adults and one 

for adolescents—that summarize and operationalize the ASAM PPC-2R placement criteria of the 

American Society of Addiction Medicine. Separate forms are necessary to reflect the differences 

between the adult and adolescent criteria. The forms are not psychometric or diagnostic instruments. 

The forms are, however, a means of summarizing all available information relevant to the six 

dimensions of the ASAM PPC-2R in accordance with the nine levels of care for adults and the eight 

levels of care for adolescents. The LOCI-2R forms allow clinicians or treatment teams to make up 

to six determinations of status for a given individual with a single form. Using one form facilitates 

monitoring of progress or status during treatment. Few if any other forms are designed specifically to 

accommodate all aspects of the ASAM PPC-2R.

Administrative Issues Since the LOCI-2R forms are checklists summarizing all available 

information, there is no “administration.” 

Time required: variable, depending upon availability of information

The LOCI-2R forms are designed to be used by clinicians or 

treatment teams.

Scoring There is no formal scoring.

Interpretations of findings are based on the ASAM PPC-2R criteria.

As many as six assessments can be made for a given individual using a single form.

Clinical Utility The LOCI-2R forms are used by a variety of treatment programs in 

applying the ASAM PPC-2R criteria.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted

About $2.90 per patient (sold in packets of 25 forms for $72.50)

Evince Clinical Assessments

P.O. Box 17305

Smithfield, RI 02917

Phone: 800-755-6299

Web site: www.evinceassessment.com
D-37

RECOVERY ATTITUDE AND TREATMENT EVALUATOR (RAATE)

The RAATE (Recovery Attitude and Treatment Evaluator) actually consists of two forms: a 

clinician evaluation form (RAATE-CE) involving clinician ratings and a self-report questionnaire 

(RAATE-QI) filled out by the patient. Both forms cover five dimensions: acceptance/resistance to 

treatment, acceptance/resistance to continuing recovery efforts, acuity of medical conditions, acuity 

of psychiatric conditions, and the recovery environment. These dimensions, while related to ASAM 

PPC-2R dimensions, are not identical. For example, stage of change (Dimension 4) in the PPC-2R 

is represented on two separate scales on the RAATE forms concerning treatment and recovery as an 

ongoing process. 

Administrative Issues The RAATE-CE consists of 35 ratings across the 5 dimensions, and 

2 evaluations can be made on an individual with one form.

The RAATE-QI consists of 94 true–false items.

Time for interviewing a client to score the CE is approximately 30 

minutes; time to compete the QI is approximately 25 minutes.

Administration of the CE requires a clinician, but a technician can 

administer the QI.

Scoring Scoring of the CE requires about 5 minutes by the clinician; scoring 

of the QI uses a template and takes about 5 minutes and can be done 

by a technician or a clerical person.

Interpretation of findings requires a professional.

Clinical Utility The RAATE instruments provide a means of comparing the 

clinician’s perspective with that of the patient/client. These 

instruments also quantify some of the ASAM PPC-2R dimensions.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted

About $2.50 per form ($62.50 for 25 copies of either form)

Evince Clinical Assessments

P.O. Box 17305

Smithfield, RI 02917

Phone: 800-755-6299

Web site: www.evinceassessment.com
D-38

RISK INVENTORY FOR SUBSTANCE-AFFECTED FAMILIES

The Risk Inventory for Substance Abuse-Affected Families is one of the few instruments to explicitly 

assess the potential influences of substance use and substance use disorders on risks for maltreatment. 

It consists of eight scales, or ratings, anchored with descriptive statements for defining the level for 

each scale. This risk inventory assumes that substance abuse or dependence has already been identified 

as being an issue in the family, and the intent is to assess the risks posed to children. Topics covered 

include commitment to recovery, patterns of use, effects on child care and lifestyle, supports for 

recovery, self-efficacy and self-care of the parent, and quality of the neighborhood. Although some of 

the scales seem appropriate for identification of risk and others for extent of problems, some scales are 

definitely related to planning. This instrument has scales that could be considered appropriate for both 

this appendix and Appendix F, “Examples of Safety and Risk Assessments for Use by Child Welfare 

Staff”; therefore, it is listed in each.

Administrative Issues Eight rating scales; scores range from 1 to either 4 or 5 with options 

for unknown or not applicable

Ratings are completed by a professional based on observation and 

discussion with the family members. 

Time required: variable

Scoring Time required: variable

No manuals for administration or scoring available

Clinical Utility The instrument has good face validity in terms of areas to consider 

in gauging the potential risks to children based on the parent’s 

or caretaker’s functioning and commitment to recovery. Lack of 

information on the performance of the tool and apparent lack of 

research on the instrument may require initial care in interpretation 

of findings.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted by Children’s Friend and Service

$10 per instrument copy 

Children’s Friend and Service

153 Summer Street

Providence, RI 02903

Phone: 401-331-2900

Fax: 401-331-3285
D-39

STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING (SDM)

 FAMILY AND CHILD STRENGTHS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT

The SDM (Structured Decision Making) model, as described by the Children’s Research Center (CRC) 

of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD), is a procedure for improved practice by 

child welfare services. CRC states that at the heart of the model is a series of tools to assess families 

and structure the agency’s response. One of the tools is the standardized Family and Child Strengths 

and Needs Assessment, which guides service planning.

The CRC publication, The Improvement of Child Protective Services with Structured Decision 

Making: The CRC Model, provides an example developed in one State—The Wisconsin Urban Caucus 

Family Strengths and Needs Assessment.

Administrative Issues Unknown

Scoring Time required: unknown

Clinical Utility The general information obtainable on the procedure suggests that 

the concept and practices have merit. A number of States are listed 

as having implemented the procedure. Data supplied indicate 

that the risk levels as assessed are related to subsequent referrals, 

placements, and substantiations. Utility for individual casework 

cannot be determined from the materials reviewed.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Unknown

Unknown 

Children’s Research Center

426 South Yellowstone Drive, Suite 250

Madison, WI 53719

Phone: 608-831-8882

Fax: 608-831-6446
D-40

Examples of Instruments Used by States and Treatment Providers

The following pages include samples of the alcohol and drug assessment, planning, and monitoring 

instruments used in Sacramento County, California; the “Stages of Change Form” developed by 

Prototypes, in Los Angeles; the “Family Services Progress Matrix” of indicators for progress in the 

substance abuse recovery process developed by the State of Illinois; and the Specialized Treatment and 

Recovery Services (STARS) progress report developed by Bridges, Inc.

The Sacramento County Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Preliminary Assessment is completed 

during a personal interview with a family by a child welfare worker who has received specialized 

training in the area of alcohol and drug abuse. The worker uses the results of this preliminary assessment 

to make an expedited referral into treatment. The treatment provider conducts a more indepth assessment 

as part of an initial psychosocial evaluation.

The Prototypes Stages of Change Form is completed by family members when they first enter the 

Prototypes treatment program and again 21 days after they enter treatment. This form allows family 

members and substance abuse counselors to explore a family member’s readiness to change and to 

develop appropriate treatment strategies.

The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services Progress Matrix is used by workers to 

help them assess how well families are progressing.

The Specialized Treatment and Recovery Services (STARS) Twice-Monthly Progress Report is 

completed by Recovery Specialists who are assigned to each parent with a substance use disorder in the 

Sacramento County Court system. The form reports on objective indicators of the progress of parents 

in treatment. This report is completed two times per month and is systematically delivered to the casecarrying social worker, the parent’s attorney, and the court.
D-41

SACRAMENTO COUNTY 

ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUG (AOD) PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT

This assessment is necessary for clients using publicly funded AOD treatment. It is to be completed during a face-to-face contact 

between staff and client. Staff, who have participated in Level I and II of AODTI training, have the option of completing this 

assessment to expedite treatment placement/authorization by the Alcohol and Drug Bureau.

Client Name: (last) __________________________(first) _____________________________ Date: ___________________

 Male  Female DOB: _________________Race/Ethnicity _________________________SSN: _______-_____- _____

Address: __________________________________________________ Zip _________ Phone:________________________ 

Area of Residence:  South  Broadway/Oak Park  Midtown  Central 

(e.g. Arden)

 East (e.g. Rancho Cordova)  Northwest (e.g. Del Paso)  Northeast (e.g. Citrus Heights)

Staff Name: ____________________________________ Code: __________ Phone: ______________FAX:_____________

Department/Division: _________________________ Program: __________________________ Mail code:______________

Referral Source (if other than staff above): 

______________________________________________________________________________________CalWOR

Ks  Yes  No 

Prior Assessments with approximate date:___________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Part I – Presenting Needs _________________________________________________________________________

Part II – Immediate Need Triage

Yes No

  A. Client has history of life-threatening withdrawal symptoms

  B. Client has current, life-threatening withdrawal symptoms

  C. Client has current, severe and untreated physical health problems

  D. Client is in imminent danger of hurting self or others

  E. Client has current, acute psychotic symptoms (e.g. hallucinations)

Part III – AOD Use Information

Substances most frequently used (check all that apply and indicate age of 1st and date of last use)

 Age of 1st use Date of last use Age of 1st use Date of last use

 methamphetamine ___________ ___________  PCP ___________ ___________

 cocaine/crack ___________ ___________  hallucinogens ___________ ___________

 other stimulants ___________ ___________  marijuana ___________ ___________

 opiates ___________ ___________  tobacco ___________ ___________

 alcohol (check one below) ___________ ___________  prescription ___________ ___________

  associated with violence history  non-prescription ___________ ___________

  not associated with violence history  other (specify) ___________ ___________

Part IV – Level of Functioning in Relation to AOD Use

A. Check low, moderate or high level of functioning for each area. Definitions are as follows:

Low Functioning – severe difficulty or impairment with serious and persistent signs and symptoms

Moderate Functioning – moderate difficulty or impairment with moderate to serious signs and symptoms 

High Functioning – minimal difficulty or impairment with no or minimal signs and symptoms
D-42

Low* Moderate High Special Needs and/or Strengths

1. Health status

2. Emotional stability

3. Family relations

4. Social supports

5. Legal problems

6. Job/Education

7. Housing

 *Requires statement in “Special Needs and/or Strengths” Section explaining difficulty.

 B. Staff assessment of 1 through 7 determines overall biopsychosocial functioning as:

  low  moderate  high

The Sacramento Preliminary Assessment is included as a separate Excel file. 
D-43
D-44

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES PROGRESS MATRIX

INDICATORS FOR PROGRESS IN THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE RECOVERY PROCESS: ZERO TO THREE MONTHS

0-3 Months Poor Progress Some Progress Moderate Progress Substantial Progress

Substance Abuse 

Treatment

Parent remains in 

denial of substance 

abuse/addiction and 

has not completed 

substance abuse 

screen.

Reduction of initial 

resistance and 

defensiveness.

 

Completed Adult 

Substance Abuse 

Screen.



Parent has completed 

substance abuse 

assessment and has 

accepted treatment 

referral.



Parent has entered 

substance abuse 

treatment.



Sporadic attendance 

in substance abuse 

treatment.

Attendance in 

substance abuse 

treatment becomes 

more consistent. 

Improvements in 

personal hygiene.

Regular attendance 

in substance abuse 

treatment.



Parent has accepted the 

negative consequences 

of substance abuse.



Parent is thinking more 

clearly and is able to 

verbalize consequences 

of continued substance 

abuse.



If applicable, parent 

has participated in 

collaborative service 

planning meeting with 

child welfare worker 

and substance abuse 

treatment worker.

If parent is ready for 

discharge:

Parent has developed 

relapse prevention plan.

Parent has developed 

aftercare plans.

If parent has been 

discharged:

Parent is attending 

after care services at 

a treatment facility and 

or attending self-help 

or community support 

groups.

Substance Abuse 

Education

Parent remains in 

denial of substance 

abuse and has not 

entered treatment/ 

substance abuse 

education classes.

Parent has recently 

entered substance 

abuse treatment and 

substance abuse 

education classes.

Attending substance 

abuse education 

classes on addiction 

and recovery. 

Acknowledges 

need for insight into 

personal addiction.

Parent is receiving 

or has completed 

substance abuse 

education classes. 

Has gained insight into 

personal addiction.

Parent is able to discuss 

the impact of substance 

abuse on parenting 

behaviors.

Participation in 

Recovery Support 

Systems

No current participation 

in recovery support 

groups.

Has received 

education on 12 

Step/recovery support 

group meetings.

Has mapped out 12 

Step (AA/CA/NA) or 

community recovery 

support group.

Has attended a 12 Step/ 

support group at the 

treatment program.

All clients are not 

ready to participate in 

12 Step/support groups 

during the early months 

of treatment/recovery.
D-45

Abstinence Actively abusing drugs. Parent has decreased 

substance abuse. 

Parent is able to self 

report relapse.

Fewer episodes of 

relapse and is able to 

discuss triggers.

Parent has developed 

a specific relapse 

prevention plan.

Parent may have 

achieved abstinence.

Other Service 

Plan Provision 

Compliance

Parent is noncompliant with service 

plan:

• Visiting with workers

• Other assessments

Parent is inconsistent 

in meeting service 

plan conditions.

Parent is consistently 

working on service 

plan conditions.

Parent is currently in 

compliance with service 

plan conditions. 

Visiting Parent does not visit 

child(ren).

Parent inconsistently 

visits child(ren).

Parent consistently 

visits child(ren).

Parent consistently 

visits child(ren).

Parental Skills/

Parental Functioning

A parent who retains custody of the child must follow a child safety plan 

but may not acknowledge the impact of substance abuse on parenting.

Parent may begin to 

identify the impact of 

substance abuse on 

parenting.

INDICATORS FOR PROGRESS IN THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE RECOVERY PROCESS: THREE TO SIX MONTHS

3-6 Months Poor Progress Some Progress Moderate Progress Substantial Progress

Substance Abuse 

Treatment

No current participation 

in substance abuse 

treatment.

Parent may have 

initially engaged in 

treatment but left 

against staff advice.

Parent is inconsistent 

in attending substance 

abuse treatment.

 

Within this time 

frame the parent 

could become more 

consistent.

Improvements in 

personal hygiene.

Parent’s continued 

progress is 

demonstrated in:

• Consistent 

 attendance

• Ability to identify 

 triggers

• Self report of drug 

 free time, meeting 

attendance, and 

 certificates of 

 achievements

• Improvement in 

 personal hygiene 

 and self esteem

• Greater insight 

 into substance 

 abuse / addiction

• Developed 

 a specific relapse 

 prevention plan

Parent’s attendance 

in substance abuse 

treatment is consistent 

and has demonstrated 

compliance with 

treatment plan and is 

preparing for discharge.

Developing and 

discussing aftercare 

plans with treatment 

provider (may occur 

at this time due to 

extended length of stay 

or residential treatment).

If parent has been 

discharged:

Parent is consistently 

participating in after 

care services and 

working with a specific 

relapse prevention plan.

Participation in

Recovery Support 

Systems

No current participation 

in recovery support 

groups.

Attends initial 

recovery support 

meeting (AA/CA/NA) 

or initial community 

support group.

Increased attendance 

in AA/CA/NA meetings 

or support group 

meetings. 

Working on Steps 1 

and 2 of the 12 Steps 

of AA/NA; parent is 

able to discuss the 

process of recovery. 

Parent is letting go 

of relationships with 

substance abusers 

and developing sober 

friendships.

Regular attendance in 

self help meetings.



Developing relationships 

with recovering role 

models/mentors.



Parent has chosen 

12 Step Sponsor or 

community support 

person.



Increasing involvement 

in drug free activities, 

recovery support 

systems, sober 

relationships, and/or 

community activities.
D-46

Abstinence Parent is currently 

abusing drugs.

Parent is able to self 

report relapse.

Fewer episodes of 

relapse and the parent 

is able to discuss 

triggers.

Parent has recently 

achieved abstinence. 

(At least 30 days)

Parent has achieved 

a sustained period of 

abstinence.

Service Plan 

Compliance

Parent is noncompliant with service 

plan:

• Visiting with worker

• Other assessments

Parent is inconsistent 

in meeting service 

plan conditions.

Parent is consistently 

working on service 

plan conditions.

Parent is currently in 

compliance with service 

plan conditions. 

Visiting Parent inconsistently 

visits with child(ren).

Parent is consistent in 

visits with child(ren).

Parent demonstrates 

increased parenting 

responsibility during 

visits.

Parent demonstrates 

increased parenting 

responsibility during 

visits.

Parenting Skills/

Parental Functioning

Parent is unwilling or 

unable to acknowledge 

impact of drug use on 

parenting.

Parent begins to 

acknowledge the 

impact of drug use on 

parenting. 

Parent acknowledges 

impact of drug use 

on parenting and 

identifying parenting 

deficits. 

Parent is able to identify 

parenting deficits and 

strengths.

Parent is developing 

parenting goals.

INDICATORS FOR PROGRESS IN THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE RECOVERY PROCESS: SIX TO NINE MONTHS

6-9 Months Poor Progress Some Progress Moderate Progress Substantial Progress

Substance Abuse 

Treatment

Currently not 

participating in 

substance abuse 

treatment (parent left 

treatment).

Parent is more 

consistent in 

attendance.

Parent is able to 

identify triggers.

Self report of drug 

free time, meeting 

attendance, and 

certificates of 

achievements.

Continued 

improvement in 

personal hygiene and 

self-esteem.

Parent has gained 

greater insight into 

substance abuse/

addiction.

Consistent attendance 

in substance 

abuse treatment; 

has demonstrated 

compliance with 

treatment plan.

Verbalizes a greater 

awareness of intense 

emotions and triggers. 

Uses new coping skills 

learned in substance 

abuse treatment or 12 

Step support groups.

Has developed a 

specific relapse 

prevention plan.

Developing/discussing 

aftercare plans with 

treatment provider 

(may occur at this 

time due to extended 

length of stay or 

residential treatment).

Regular attendance in 

formal substance abuse 

treatment.

Parent has entered after 

care services.

Parent consistent in 

follow through with after 

care services.

Parent is consistently 

working on relapse 

prevention plans.

Participation in

Recovery Support 

Systems

No current participation 

in recovery support 

groups.

Attends 12 Step 

recovery support 

meeting or community 

support groups.



Has increased 

participation in self 

help meetings or 

community recovery 

support groups.



Has chosen sponsor.

Consistently working 

on the 12 Steps 

program with sponsor 

/consistently attending 

community support.

Actively working on 

relapse prevention 

with after care 

provider, sponsor 

or recovery support 

person.

Parent is consistently 

working 12 Step 

program, attending self 

help meetings, and 

maintaining contact with 

sponsor.



Parent is applying Steps 

1-3 in daily life 

(AA/CA/NA).



Parent is discussing 

long term goals and 

setting time frames with 

support persons.
D-47

Abstinence Parent is currently 

abusing drugs.

Parent has decreased 

substance abuse and 

self reports relapse.

Has fewer episodes 

of relapse and has 

developed a specific 

relapse prevention 

plan.

Parent has recently 

achieved abstinence.

Parent has sustained 

periods of abstinence.

Parent continues to 

maintain abstinence.

Service Plan 

Compliance

Parent is noncompliant with service 

plan.

Is inconsistent in 

meeting service plan 

conditions.

Is consistently working 

on service plan 

conditions.

Parent is currently in 

compliance with service 

plan conditions.

Visiting Parent inconsistently 

visits child(ren).

Parent consistent in 

visits with child(ren).

Consistently 

visiting child(ren) 

and demonstrating 

increased parenting 

responsibility during 

visits (if applies).

Parent consistently 

visiting child and 

demonstrating 

increased parenting 

responsibility during 

visits (if applicable).

Parenting Skills/

Parental Functioning

Parent is unwilling or 

unable to acknowledge 

impact of drug use on 

parenting.

Parent begins to 

acknowledge the 

impact of drug use on 

parenting.



Acknowledges 

impact of drug use on 

parenting.

Parent identifies 

parenting deficits and 

strengths and sets 

parenting goals

Parent is working on 

parenting goals.

Parent is working on 

parenting goals.



Parent is achieving one 

or more parenting goal.

INDICATORS FOR PROGRESS IN THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE RECOVERY PROCESS: NINE TO TWELVE MONTHS

9-12 Months Poor Progress Some to Moderate Progress Substantial Progress

Participation in 

Recovery Support 

Systems

Parent does not currently 

participate in mutual help/ 

recovery support groups. 

Parent is not actively 

engaged with a sponsor.

Parent has increased 

participation in mutual help/

recovery support groups. 



Has chosen sponsor.



Has made more consistent 

contact with sponsor.



Works on the 12 Steps program 

with sponsor.



Actively works on relapse 

prevention with after care 

provider, sponsor or recovery 

support person.

Parent consistently participates in 

mutual help meetings/ recovery 

support groups.



Consistently working on the 12 

Step program with sponsor or with 

a community support person.



Parent is engaged in sober 

relationships and activities.



Has accepted the maintenance 

phase of recovery is a lifelong 

responsibility.

Abstinence Parent is currently abusing 

drugs.

Fewer episodes of relapse and 

the parent has developed a 

specific relapse plan.



Parent has recently achieved 

abstinence.

Parent has sustained periods of 

abstinence.



Parent continues to maintain 

abstinence.

Service Plan 

Compliance

Parent is non-compliant 

with service plan.

Parent is inconsistent in meeting 

service plan conditions. (i.e. 

Attending parent training, 

counseling, keeping assessment 

appointments.)

Parent is consistently working on 

service plan conditions.

Visiting Parent inconsistently visits 

child(ren).

Parent consistently visits child. Parent demonstrates increased 

parenting responsibility during 

visits (if applicable).
D-48

Parenting Skills/

Parental Functioning

Parent is unwilling or 

unable to acknowledge 

impact of drug use on 

parenting.

Parent beginning to 

acknowledge the impact of 

drug use on parenting.

Parent acknowledges impact of 

drug use on parenting.



Parent identifies parenting 

deficits and strengths and sets 

parenting goals.



Parent is working on parenting 

goals.



Parent is demonstrating 

improved parental functioning.

Parent maintains improved 

parenting functioning and 

continuing to work on parenting 

goals.

Interpersonal 

Relationships

No attempts to address 

interpersonal conflicts with 

family members.

Minimal attempts to address 

interpersonal conflicts with family 

members.

Parent is actively addressing 

interpersonal conflicts with family 

members.

Skill Building No participation in skill 

building training.

Parent has entered skill building 

training.

Parent consistently participates in 

skill building training.
D-49

E-1

Appendix E

Substance Use, Abuse, 

Dependence Continuum, and

Principles of Effective Treatment

E-3

Appendix E:

Substance Use, Abuse, Dependence Continuum, and 

Principles of Effective Treatment

Alcohol and drug use occurs along a continuum, and not everyone who uses substances abuses or is 

dependent on them. Levels of use are generally identified as use, abuse, and dependence. 

The table on the next page summarizes the differences between substance use, abuse, and dependence, 

and it highlights implications for risk to children based on a parent’s use, abuse, or dependence on 

alcohol or other drugs. The information regarding clinical criteria included on the table is from the 

American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition

(American Psychiatric Association, 1994).

Additional information regarding the types of risks to children based on parental substance abuse 

disorders can be found in Understanding Substance Abuse and Facilitating Recovery: A Guide for Child 

Welfare Workers available on line at www.ncsacw.samhsa.gov (Beshears, Yeh, & Young, 2004).

The box shown after this chart provides the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) researched-based 

basic principles of substance use disorder treatment process (NIDA, 1999). Child welfare and court staff 

should incorporate these principles into training curricula. 
E-4

Alcohol and Drug Use Continuum Implications for Child Welfare/

Examples of Risk to Children

Use of alcohol or other drugs to socialize and feel 

effects. Use may not appear abusive and may not lead 

to dependence, however the circumstances under 

which a parent uses can put children at risk of harm.

• Driving with children in the car while under the 

 influence.

• Use during pregnancy can harm the fetus.

Abuse of alcohol or drugs includes at least one of 

these factors in the last 12 months:

• Recurrent substance use resulting in failure to fulfill 

 obligations at work, home or school.

• Recurrent substance use in situations that are 

 physically hazardous.

• Recurrent substance-related legal problems.

• Continued substance use despite having persistent 

 or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused 

 by or exacerbated by the substance.

• Children may be left in unsafe care—with an 

 inappropriate caretaker or unattended—while 

 parent is partying.

• Parent may neglect or sporadically address the 

 children’s needs for regular meals, clothing, and 

 cleanliness.

• Even when the parent is in the home, the parent’s 

 use may leave children unsupervised.

• Behavior toward children may be inconsistent, 

 such as a pattern of violence then remorse.

Dependence, also known as addiction, is a pattern 

of use that results in three or more of the following 

symptoms in a 12 month period:

• Tolerance—needing more of the drug or alcohol to 

 get “high”.

• Withdrawal—physical symptoms when alcohol or 

 other drugs are not used, such as tremors, nausea, 

 sweating, and shakiness.

• Substance is taken in larger amounts and over a 

 longer period than intended.

• Persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down 

 or control substance use.

• A great deal of time is spent in activities related 

 to obtaining the substance, use of the substance or 

 recovering from its effects.

• Important social, occupational, or recreational 

 activities are given up or reduced because of 

 substance use.

• Substance use is continued despite knowledge 

 of persistent or recurrent physical or psychological 

 problems caused or exacerbated by the substance.

• Despite a clear danger to children, the parent may 

 engage in addiction-related behaviors, such as 

 leaving children unattended while seeking drugs.

• Funds are used to buy alcohol or other drugs, while 

 other necessities, such as buying food, are 

 neglected.

• A parent may not be able to think logically or make 

 rational decisions regarding children’s needs or 

 care.
E-5

NIDA’s Principles of Effective Drug Treatment 

 1. No single treatment is appropriate for all individuals.

 2. Treatment needs to be readily available.

 3. Effective treatment attends to multiple needs of the individual, not just his or her drug

 use.

 4. An individual’s treatment and services plan must be assessed continually and modified as 

 necessary to ensure that the plan meets the person’s changing needs.

 5. Remaining in treatment for an adequate period of time is critical for treatment 

 effectiveness.

 6. Counseling (individual and/or group) and other behavioral therapies are critical 

 components of effective treatment for addiction.

 7. Medications are an important element of treatment for many patients, especially when 

 combined with counseling and other behavioral therapies.

 8. Addicted or drug-abusing individuals with coexisting mental disorders should have both 

 disorders treated in an integrated way.

 9. Medical detoxification is only the first stage of addiction treatment and by itself does little 

 to change long-term drug use.

 10. Treatment does not need to be voluntary to be effective.

 11. Possible drug use during treatment must be monitored continuously.

 12. Treatment programs should provide assessment for HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B and C, 

 tuberculosis and other infectious diseases, and counseling to help patients modify or 

 change behaviors that place themselves or others at risk of infection.

 13. Recovery from drug addiction can be a long-term process and frequently requires 

 multiple episodes of treatment.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders

 (4th ed.).Washington, DC: Author.

Beshears, E., Yeh, S., & Young, N. K. (2005). Understanding substance abuse and facilitating recovery: 

 A guide for child welfare workers. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

National Institute on Drug Abuse (1999). Principles of drug addiction treatment:A research based guide. 

 Accessed September 18, 2006, at http://www.nida.nih.gov/PODAT/PODAT1.html

F-1

Appendix F

Examples of Safety and 

Risk Assessments 

for Use by Child Welfare Staff

F-3

Examples of Safety and Risk Assessments

 for Use by Child Welfare Staff

This appendix provides information about and samples of screening and assessment tools for child 

maltreatment and child development. In the description of each tool, the definition follows the tool 

acronym. 

These tools should be used to support ongoing processes that involve regular communication among 

staff and between staff and families. Tools by themselves do not provide answers to complicated issues 

such as substance use disorders and child maltreatment. Tools can, however, contribute to decisions 

about whether problems exist, the nature and extent of those problems, and what actions all three 

systems—child welfare, alcohol and drug, and court—should take to address problems.

Although there are broad ranges of documentation procedures describing ways to assess child safety, 

there are few commercially available safety assessment tools other than those distributed as part of 

consultation services. That is, a number of organizations provide consulting and training in this area 

and have instruments that are used in the process, but the instruments tend not to be sold apart from 

the training. Many jurisdictions have established their own safety assessment and documentation 

procedures and forms, but do not distribute them as defined tools. 
F-4

Screening Tools for Child Safety

The following list, alphabetized by tool name, provides information to answer the questions “Is there a 

child maltreatment issue? What is the immediacy of the issue?”
F-5

CHILD ABUSE POTENTIAL INVENTORY (CAPI)

The CAPI (Child Abuse Potential Inventory) appears to be one of the more widely researched 

instruments in terms of the volume of publications on the tool, due in large part to the prolific work 

of its author. The instrument covers areas such as problems with family, children, and others; rigidity; 

stress; and general unhappiness, but does not provide any screening for influences of substance use or 

specific mental health problems.

Administrative Issues 160 items, of which 77 form a physical child abuse scale; 

6 factor subscales are contained in the abuse scale; and

3 validity scales

Pencil-and-paper self-administered or interview

Time required: unspecified, but may be expected to require 40 to 60 

minutes

A manual, an interpretive manual, and scoring templates are 

available commercially, but computerized scoring programs are no 

longer available.

Scoring Time required: undetermined

Scored by hand

No computerized scoring or interpretation available

Clinical Utility The CAP Inventory taps areas that are logically related to 

maltreatment risks, and the research on the tool seems extensive. 

The reported concurrent validity of the instrument seems good, 

especially for identifying nonabusive cases, but the predictive 

validity is not as clear.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted by Joel S. Milner

Data sheets are $2 for a set of 10; manuals and scoring templates are 

priced between $20 and $50

Psytec, Inc.

P.O. Box 564

DeKalb, IL 60115

Phone: 815-758-1415 

Fax: 815-758-1725
F-6

RISK INVENTORY 

FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE-AFFECTED FAMILIES

The Risk Inventory for Substance Abuse-Affected Families is one of the few instruments to explicitly 

assess the potential influences of substance use and substance use disorders on risks for maltreatment. 

It consists of eight scales, or ratings, anchored with descriptive statements for defining the level for 

each scale. This risk inventory assumes that substance abuse or dependence has already been identified 

as being an issue in the family, and the intent is to assess the risks posed to children. Topics covered 

include commitment to recovery, patterns of use, effects on child care and lifestyle, supports for 

recovery, self-efficacy and self-care of the parent, and quality of the neighborhood. Several of the 

scales cover areas that could provide indications for immediate action. This instrument has scales 

that could be considered appropriate for this appendix and Appendix D, “Examples of Screening and 

Assessment Tools for Substance Use Disorders”; therefore, it is listed in each.

Administrative Issues Eight rating scales; scores range from 1 to either 4 or 5 with options 

for unknown or not applicable

Ratings are completed by professionals based on observations and 

discussions with the family members. 

Time required: variable

Scoring Time required: variable

No manuals for administration or scoring available

Clinical Utility The instrument has good face validity in terms of areas to 

consider in gauging the potential risks to children based on the 

parent’s or caretaker’s functioning and commitment to recovery. 

Lack of information on the performance of the tool and apparent 

lack of research on the instrument may require initial care in 

interpretation of findings.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted by Children’s Friend and Service

$10 to receive a copy of the instrument 

Children’s Friend and Service

153 Summer Street

Providence, RI 02903

Phone: 401-331-2900

Fax: 401-331-3285
F-7

STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING (SDM)

SAFETY ASSESSMENT

The SDM (Structured Decision Making) model, as described by the Children’s Research Center (CRC) 

of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD), is a procedure for improved practice by 

child welfare services. CRC states that at the heart of the model is a series of tools to assess families 

and structure the agency’s response. One tool is the Safety Assessment, used to determine the threat of 

immediate harm and to identify steps needed to protect children.

The CRC publication, The Improvement of Child Protective Services with Structured Decision 

Making: The CRC Model, provides an example of an SDM Safety Assessment tool developed in one 

State—The Georgia Safety Assessment and Plan.

Administrative Issues Unknown

Scoring Time required: unknown

Clinical Utility The general information obtainable on the procedure suggests 

that the concept and practices have merit. A number of States are 

listed as having implemented the procedure. Data supplied indicate 

that the risk levels as assessed are related to subsequent referrals, 

placements, and substantiations. Utility for individual casework 

cannot be determined from the materials reviewed.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Unknown

Unknown

Children’s Research Center

426 South Yellowstone Drive, Suite 250

Madison, WI 53719

Phone: 608-831-8882

Fax: 608-831-6446
F-8

Assessment Instruments for Child Welfare

The following list of instruments provides information on tools to assess parents and families for 

factors related to child maltreatment and child and family well-being. Items in these tools that relate to 

substance use disorders tend to confuse disorders with substance use that is not necessarily problematic. 

In addition, the items frequently do not reflect the level to which substances may impair functioning or 

directly increase risks for maltreatment. Much of the assessment research has focused on the impacts of 

maltreatment on the victim rather than on risk indicators to identify risk from a potential perpetrator. 

A potential positive element of risk assessment instruments is that they have not been used to replace 

professional judgment. In some areas of screening, screens have been misused because their findings 

have been taken at face value in making decisions, without integrating the screen results with other 

information. Such integration of information appears more the norm with respect to risk assessments for 

maltreatment. 

The maltreatment instruments listed in the following section could also be considered as tools to assist in 

monitoring and modifying case planning. 

The “Child Abuse Potential Inventory,” the “Parenting Stress Index,” the “Risk Inventory for Substance 

Abuse-Affected Families” and the “Structured Decision-Making Risk Assessment” describe risk 

assessment instruments and appear in this order. The “Family Assessment Form,” the “Risk Inventory 

for Substance Abuse-Affected Families,” and the “Structured Decision Making Family Strengths and 

Needs describe child and family well-being assessment instruments and appear in this order.

These tools provide information to answer the questions: “What is the nature and extent of the child 

maltreatment issue?”
F-9

CHILD ABUSE POTENTIAL INVENTORY

The CAP (Child Abuse Potential Inventory) appears to be one of the more widely researched 

instruments in terms of the volume of publications on the too, due in large part to the prolific work of 

its author. The instrument covers areas such as problems with family, children, and others; rigidity; 

stress; and general unhappiness, but does not provide any screening for influences of substance use or 

specific mental health problems.

Administrative Issues 160 items, of which 77 form a physical child abuse scale; 

6 factor subscales are contained in the abuse scale; and

3 validity scales

Pencil-and-paper self-administered or interview

Time required: unspecified, but may be expected to require 40 to 60 

min.

A manual, an interpretive manual, and scoring templates are 

available commercially, but computerized scoring programs are no 

longer available.

Scoring Time required: undetermined

Scored by hand

No computerized scoring or interpretation available

Clinical Utility The CAP Inventory taps areas that are logically related to 

maltreatment risks, and the research on the tool seems extensive. 

The reported concurrent validity of the instrument seems good, 

especially for identifying nonabusive cases, but the predictive 

validity is not as clear.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted by Joel S. Milner

Data sheets cost $2 for a set of 10; manuals and scoring templates 

are priced between $20 and $50

Psytec, Inc.

P.O. Box 564

DeKalb, IL 60115

Phone: 815-758-1415

Fax: 815-758-1725
F-10

PARENTING STRESS INDEX (PSI)

The PSI (Parenting Stress Index) is designed to identify potentially dysfunctional parent–child 

systems, focuses intervention on high-stress areas, and predicts future psychosocial adjustment of 

the child. The PSI was developed for use with parents of children ages 3 months to 10 years. The 

instrument has been available since the early 1980s; there has been a great deal of research and study 

around the PSI including translation in multiple languages and studies with many cultural and ethnic 

groups.

Administrative Issues Standard Form: 101 items; and optional 19-item Life Events Stress 

Scale is also provided.

Short Form: 36 items (The standard form is recommended over the 

short form, because the 10 to 15 minutes saved does not appear to 

outweigh the loss of information.)

Parent self-report

Amount of time required for administering, scoring, and profiling is 

not indicated.

A computer scoring and report writing program, which allows 

for the comparison of individual parent profiles to 47 researched 

clinical profiles, is available,

Scoring Time required: undetermined

74-page manual

Computerized scoring available

Clinical Utility There is reported discriminant validity examining PSI scores of 

mothers of children who are “normal” and mothers of children who 

have special needs, and discriminating between mothers who are 

physically abusive and nonabusive, amount of husband support, and 

single and married mothers.

Spanish version available

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted presumably by Pediatric Psychology Press

Unknown

Pediatric Psychology Press

320 Terrell Road West

Charlottesville, VA 22901
F-11

RISK INVENTORY FOR

SUBSTANCE-AFFECTED FAMILIES

The Risk Inventory for Substance Abuse-Affected Families is one of the few instruments to explicitly 

assess the potential influences of substance use and substance use disorders on risks for maltreatment. 

It consists of eight scales, or ratings, anchored with descriptive statements for defining the level for 

each scale. This risk inventory assumes that substance abuse or dependence has already been identified 

as being an issue in the family, and the intent is to assess the risks posed to children. Topics covered 

include commitment to recovery, patterns of use, effects on child care and lifestyle, supports for 

recovery, self-efficacy and self-care of the parent, and quality of the neighborhood.

Administrative Issues Eight rating scales; scores range from 1 to either 4 or 5 with options 

for unknown or not applicable

Ratings are completed by professionals based on observations and 

discussions with the family members. 

Time required: variable

Scoring Time required: variable

No manuals for administration or scoring available

Clinical Utility The instrument has good face validity in terms of areas to consider 

in gauging the potential risks to children based on the parent’s 

or caretaker’s functioning and commitment to recovery. Some of 

these factors also address the nature and extent of problems. Lack 

of information on the performance of the tool and apparent lack of 

research on the instrument may require initial care in interpretation 

of findings.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyright by Children’s Friend and Service

$10 to receive a copy of the instrument 

Children’s Friend and Service

153 Summer Street

Providence, RI 02903

Phone: 401-331-2900

Fax: 401-331-3285
F-12

STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING (SDM)

 RISK ASSESSMENT

The SDM (Structured Decision Making) model, as described by the Children’s Research Center (CRC) 

of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD), is a model for improved practice by child 

welfare services. CRC states that at the heart of the model is a series of tools to assess families and 

structure the agency’s response. One tool is the Risk Assessment, which is a research-based tool to 

estimate the likelihood of future abuse/neglect.

The CRC publication, The Improvement of Child Protective Services with Structured Decision 

Making: The CRC Model, provides an example of an SDM Risk Assessment tool developed in one 

State—The California Family Risk Assessment.

Administrative Issues Unknown

Scoring Time required: unknown

Clinical Utility The general information obtainable on the procedure suggests 

that the concept and practices have merit. A number of States are 

listed as having implemented the procedure. Data supplied indicate 

that the risk levels as assessed are related to subsequent referrals, 

placements, and substantiations. Utility for individual casework 

cannot be determined from the materials reviewed.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted

Unknown

Children’s Research Center

426 South Yellowstone Drive, Suite 250

Madison, WI 53719

Phone: 608-831-8882

Fax: 608-831-6446
F-13

FAMILY ASSESSMENT FORM (FAF)

The FAF (Family Assessment Form) was developed as a means of providing standardization to family 

assessments, but with the intention that the tool be adapted to meet the needs of specific programs 

and applications. It covers six areas of family functioning and is able to identify strengths as well as 

problems. The form consists of ratings to be completed by the worker as based on observations and 

discussions with the family member. This instrument is not to be completed by the family member.

Administrative Issues Approximately 90 ratings covering 6 areas of family functioning

Paper-and-pencil form is completed by the professional.

Time required: variable, depending upon the professional or 

technician

Training and supervision are required for the appropriate use of the 

tool.

Scoring Time required: variable, depending upon circumstances

No computerized scoring or interpretation available

Clinical Utility The FAF provides a vehicle for establishing some structure and 

consistency to family evaluations. Statistics indicate that with 

proper training and supervision, raters can achieve good 

reliability so that there is consistency among different workers’ 

ratings.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Children’s Bureau of Southern California

Contact source.

Children’s Bureau of Southern California

Children’s Bureau Headquarters

3910 Oakwood Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90004

Phone: 323-953-7356/323-661-7306

Toll-free: 888-ALL 4 KIDS (888-255-45437)

Fax: 323-661-7306

Web site: www.all4kids.org

Contact person for information: Sandy Sladen

fafsupport@all4kids.org 
F-14

RISK INVENTORY FOR 

SUBSTANCE-AFFECTED FAMILIES

The Risk Inventory for Substance Abuse-Affected Families is one of the few instruments to explicitly 

assess the potential influences of substance use and substance use disorders on risks for maltreatment. 

It consists of eight scales, or ratings, anchored with descriptive statements for defining the level for 

each scale. This risk inventory assumes that substance abuse or dependence has already been identified 

as being an issue in the family, and the intent is to assess the risks posed to children. Topics covered 

include commitment to recovery, patterns of use, effects on child care and lifestyle, supports for 

recovery, self-efficacy and self-care of the parent, and quality of the neighborhood.

Administrative Issues Eight rating scales; scores range from 1 to either 4 or 5 with options 

for unknown or not applicable

Ratings are completed by professionals based on observations and 

discussions with the family members. 

Time required: variable

Scoring Time required: variable

No manuals for administration or scoring available

Clinical Utility The instrument has good face validity in terms of areas to consider 

in gauging the potential risks to children based on the parent’s or 

caretaker’s functioning and commitment to recovery. Some of these 

factors also address the nature and extent of problems. The lack of 

information on the performance of the tool and apparent lack of 

research on the instrument may require initial care in interpretation 

of findings.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted by Children’s Friend and Service

$10 to receive a copy of the instrument

Children’s Friend and Service

153 Summer Street

Providence, RI 02903

Phone: 401-331-2900

Fax: 401-331-3285
F-15

STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING (SDM)

FAMILY AND CHILD STRENGTHS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT

The Structured Decision Making (SDM) model, as described by the Children’s Research Center (CRC) 

of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD), is a model for improved practice by child 

welfare services. CRC states that at the heart of the model is a series of tools to assess families and 

structure the agency’s response. One tool is the standardized Family and Child Strengths and Needs 

Assessment, which guides service planning.

The CRC publication, The Improvement of Child Protective Services with Structured Decision 

Making: The CRC Model, provides an example of an SDM Family Strengths and Needs Assessment 

tool developed in one State—The Wisconsin Urban Caucus Family Strengths and Needs Assessment.

Administrative Issues Unknown

Scoring Time required: unknown

Clinical Utility The general information obtainable on the procedure suggests 

that the concept and practices have merit. A number of States are 

listed as having implemented the procedure. Data supplied indicate 

that the risk levels as assessed are related to subsequent referrals, 

placements, and substantiations. Utility for individual casework 

cannot be determined from the materials reviewed.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Unknown

Unknown

Children’s Research Center

426 South Yellowstone Drive, Suite 250

Madison, WI 53719

Phone: 608-831-8882

Fax: 608-831-6446
F-16

 

The following three instruments are examples of the types of screening instruments available for 

use with children and youth. These and other instruments help staff determine whether children are 

experiencing developmental delays and gather information from teachers, parents, and youth themselves. 

This list is in alphabetical order based on the instrument acronym.
F-17

AGES AND STAGES QUESTIONNAIRES (ASQ)

The ASQ (Ages and Stages Questionnaires) is a parent-completed, child-monitoring system that 

provides a way to screen infants and young children for developmental delays during the crucial first 

5 years of life. Parents/caregivers complete simple, illustrated questionnaires at designated intervals, 

assessing children in their natural environment. Questionnaires cover five key developmental areas: 

communication, gross motor, fine motor, problem solving, and personal–social.

Administrative Issues 19 30-item questionnaires for use with young children at 4, 6, 8, 10, 

12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 42, 48, 54, and 60 

months of age

Parents/caregivers complete questionnaires.

Professionals convert parents’/caregivers’ responses.

Scoring Each questionnaire can be completed in 10 to 15 minutes.

Time for conversion of parents’/caregivers’ responses by professionals is approximately 2 to 3 minutes.

The ASQ User’s Guide offers clear guidelines for determining 

whether children are at high or low risk in various domains.

Clinical Utility Questionnaires are available in English, Spanish, French, and 

Korean.

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted presumably by Diane Bricker, Ph.D., and 

Jane Squires, Ph.D.

Ranges from $190 for the complete set of questionnaires to $165 for 

the questionnaires only; ASQ CD-ROM available for $165; Home 

video available for $44

Available online at Brookes Store http://www.pbrookes.com/store/

books/bricker-asq/
F-18

AGES AND STAGES QUESTIONNAIRES (ASQ)

The ASQ:SE (Ages and Stages Questionnaire: Social Emotional) was developed in response to 

feedback on the ASQ. It provides an easy-to-use tool focusing on children’s social and emotional 

behavior. It allows professionals to quickly recognize young children at risk for social or emotional 

difficulties, identify behaviors of concern for caregivers, and identify any young children needing 

further assessment. Used with children from 6 to 60 months, the ASQ:SE screens in the areas of selfregulation, compliance, communication, adaptive functioning, autonomy, affect, and interaction with 

people.

Administrative Issues Eight color-coded questionnaires for use with young children at 6, 

12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 48, and 60 months of age

Parents/caregivers complete the questionnaires.

Professionals score the questionnaires.

Scoring Eight corresponding score sheets come in the ASQ:SE User’s Guide.

Each questionnaire takes 10 to 15 minutes to complete.

Professionals can score parents’/caregivers’ responses in 2 to 3 

minutes.

Clinical Utility The ASQ:SE has been investigated with more than 3,000 children 

across the age intervals and their families.

Reliability is 94%; validity is between 75% and 89%.

The ASQ:SE User’s Guide includes instructions on setting up and 

running the ASQ:SE, validity data, tips on cultural sensitivity, case 

studies, and activities.

Available in English and Spanish

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted presumably by Diane Bricker, Ph.D., and 

Jane Squires, Ph.D.

Ranges from $125 for the complete set of questionnaires to $100 for 

the questionnaires only

Available online at Brookes Store http://www.pbrookes.com/store/

books/squires-asqse/
F-19

CHILD BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST/6-18 (CBCL/6-18),

TEACHER REPORT FORM/6-18 (TRF/6-18),

YOUTH SELF-REPORT/11-18 (YSR/11-18),

CHILD BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST/1 1⁄2-5 (CBCL/1 1⁄2-5), AND

CAREGIVER-TEACHER REPORT FORM (C-TRF)

The CBCL/6-18 (Child Behavior Checklist/6-18, TRF/6-18 (Teacher’s Report Form/6-18), and the 

YSR/11-18 (Youth Self-Report Form/11-18) use national norms from problem, competence, and 

adaptive scales. They feature DSM-oriented scales in addition to empirically based scales. 

CBCL/6-18 obtains parents’ reports of children’s competencies and problems. Profiles for scoring the 

CBCL/6-18 include six DSM-oriented scales, 3 competence scales, total competence, eight crossinformant syndromes, internalizing, externalizing, and total problems.

TRF/6-18 obtains teachers’ ratings of most CBCL/6-18 problem items, plus other items appropriate for 

teachers, including scales for academic performance and adaptive functioning

YSR/11-18 can be completed by youth having fifth-grade reading skills, or administered orally. It has 

many of the CBCL/6-18 items, but 14 CBCL problem items are replaced with socially desirable items 

endorsed by most youth.

The CBCL/11⁄2-5 (Child Behavior Checklist/1 1⁄2-5) and the C-TRF (Caregiver-Teacher Report Form) 

measure for six cross-informant syndromes and five DSM-oriented scales, and include a Language 

Development Survey.

CBCL/1 1⁄2-5 obtains parent ratings on 99 problem items and describes problems, disabilities, parents’

key concerns, and what parents believe to be the best things about their children. The Language 

Development Survey obtains parents’ reports of children’s expressive vocabularies and word 

combinations, plus risk factors for language delays.

C-TRF obtains ratings from daycare providers and teachers and describes problems, disabilities, key 

concerns, and best things about the child.

Administrative Issues Can be self-administered or administered by an interviewer

Scoring Time required: unknown

Can be hand scored; computerized scoring available

Clinical Utility Reliability and validity tests have been conducted on the CBCL 

instruments; importantly, demographic variables for race and 

socioeconomic status accounted for a relatively small proportion of 

score variance; normative data exist on all the instruments.

Spanish versions are available in the CBCL/6-18, YSR/11-18 and 

CBCL/1 1⁄2-5.
F-20

Copyright

Cost

Source

Copyrighted by Achenbach System of Empirically Based 

Assessment

Each tool and the corresponding hand-scoring forms can be 

purchased at $25 for 50 copies; reusable templates for hand-scoring 

can be purchased for $7; starter kits for hand scoring and computer 

scoring can be purchased in a range from $150 to $325.

Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment

1 South Prospect Street

Burlington, VT 05401-3456

Phone: 802-264-6432; 802-264-6433

Fax: 802-652-2602

E-mail: mail@ASEBA.org

Web site: www.aseba.org
G-1

Appendix G

Sharing Confidential Information

G-3

Sharing Confidential Information

Understanding other systems is a necessary but not sufficient condition for collaboration. Collaboration 

requires communication, and knowledge and understanding create a framework within which formal 

structures for communication can be established, but by themselves do not assure that communication in 

fact occurs. One test of whether such communication structures exist is whether child welfare workers 

and alcohol or substance abuse treatment counselors regularly communicate about the status of both 

parents and children involved with the child welfare and alcohol and drug systems. 

One task of the Steering Committee will be to establish uniform policies that allow workers from 

the child welfare, alcohol and drug, and court systems to share important information about families 

(information generally subject to Federal confidentiality rules) and information required to monitor 

families’ progress. The Steering Committee is well-positioned to develop communication protocols that 

are effective and understood by staff because it provides a mechanism for senior officials in all three 

systems to communicate among themselves, arrive at consensus on what policies should be instituted, 

issue those policies to local jurisdictions and offices, and monitor how well the policies are working. 

It is particularly critical that the Steering Committee establish policies and protocols that allow staff 

to share information they learn through screening and assessing families because these terms mean 

different things to staff from different systems. For example, alcohol and substance abuse treatment 

staff use screening and assessment to make decisions regarding the most appropriate form of treatment 

for parents. In contrast, child welfare staff conduct screenings for substance use disorders to make 

decisions regarding whether children are safe or can remain in their homes. 

Developing administrative policies and protocols to enhance cross-system communication is particularly 

critical when the information to be shared is considered confidential by one or more of the systems. 

The next section of this guidebook describes roles and responsibilities that are inherent to working 

collaboratively, but in order for staff to carry out those roles and responsibilities, they have to be 

working within shared and clear protocols for sharing information with each other. Without standard 

policies and protocols, workers from each system are left on their own to decide they are permitted to 

share, and confidentiality concerns are often raised by alcohol and drug, child welfare, and court staff as 

a reason why they cannot communicate with each other. 

In fact, confidentiality is a serous concern. All three systems operate within strict Federal, State, and 

jurisdictional guidelines regarding how information about families may be shared, and families have a 

legal and ethical right to trust that information about them will be kept confidential. At the same time, 

it is possible to develop policies that allow sharing of information in ways that do not violate legal or 

ethical standards. 

The Steering Committee can take the lead in developing standards for sharing sensitive information 

that complies with all regulations and also gives staff and families both the certainty they need to allow 

appropriate information to be disclosed and to exchange information in writing and orally. Members of 

the Steering Committee and others should have basic knowledge of—

• The basic Federal confidentiality rules for treatment providers and the reasons for these rules;

• Additional State law restrictions governing confidentiality (State laws may be more restrictive than

 Federal requirements); and

• The basic Federal, State, and local laws governing confidentiality in the child welfare and court

 systems.
G-4

A consent form signed by the parent is probably the most common strategy for facilitating crosssystem communication. Jurisdictions can develop a common consent form for use by all collaborating 

parties. Or, jurisdictions can use Federally approved consent forms. Typical consent forms include the 

following:

• Name or general description of programs making disclosure;

 • Name or title of individual or organization that will receive disclosure;

 • Name of the person who is the subject of disclosure;

 • Purpose or need for disclosure;

 • How much and what kind of information will be disclosed;

 • Statement that the person giving consent may revoke (take back) consent at any time, except to the

 extent that the program has already acted on it;

• Date, event, or condition upon which consent will expire, if not previously revoked;

 • Signature (and, in some States, that of his or her parent); and

 • Date on which consent is signed. 

It is important to note that when disclosure of information is made with the person’s written consent, the 

system making the disclosure must include with the information conveyed a notice that “redisclosure” is 

prohibited without authorization. For example, if someone authorizes an alcohol or other drug treatment 

provider to share certain information with a child welfare worker, that worker is not allowed to share 

this information with someone else who is not identified on the consent form (i.e., the definition of 

“redisclosure”). 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) publication Welfare Reform and Substance Abuse 

Treatment Confidentiality: General Guidance for Reconciling Need to Know and Privacy provides 

additional guidance in how to address issues of confidentiality. Although the publication was created 

specifically for use with welfare recipients, the guidance offers practical strategies and Federally 

approved confidentiality forms for protecting family and individual rights, promoting interagency 

collaboration, and supporting case planning. (The report is free and can be ordered by calling 

800-729-6686 and requesting TAP#24.) 

The Privacy Rule included in the Federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) 

establishes other standards for safeguarding information. For more information on HIPAA and the 

Privacy Rule, as well as on confidentiality rules, please refer to the CSAT publication The Confidentiality 

of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records Regulation and the HIPPA Privacy Rule: Implications for 

Alcohol and Substance Abuse Programs. This document is available at www.samhsa.gov or by calling 

800-729-6686. Agencies within the alcohol and drug system may or may not fall under this Privacy 

Rule and should consult with legal counsel regarding how and whether the HIPAA regulations apply 

to them. However, agencies within the alcohol and drug system that are already in compliance with 42 

CFR Part 2 (Federal confidentiality regulations governing treatment agencies) should not find it difficult 

to comply with the HIPAA regulations.
H-1

Appendix H

Glossary of Terms

H-3

Glossary of Terms 

Following is a glossary providing definitions of terms and concepts used in this guidebook or in the 

fields of alcohol and drug treatment, child welfare services, and dependency courts.

Active efforts – the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) requires, among other things, that States provide 

“active efforts” to prevent the break up of an Indian family. Active effort means not just an identification 

of the problems or solutions, but efforts showing an active attempt to assist in bridging the gap.

Adjudication hearing – in child welfare proceedings, the trial stage at which the court determines 

whether allegations of dependency, abuse, or neglect concerning a child are sustained by the evidence 

and, if so, are legally sufficient to support State intervention on behalf of the child and provides the 

basis for State intervention into a family, as opposed to the disposition hearing that concerns the nature 

of such intervention. In some States, adjudication hearings are referred to as “jurisdictional” or “factfinding” hearings.

Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-96) – on November 19, 1997, the President signed 

into law the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) which amended Titles VI-B and IV-E of 

the Social Security Act to clarify certain provisions of P.L. 96-272. ASFA made changes in a wide range 

of policies established under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act to improve the safety of 

children, to promote adoption and other permanent homes for children, and to support families.

Aftercare or continuing care – the immediate period after an intensive period of substance abuse 

treatment designed to support an individual’s recovery through provision of formal supports such as 

relapse prevention services. These supports are combined with informal community-based recovery 

supports, such as participation in 12-Step programs, church, or other activities that support the recovery 

process.

Alcohol and drug services (ADS) – includes the broad continuum of programs and strategies designed 

to prevent and treat substance abuse and dependence and to ameliorate adverse consequences associated 

with substance use.

Alcohol and drug services staff (ADS staff) – counselors and other personnel with specialized 

knowledge and skills to provide services that prevent, intervene, and treat substance use disorders.

Alcoholism – an illness characterized by preoccupation with alcohol and loss of control over its 

consumption such as to lead to intoxification if drinking is begun, by chronicity, by progression, and by 

tendency towards relapse. (This is a definition of the American Medical Association.)

Assessment in child welfare – broadly refers to gathering information that affects a child’s immediate 

safety, potential risk of future harm, and a family’s level of functioning and well- being based on its 

strengths and needs. The types of assessment in child welfare follow:

 Safety Assessment – evaluates immediate threats to the life or well-being of a child.

 Risk Assessment – evaluates potential future threats to the life or well-being of a child in the context 

 of existing protective factors.
H-4

Family Assessment – evaluates how well a family is functioning in several domains that affect child 

 and family well-being, including needs and strengths of the family.

Case plan – an individualized plan of action based on a comprehensive assessment, with measurable 

goals and outcomes developed by a family and child welfare services worker to ameliorate risk to 

children and ensure their safety, permanency, and well-being.

Child abuse – to hurt or injure a child by maltreatment. As defined by statutes in the majority of States, 

the term is generally limited to maltreatment that causes or threatens to cause lasting harm to a child.

Child neglect – to fail to give proper attention to a child; to deprive a child; to allow a lapse in care and 

supervision that causes or threatens to cause lasting harm to a child; to fail to perform or discharge a 

duty to a child, such as medical neglect or educational neglect. 

Child protective services (CPS) – the division within child welfare services that is responsible for 

maintaining a child abuse and neglect referral system and for determining whether a child is in need of 

protection.

Child welfare services (CWS) – includes the broad continuum of programs and strategies designed to 

protect children from child abuse and neglect and to strengthen families.

Child welfare services staff (CWS staff) – social workers and other personnel with specialized 

knowledge and skills who provide services to prevent and intervene with families at risk of and involved 

with child abuse and neglect.

Community-based recovery support – informal support available to an individual that helps that 

individual to maintain recovery from a substance use disorder. This support frequently involves 

participation in 12 Step programs, but may also include supportive friends, family, church, sports 

activities, hobbies, or other activities that reinforce the individual’s recovery either directly or indirectly.

Dependency court – the court system that adjudicates cases of child abuse and neglect. In some States, 

these courts may be known as juvenile courts or family courts.

Dependency cases – cases that go before a juvenile court in which allegations of child abuse or neglect 

are heard. The specific definition of a dependency case and a dependent child varies by State statute.

Dependent child – a young person subject to the jurisdiction of the court because of child abuse or 

neglect, or lack of proper care through no fault of the parent.

Diagnosis of a substance use disorder – using criteria established by the American Psychological 

Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV), to determine 

whether a person is classified as a substance user, substance abuser, or is substance dependent. 

Disposition hearing – the stage of the juvenile court process in which, after finding that a child is 

within jurisdiction of the court, the court determines who shall have custody and control of a child and 

elicits judicial decision on whether to continue out-of-home placement or to remove a child from home. 

Service plans, treatment plans, and conditions of placement are discussed and determined. 
H-5

Identification of a child who is potentially a victim of abuse or neglect, or both – an awareness of 

behaviors, signs, or symptoms indicating that there is reasonable suspicion that a child has been the 

victim of abuse or neglect, or both. Some health, social service, and educational professionals are 

required by law to report such suspicions to child protective services.

Identification of a person with a potential substance use disorder – observations or knowledge that a 

person’s substance use is associated with adverse consequences in areas of life functioning including 

interpersonal relationships, family responsibilities, employment, criminality, or emotional well-being, or 

any combination of these.

Immediate need triage – observations and questions leading to a determination that an individual 

is at immediate risk of biomedical or psychiatric complications associated with substance use that 

could be life threatening (e.g., overdose or withdrawal complications); or because of a lack of 

readiness to change, relapse, or continued use potential or recovery environment problems, there is 

a strong probability that certain behaviors will occur (e.g., continued alcohol or drug use or relapse 

or noncompliance with psychiatric medications) that will present a significant risk of serious adverse 

consequences to the individual or others, or both, and that such adverse events will occur in the very 

near future.

Permanency planning hearing – a special type of postdispositional proceeding designed to reach a 

decision concerning the permanent placement of a child. ASFA established a permanency planning 

hearing within 12 months of a child’s placement, rather than within 18 months as in current law. At 

the hearing, there must be a determination whether and when a child will be returned home, placed for 

adoption and a termination of parental rights petition will be filed, or referred for legal guardianship 

or, when other options are not appropriate, will have another planned permanent living arrangement. 

For children for whom a court determines reasonable efforts to reunify are not required, a permanency 

planning hearing must be held within 30 days of such determination.

Preliminary protective hearing – the first court hearing in a juvenile abuse or neglect case, referred to 

in some jurisdictions as a “shelter care hearing,“ “detention hearing,” “emergency removal hearing,” 

or “temporary custody hearing”; occurs either immediately before or immediately after the child is 

removed from home on an emergency basis; may be preceded by an ex parte order directing placement 

of the child; in extreme emergency cases may constitute the first judicial review of a child placed 

without prior court approval.

Reasonable efforts – the reasonable efforts requirement of the Federal law is designed to ensure 

that families are provided with services to prevent their disruption and to respond to the problems of 

unnecessary disruption of families and foster care drift. Public Law 96-272, the Adoption Assistance and 

Child Welfare Act of 1980, required that “reasonable efforts” be made to prevent or eliminate the need 

for removal of a dependent, neglected, or abused child from the child’s home and to reunify the family 

if the child is removed. To enforce this provision, the juvenile court must determine, in each case where 

Federal reimbursement is sought, whether the agency has made the required reasonable efforts. (42 

U.S.C. 671(a)(15), 672(a)(1).) ASFA expanded reasonable efforts provisions by requiring that when a 

court determines that reasonable efforts to reunify are not required, a permanency planning hearing must 

be held within 30 days of such determination. Reasonable efforts also must be made to place the child in 

a timely manner in accordance with the permanency plan and to complete whatever steps are necessary 

to finalize the plan.
H-6

Recovery – the process by which an individual has learned to develop and maintain a lifestyle that is free 

from substance use which enables individuals with substance abuse and dependency problems to return 

to full functioning.

Relapse – to fall back into a previous problem behavior pattern; a return of a disease or illness after 

partial recovery from it.

Reliability – the consistency of test scores over different test administrations, multiple raters, and 

different test questions. Reliability usually refers to one of two types of reliability—test-retest reliability 

and internal consistency reliability. The two are often confused even though they represent very 

different concepts:

 Test-Retest Reliability – whether one gets the same results with different administrations of the same 

 screen. It is usually expressed as a correlation between scores from the first and second

 administrations of the same screen. The higher the score (between zero and 1), the greater the

 correlations from the two test periods. Considerations of test-retest reliability of an instrument should

 be looking for scores over 0.85.

Internal Consistency Reliability –how strongly the items of a screen correlate with each other. If the

 items are designed to measure a single characteristic (e.g., depression) or risk (e.g., probability

 of having a substance use disorder), then the questions or items in the instrument should be highly

 correlated with the concept being measured and with each other. It is expressed as a statistic in which

 the average correlation of half of the items is compared to the average correlation of the other half.

 Again, the statistic can vary from zero (no reliability) to 1.0 (perfect reliability).

Review hearing – court proceedings that take place after disposition in which the court comprehensively 

reviews the status of a case, examines progress made by the parties since the conclusion of the 

disposition hearing, provides for correction and revision of the case plan, and makes sure that cases 

progress and children spend as short a time as possible in temporary placement.

Screening for child abuse or neglect, or both – observations and questions leading to a determination 

that a child may have been the victim of abuse or neglect, or both. These observations or questions are 

centered on issues of physical or sexual abuse, deprivation, and neglect of child’s basic needs or wellbeing.

Screening for substance use disorders – a set of routinely administered observations and questions 

leading to a determination that a person has a potential substance use disorder. Screening is conducted 

by child welfare service staff as well as community-based providers, hospital staff, other health or social 

services agency staff, or may be a specialized service conducted by an alcohol or drug counselor.

Sensitivity of a tool or instrument – how sensitive the screen is to detecting a given condition is 

expressed in a percentage. Sensitivity is the proportion or percentage of cases detected by the screening 

tool out of all individuals with the condition. In the case of screening for substance use disorders, 

sensitivity is expressed as the proportion of people who are properly identified as being at risk.

Specificity of a tool or instrument – how specific the tool is to detecting only the condition being 

screened for. It is expressed in a percentage and the higher the number, the fewer false positive mistakes. 

Among those without the condition, specificity is the proportion or percentage of cases correctly 
H-7

identified as not being at risk. Specificity of a screen concerns the ability to correctly identify negative 

cases as negative.

Substance use disorders (SUDs) – include the spectrums of substance abuse and dependence as defined 

by the diagnostic criteria of the American Psychological Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 

of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV):

 Substance use – the consumption of legal or illegal, or both, psychoactive substances.

 Substance abuse – a pattern of substance use that results in at least one of four consequences: (1)

 failure to fulfill role obligations, (2) use placing one in danger (e.g., driving under the influence), (3)

 legal consequences, or (4) interpersonal/social problems. 

 Substance dependence – a pattern of use resulting in at least three of seven dependence criteria as

 specified in the DSM-IV: (1) tolerance, (2) withdrawal, (3) unplanned use, (4) persistent desire or

 failure to reduce use, (5) spending a great deal of time using, (6) sacrificing activities to use, or (7)

 physical/psychological problems related to use. 

Termination of parental rights (TPR) hearing – a hearing or trial in which severance of all legal ties 

between child and parents is sought, and in which the burden of proof must be by clear and convincing 

evidence; also referred to in some States as a “severance,” “guardianship with the power to consent to 

adoption,” “permanent commitment,” “permanent neglect,” or “modification” hearing. ASFA requires 

that a termination of parental rights petition be filed, except in certain cases, when a child of any age is 

under the responsibility of the State for 15 months out of the most recent 22 months. (The clock starts 

to run on the date of the first judicial finding of abuse or neglect or 60 days after the child is removed 

from the home, whichever is earlier.). ASFA also requires that a termination petition be filed when a 

court has determined a child to be an abandoned infant, or for cases in which a parent has committed 

murder or voluntary manslaughter of another child of the parent or a felony assault that has resulted in 

serious bodily injury to the child or another child. ASFA lists some exceptions that can be made to these 

requirements.

Treatment plan – an individualized plan of action based on a comprehensive assessment, with 

measurable goals and outcomes developed by a participant and substance abuse specialist to reduce or 

eliminate substance use and related adverse consequences.

Validity – the degree in which a test or other measuring device is truly measuring what it is intended to 

measure. There are four basic subtypes of validity: concurrent, construct (or criterion), face (or content), 

and predictive:

 Concurrent validity – means that two or more screens arrive at the same or similar answer. It does

 not mean that either screen is accurate with respect to some criteria; it simply means that they agree.

 Construct, or criterion, validity – is the extent to which a screen agrees with a definitive criterion

 or definitely measures a given construct (e.g., depression or presence of a substance use disorder). To

 establish this type of validity, we must have a definitive determination of what we are trying to

 identify. For example, in oncology, the biopsy is the definitive determination of whether a growth

 is malignant or not. All types of cancer screens are judged against the biopsy results to assess their

 accuracy. For this case in which the criterion for a test involves a categorical distinction, criterion

 validity may also be called discriminant validity—the test should discriminate between a positive or

 negative biopsy.
H-8

Face, or content, validity – means that the screen asks obvious questions related to the issue in

 question. In other words, if we are interested in substance use disorders, the items (or questions) of

 the screen ask about problems with the use of substances. If we are interested in depressive disorders,

 face valid questions would ask, for example, about feeling depressed or about having trouble

 sleeping. This type of validity typically is not represented by a statistic, but rather subjectively.

 Predictive validity – determines whether the tool predicts what will happen? For example, various

 tests are employed to determine whether a given individual will be successful in college.

 Determining this type of validity requires monitoring future events (college success) and to verify

 whether the instrument correctly predicted what happened.
I-1

Appendix I

A Guide to Compliance With the

Indian Child Welfare Act

I-3

A Guide to Compliance With the Indian Child Welfare Act

Following is a guide to Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) compliance. This information, including 

the flow chart on page 12, is from the National Indian Child Welfare Association’s curriculum, “Cross 

Cultural Skills in Indian Child Welfare: Guide for the Non-Indian” (1987), with information derived 

from Oregon Children’s Services Division’s “A Guide and Checklist to ICWA Compliance,” developed 

by Maria Tenorio, ICWA Specialist, Salem, Oregon, 1986.

State rules and regulations may vary from this guide; therefore, workers should make sure they know 

what their agency requires. Also, many States supply sample letters and/or checklists for compliance. 

Following this guide will ensure compliance with the Act, but not necessarily State rules.

WHEN THE ACT APPLIES

Tribal–State Agreements

The first precaution in applying ICWA is to make sure there is no tribal State agreement that has specific 

procedures to follow. Several tribes now have agreements with State agencies on child welfare matters.

Not Covered

Juvenile delinquency proceedings (violations of criminal law) are not covered with two exceptions:

• Juvenile delinquency proceedings where parental rights may be terminated; and

 • Status offenses (juvenile delinquency proceedings which involve an offense that would not be a

 crime if committed by an adult, e.g., drinking, being a runaway, and being a truant)

Divorce proceedings when one parent is granted custody

Voluntary placement if the parent may regain custody “upon demand” (placement preferences still 

apply)

Covered

 • Foster care placements

 • Termination of parental rights

 • Preadoptive placements

Adoptive placements (include conversion from foster care to adoptive placement)

• Both voluntary and involuntary placements if parents can’t regain custody of child “upon demand”

 • Divorce proceedings in which neither parent will get custody

 • Juvenile delinquency proceedings where parental rights may be terminated

• Status offenses (juvenile delinquency proceedings which involve an offense that would not be a

 crime if committed by an adult, e.g., drinking, being a runaway, and being a truant)
I-4

Initial Determination

Oral Inquiry

At intake, and in every change or potential change in custody, the worker orally requests racial/ethnic 

data by reading aloud the racial/ethnic categories for the client’s self-identification and asks: “Which of 

the following do you consider yourself a member: Asian, Black, Hispanic, Indian, White?”

If the family member responds that he or she is Indian or believes there is Indian ancestry, the worker 

fills out a family tree chart with the help of client family or other form provided by the agency.

Indian Tribe Verified

If the Indian tribal name and/or address is given, proceed to next section.

Indian Heritage Uncertain

If the parents are unavailable or unable to provide a reliable answer regarding the Indian heritage of their 

children—

• Make a thorough review of all documentation in the case record;

 • Contact the previous caseworker, if any; and

 • Make a close observation of the physical characteristics of the child, parents, siblings, and

 relatives.

Indian Tribe Unknown

If, in following the above steps, you have reason to believe the child is Indian, you will need to identify 

the Indian tribe by—

• Consulting with other relatives or extended family members; and

 • Contacting, as appropriate, the suspected tribe, an Indian social services organization, or the

 Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Inquiry to Indian Tribe

• The worker checks with the child’s tribe to determine whether the child is a member or is eligible

 for membership. If several tribes are suspected, the worker should send the inquiry letter to all of

 them.

• The worker can also telephone tribe(s), since this inquiry does not constitute the required official

 notice to a tribe. Any phone conversation should be documented in the case record with a letter to

 the effect, “As we discussed by phone today, you believe (stated)... etc.”

Tribe Does Not Respond

If the tribe does not respond, call the tribal enrollment officer and follow up with a letter documenting 

the conversation.
I-5

Child Eligible for Membership

• If the tribe responds that the child is eligible for membership, request (or assist the family in filling

 out) application forms. Proceed to next section.

• If necessary, counsel parents hesitant to enroll a child by emphasizing the positive benefits of tribal

 membership.

Child Eligible for Membership

Once a tribe has determined that a child is not a member and not eligible for membership, the response 

must be documented in the case record, including date and source of documentation:

• Document all steps taken to determine the child’s Indian or tribal ancestry; and

 • File in the case record the tribe’s written statement declaring the child ineligible for membership.

Incorporate in any court hearing the tribe’s written statement declaring the child ineligible for 

membership.

Cultural Heritage Protection

For cases in which ICWA does not apply, but the child is biologically an Indian, and considered Indian 

by the Indian community, follow the Act in your case planning. Respect the child’s right to participate 

in the culture of origin, particularly if such child is identifiably Indian by physical features and/or social 

relationships declaring the child to be Indian.

THE STATE MAY HAVE NO JURISDICTION

Exclusive Jurisdiction

Some tribes have exclusive jurisdiction over child welfare matters. If the child is a member of such a 

tribe, the child must be released to his or her parents unless this is an emergency (protective services) 

removal. You may wish to make a referral to the tribe’s social services department to notify them of the 

family’s difficulties.

Nationwide tribes with exclusive jurisdiction as of 1987 are Yakima, Spokane, Colville, and 

Muckleshoot (Washington); Omaha (Nebraska); Penobscot (Maine); Lac Courte Oreilles and Ho-Chunk 

Nation (formerly known as the Wisconsin Winnebago) (Wisconsin); Passamaquoddy (Maine); White 

Earth (Minnesota); and Warm Springs and Burns Paiute (Oregon).

Tribal Court Ward

A tribe has exclusive jurisdiction over tribal court wards, regardless of the child’s residence or domicile.

If there is reason to believe that the child has resided or is domiciled on the reservation, phone the tribal 

court clerk to ask whether the child is a ward of the tribal court.

If yes, the child must be released to parents or custodians unless this is an emergency (protective 

services) removal. You may wish to make a referral to the tribe’s social services department at the same 

time.
I-6

If not, be sure to document this fact in the case record.

NOTICE

Timelines

No requests for a court proceeding (with the exception of emergency removals) can be made until—

• At least 10 days after receipt of notice by parents or custodian, OR after 30 days if 20 days is

 requested by the parents or custodian to prepare for the proceeding; OR

• At least 10 days after receipt of notice by the tribe, OR after 30 days if the tribe requests an

 additional 20 days to prepare for the proceeding; OR

• No fewer than 15 days after receipt of notice by the BIA. (See below.)

Who Receives Notice

• Parents, always

 • Custodian, if one is involved

 • Tribe, always

 • If child is affiliated with or eligible for membership in more than one tribe, all tribes should

 receive notice

• The BIA only if the identity/location of parents or custodians cannot be determined

Service of Notice

Notice should be served in person whenever possible; otherwise, notice should be served by registered 

mail, return receipt requested. File a copy of this notice with the court, along with any returned receipts 

or other proof of service.

Tribe Does Not Respond

Even if a tribe does not respond to an official notice sent, or if the tribe replies that it does not wish 

to intervene in the proceeding, continue to send the tribe notices of every proceeding. It is important 

to keep the tribe informed because the tribe can intervene at any point in the proceeding to assert its 

interest and the tribe has the right to notice of all hearings, motions, and other actions related to the case.

Translation of Notice

If there is reason to believe that the parent or Indian custodian will not understand the notice because 

of possible limited English proficiency, a copy of the notice shall be sent to the BIA Area Office nearest 

to the residence of that person. BIA staff should be requested to arrange to have the notice explained in 

the language that the person best understands. The BIA, by Federal regulation, is required to assist in 

identifying interpreters.

Transfer to Tribal Court

Section 191 L(b) of ICWA allows the parent or custodian or Indian tribe to transfer the proceeding to 

tribal court. The State court must transfer the proceeding unless the tribal court declines jurisdiction, 
I-7

either parent objects to such transfer, or if the court determines that good cause exists to deny the 

transfer.

If the tribe requests orally, or in writing, a transfer of the proceeding to its tribal court—

• Inform the parents or custodians of their right to object to the transfer.

If any party believes that good cause exists not to transfer the proceeding:

• They should state in writing their reasons for such belief; and

• Their written statement must be distributed to all parties so that everybody has the opportunity to

 provide the court with their views.

Services To Prevent Out of Home Placement

Active efforts must be undertaken to provide remedial services subsequent to an investigation and before 

a decision is made to place the child out of the home. Proceed by—

• Contacting the tribal social services program for involvement at the earliest possible point; and

• Using other community services specifically designed for Indian families:

  Extended family; 

  Urban Indian program, when appropriate; and 

  Individual Indian caregivers, such as medicine men.

Definition of Active Efforts

Active effort means not just an identification of the problems or solutions, but efforts showing an active 

attempt to assist in both arranging for the best-fitting services and helping families to engage in those 

services. These can be demonstrated by—

• Making an evaluation of the family’s circumstances that takes into account the prevailing social

 and cultural conditions and the way of life of the child’s tribe and/or Indian community.

• Intervening only when supported by relevant, prevailing Indian social and cultural standards

 regarding intervention in familial relationships by people who are not members of the family:

  Develop a case plan with assistance of the parent/custodian that involves use of tribal Indian

 community resources;

  Encourage maintenance of the child in his or her own family except where physical or

 emotional harm may result; and

  Involve the child, if old enough, in the design and implementation of the case plan.

• Providing time and resources to prevent family breakup in at least equal measure to time and

 resources provided to other families.

• Assisting parents or custodian and child in maintaining an ongoing familial relationship.
I-8

Documentation

All remedial services offered to the family need to be recorded to demonstrate that, prior to petitioning 

for removal, active efforts were made to alleviate the need to remove the child. The case record cannot 

simply state that such efforts were unsuccessful, but efforts must be shown to be unsuccessful.

Before court proceedings to remove a child are initiated, case records should document that:

• Conduct or condition of the parent will result in serious physical or emotional harm to the child;

 and

 • Efforts were made to counsel and change the parent’s behavior, but did not work.

Documentation in the case record should relate indications of the likelihood of serious emotional 

or physical damage to particular conditions in the home, showing a causal relationship between the 

conditions and the serious damage that is likely to result to the child. (For example, it is not adequate to 

show that the parent abuses alcohol. It is necessary to show how, because of alcohol abuse, the parent 

may cause emotional or physical damage to the child.)

BURDEN OF PROOF

Through ICWA, Congress has declared that an Indian child may not be removed simply because there 

is someone else willing to raise the child who is likely to do a better job or that it would be “in the best 

interests of the child” for him or her to live with someone else. Nor can a placement or termination 

of parental rights be ordered simply based on a determination that the parents or custodians are “unfit 

parents.” It must be shown that it is dangerous for the child to remain in his or her present conditions.

Foster Care Placement: Clear and Convincing Evidence

ICWA states that a court may not issue an order effecting a foster care placement of an Indian child in 

the absence of a determination, supported by clear and convincing evidence, including the testimony 

of one or more qualified expert witnesses, that the child’s continued custody with the child’s parents or 

Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.

Termination of Parental Rights: Evidence Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

In order to ask the court to terminate parental rights, the agency as petitioner must show the court by 

evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including the testimony of one or more qualified expert witnesses, 

that continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious 

emotional or physical damage to the child.

Clear and Convincing

This is a high level of proof, though not as high as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It means that in 

order to be successful, the side favoring foster placement must present evidence that is not just slightly 

more persuasive than the evidence against it, but clearly more persuasive.
I-9

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

This means that the side favoring termination must not only put on a more convincing case than the 

opposition, but must be so convincing that it eliminates all reasonable doubts in the mind of the person 

deciding the case. If the court fails to do so, the court is obligated by the Act to deny termination.

Qualified Expert Witnesses

Persons with the following characteristics are considered most likely to qualify as experts:

• A member of the Indian child’s tribe who is recognized by the tribal community as knowledgeable

 in tribal customs as they pertain to family organization and child rearing practices;

 • A layperson having substantial education and experience in the area of his or her specialty along

 with substantial knowledge of prevailing social and cultural standards and child rearing practices

 within the Indian child’s tribe; or

• A professional person having substantial education and experience in the area of his or her

 specialty along with substantial knowledge of prevailing social and cultural standards and child

 rearing practices within the Indian community.

This list is not meant to be exhaustive or limited in any manner. Enlist the assistance of the Indian 

child’s tribe in locating persons qualified to serve as expert witnesses. The BIA is also required to 

provide this assistance.

PLACEMENT OF INDIAN CHILDREN

A diligent search to follow the Act’s placement preferences shall include, at a minimum—

• Contact with the tribe’s social services program;

• Search of State and county lists of Indian homes; and

 • Contact with other tribes and Indian organizations with available placement resources.

Foster Care/Preadoptive

Contact the tribe to ask whether it has a different placement preference from the following:

 1. Member of child’s extended family;

 2. Foster home licensed, approved, or specified by the Indian child’s tribe; 

 3. Indian foster home licensed or approved by an authorized non Indian; or

 4. Institution for children approved by an authorized non-Indian licensing authority.

Change of Placement: Notify Parents

If the child is to be moved from one placement to another, or if the foster family plans to move, the 

child’s parents or custodians must be notified in writing. Follow placement preferences outlined above, 

unless the child is returned to parents or custodians.
I-10

Adoptive Placements

Contact the tribe to ask whether it has a different placement preference from the following:

 1. Child’s extended family;

 2. Other members of the child’s tribe; or

 3. Other Indian families.

Disrupted Adoptive Placements

If an adoption is vacated or set aside, or adoptive parents voluntarily consent to termination of parental 

rights, the Indian parents or custodians must be notified:

• Notice of their right for a return of their child must include a statement that such petition will be 

 granted unless the court rules it is not in the child’s best interest.

 • Where parental rights have been terminated, it is up to the agency to decide whether or not to

 notify parents or custodians of their right to petition for a return of their child.

Documentation

Written records are to be maintained on each child, separate from the court record, of all placements and 

efforts to comply with required placement records. This record shall contain the following:

• The petition or complaint;

• All substantive orders entered; and

 • Complete record of placement determination.

Where required placement preferences have not been followed, efforts to find suitable placements within 

those priorities shall be documented in detail.

Voluntary Placements

Consent cannot be accepted unless—

• The child is older than 10 days old;

• The consent is in writing and recorded before a judge; and

 • The consent is accompanied by the judge’s certificate ensuring that terms and consequences of the

 consent were—

  Fully explained in detail and fully understood by the Indian parents or custodians; and

  Fully explained in English or interpreted into a language understood by the parents or

 custodians.
I-11

Consent signed by Indian parents or custodians should contain the following:

• Name and birth date of child;

• Name of child’s tribe;

 • Child’s enrollment number or other indication of membership in the tribe;

 • Name and address of consenting parents or custodians;

 • Name and address of prospective parents, if known, for substitute care placements; and

 • Name and address of person or agency through which placement is being arranged, if any, for

 adoptive placements.

EMERGENCY REMOVALS

Unless circumstances do not permit such inquiry, the racial/ethnic status of the child shall be 

immediately determined by asking:

Of which of the following do you consider yourself a member?

 Asian Black Hispanic Indian White

Indian: Name of tribe and/or band:

Emergency protective custody of any Indian child can be taken only if—

• the child is not located on the reservations of tribes that have jurisdiction over child custody

 proceedings; and

• the child is in danger of imminent physical damage or harm.

Placement

If the child is believed to be Indian, efforts shall be made to place the child during emergency care in a 

setting that follows the placement priorities established by either the tribe or ICWA:

 1. A member of the child’s extended family;

 2. A foster home licensed, approved, or specified by the Indian child’s tribe;

 3. An Indian foster home licensed or approved by an authorized non Indian licensing authority; or

 4. An institution for children approved by an Indian tribe or operated by an Indian organization that 

 has a program suitable to meet the child’s needs.

Termination of Placement

Emergency custody must be terminated when removal is no longer necessary to prevent imminent 

physical damage or harm to the child, or the appropriate tribe exercises jurisdiction over the case.
I-12

Continuation of Custody

If termination of an emergency removal is not possible, a court order should be obtained authorizing 

continued protective custody. The petition filed in such a proceeding should include the following in 

addition to that information required by State law:

• The name, age, tribal affiliation, and last known address of the Indian child;

• The name and address of the child’s tribe and parents and/or Indian custodian, if any. If unknown,

 the agency shall provide a detailed description of efforts made to locate them;

• If known, whether the residence or domicile of the parent, Indian custodian, or child is on or near

 a reservation, and which reservation;

• A specific and detailed account of the circumstances that led to the conclusion that the child would

 suffer imminent physical damage or harm; and

• A specific plan of action to restore the child to his or her parents or Indian custodian, or to transfer

 the child to the jurisdiction of the appropriate Indian tribe.

Will ICWA Apply?

ICWA

may apply

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Decision

Result or activity

=

=

Normal state

procedures apply

Normal state

procedures apply

ICWA

may apply

Start

Is 

child a member

of a federally

recognized

tribe?

Yes

No Yes

No

No

Yes

ICWA

Protection applies

Divorce Delinquency

• Foster care

• Termination

• Adoption

Normal state

procedures apply

Will at least

one parent get

custody?

Adult crime?

Which type

of processing?

Is 

child eligible for

membership and

biological child

of a tribal

member?

Is 

child under 18

and

unmarried?

Source: National Indian Child Welfare Association. (2002). Online ICWA course. Accessed 

September 18, 2006, at http://www.nicwa.org/services/icwa/index.asp
J-1

Appendix J

Acknowledgments of Contributors 

and Reviewers

J-3

Acknowledgment of Contributors and Reviewers

Screening and Assessment for Family Engagement, Retention, and Recovery (SAFERR) is the 

culmination of a 3-year project of the National Center on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare 

(NCSACW). The project benefited from the input, authorship and review of numerous individuals and 

organizations. Nancy K. Young, Ph.D., served as project director, Mary Nakashian, M.A., authored 

and edited the final draft, and Shaila Yeh, M.S.W., created the first draft. Norman Hoffman, Ph.D., and 

Gerald Shulman, M.A., drafted the appendix on screening and assessment instruments. Sharon Amatetti, 

M.P.H., served as the Government Project Officer from SAMHSA (CSAT) and drafted sections of the 

report; Irene Bocella, M.S.W., and Catherine Nolan, M.S.W., served as the Project Officers from ACF.

Initial conceptualization of the SAFERR approach was developed by a devoted workgroup of experts 

from the fields of substance abuse, child welfare, and courts that included: Christine Bailey, J.D., 

Angie Brown, M.S.W., Bruce Campbell, M.S.W., Kim Dennis, M.P.A., Sidney Gardner, M.P.A., 

Tom Gilman, M.A., Norman Hoffman, Ph.D., Debbie Jeter, M.S.W., Norah Lovato, M.S.W., 

Carolyn Maple, M.S.W., Sharon Milburn, Ph.D., Mary Nakashian, M.A., Kathy Nardini, M.A., 

Joey Orduna, J.D., and Gerald Shulman, M.A.

The refinement and development of implementation tools was accomplished by the NCSACW

Community Expert Panel whose members include A.E. Gus Abeita, M.S.W., Milagros Batista, 

Elena Cohen, M.S.W., Cherie Craft, Beverly W. Jones, M.S.W., Patti Juliana, A.C.S.W., Lynne Katz, 

Ed.D., Cynthia Lu, J.D., Jan McCarthy, M.S.W., Joyce McEwen-Crawford, M.S.W., Karen Mooney, 

M.S.W., L.C.S.W., Toni Moore, M.P.A., L.C.S.W., Peter Nucci, Gary Proctor, J.D., Hon. James Ray, 

Pamela Rodriguez, Don See, LISW, LPCC, CCDC III-E, Andrea L. Strother, M.S.W., C.S.W., and 

Naomi Weinstein. 

Reviewers and contributors included staff from the NCSACW Consortium member organizations 

including the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA), Child Welfare League of 

America (CWLA), National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors (NASADAD), 

National Counsel of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), and the National Indian Child Welfare 

Association (NICWA). 

Finally, we wish to acknowledge the dedicated staff from State agencies and a tribe who have worked 

with NCSACW to refine the approach, have offered lessons on implementation, and have created 

practice and policy protocols and tools to improve screening and assessment processes in an effort to 

improve the outcomes for families affected by substance use disorders and child maltreatment. These 

States and the tribe include Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan, Virginia, 

and the Squaxin Island Tribe of the Pacific Northwest. The consultants who have worked with these 

States and the Squaxin Island Tribe and have provided rich lessons and expertise to this effort and to 

NCSACW include: Liz Breshears, Ph.D., Bruce Campbell, M.S.W., Kari Earle, M.A., Nadja Jones, 

M.S.W., Mary Nakashian, M.A., Hon. Nicolette Pach (Ret.), and Joe Anna Sullivan. 




DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 07-4261

Printed 2007