Structured Decision Making (SDM)

Scientific Rating:
3
See scale of 1-5
Child Welfare Relevance Level:
High

See descriptions of 3 levels

Brief Description

The information in this program outline is provided by the program representative and edited by the CEBC staff. The Structured Decision Making (SDM) program has been rated by the CEBC in the area of: Child Welfare Initiatives.

  • Types of Maltreatment: Does not target any specific kind of maltreatment
  • Target Population: Families referred to and assessed by CPS agencies.

SDM is a comprehensive case management system for Child Protective Services (CPS). CPS workers employ objective assessment procedures at major case decision points from intake to reunification to improve child welfare decision-making. SDM targets agency services to children and families at high risk of maltreatment and helps ensure that service plans reflect the strengths and needs of families. When effectively implemented, it increases the consistency and validity of case decisions, reduces subsequent child maltreatment, and expedites permanency. The assessments from the model also provide data that help agency managers monitor, plan, and evaluate service delivery operations.

Essential Components

The primary goal of the SDM case management system in CPS is to reduce the subsequent maltreatment of children in families where an abuse or neglect incident has occurred. The underlying logic is that the best way to accomplish this goal is to accurately identify families at high risk for maltreatment, prioritize them for agency service intervention, and then effectively deliver services appropriate to their needs. The following SDM assessments were designed to help workers make decisions necessary to accomplish these tasks. Use of the assessments can also help bring a greater degree of consistency, objectivity, and validity to case decisions. The model includes the following components:

  • The safety assessment helps workers identify the immediate protective service interventions (including child removal) required, if any, during a CPS investigation or case.
  • A research-based risk assessment estimates the likelihood of future abuse and/or neglect and informs the decision to provide services and how often a worker should have contact with a family.
  • An objective strengths and needs assessment helps workers identify and prioritize the specific service interventions needed to construct an effective treatment plan.
  • Periodic reassessments of safety, risk, and needs measure progress and help workers update the treatment plan and review readiness for case closure.
  • The reunification assessment informs workers' decision to reunify the child with his/her family or to change the permanency-planning goal.
  • Service levels (e.g., low, moderate, high, and intensive) based on results of the risk assessment guide the minimum contact standards a worker makes with the family. This practice ensures that staff time and attention are concentrated on those families at the highest levels of risk and need.

Child Component

Structured Decision Making (SDM) was not designed with a child component.

Parent / Caregiver Component

Structured Decision Making (SDM) was designed with a parent/caregiver component that addresses the following presenting problems and symptoms:

  • Child involved in the Child Welfare system.

Group Format

Structured Decision Making (SDM) was not designed to be conducted in a group setting, and has not been tested for use in a group setting.

Delivery Setting

This program is typically conducted in a(n):

  • Community Agency

Homework

This program does not include a homework component.

Languages

Structured Decision Making (SDM) does not have materials available in a language other than English.

Resources Needed to Run Program

The typical resources for implementing the program are:

Usually existing agency resources can be used. A management information systems component is strongly recommended.

Minimum Provider Qualifications

Minimum qualifications for workers using the case management system are determined by the CPS agency.

Education and Training Resources

There is a manual that describes how to implement this program, and there is training available for this program.

Training Contact:
Training is obtained:

Training is typically provided onsite, as either a training-for-trainers or direct training of workers and supervisors.

Number of days/hours:

2 to 4 days.

Relevant Published, Peer-Reviewed Research

This program is rated a "3 - Promising Research Evidence" on the Scientific Rating Scale based on the published, peer-reviewed research available. The practice must have at least one study utilizing some form of control (e.g., untreated group, placebo group, matched wait list study) establishing the practice's benefit over the placebo, or found it to be comparable to or better than an appropriate comparison practice. Please see the Scientific Rating Scale for more information.

Child Welfare Outcomes: Safety and Permanency

Johnson, K., & Wagner, D. (2005). Evaluation of Michigan's foster care case management system. Research on Social Work Practice, 15(5), 372-380.

Type of Study: Non-randomized comparison group matched by county
Number of Participants: 1722

Population:

  • Age range — 0 to 18
  • Race/Ethnicity — SDM: 79.5% White, 19.1% African American, 5% Other/Unknown; Comparison: 49.1% White, 43.9% African American, 7% Other/Unknown
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — Children in foster care at the beginning of the intervention.

Location / Institution: Michigan

Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations)
Counties implementing SDM were matched with counties using standard case management on demographics including race, percentage receiving public assistance, percentage below poverty line, and percentage in rural areas. They were also matched on administrative characteristics such as foster care caseload, ratio of cases per foster care worker, and percentage of cases managed under private agencies. Researchers assessed the permanency status of children at 15 months after placement. Permanency was defined as reunification with a parent, placement with another family member, adoption or ability to be adopted due to termination of parental rights or other permanent arrangement (e.g., independent living, guardian placement). Analysis showed a significantly higher percentage of permanent placements for the counties using SDM than for the comparison group. This difference held when age, ethnicity, and initial type of placement were controlled for. A greater number of comparison group children re-entered foster care than those in the counties using SDM (10.7% versus 7.9%), although this difference was not statistically significant.

Length of post-intervention follow-up: 12 months after placement.

References

Show references...

D’Andrade, A., Austin, M. J., & Benton, A. (2008). Risk and Safety Assessment in Child Welfare: Instrument Comparisons. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 5(102), 31-56.

Fontes, L. A. (2008). "Assessment instruments and structured decision making" in Child Abuse and Culture. New York: Guilford Press.

Shlonsky, A., & Wagner, D. (2005). The next step: Integrating actuarial risk assessment and clinical judgment into an evidence-based practice framework in CPS case management? Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 409-427.

Stewart, A., & Thompson, C. (2004). Comparative evaluation of child protection assessment tools. Queensland: Griffith University.

Wiebush, R., Freitag, R., & Baird, C. (2001). Preventing delinquency through improved child protection services. OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Contact Information

Name: Raelene Freitag, PhD
Agency/Affiliation: Children's Research Center
Website: www.nccd-crc.org/crc/crc/c_sdm_about.html
Email:
Phone: (608) 831-1180
Fax: (608) 831-6446

Date Reviewed: December 2009 (originally reviewed in June 2008)