Structured Decision Making (SDM) - Detailed Report

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.

Structured Decision Making (SDM) 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) establishing the practice's benefit over the placebo, or found it to be comparable to or better than an appropriate comparison practice. For more information on the rating of a “3 – Promising Research Evidence,” please see the Scientific Rating Scale.

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
strong>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
Status (e.g., foster care, CW): 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

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.

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.