--- title: "Child at Risk Response Teams" type: "pdf" year: "1998" canonical: "/projects/402" --- ![img-0.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/98-18/img-0.jpeg) # Child at Risk Response Teams (CARRT) # Table of Contents - [Child at Risk Response Teams (CARRT)](#child-at-risk-response-teams-carrt) - [Submitted for](#submitted-for) - [A. Scanning](#a-scanning) - [B. Analysis](#b-analysis) - [C. Response](#c-response) - [D. Assessment](#d-assessment) - [I. Workload Evaluation](#i-workload-evaluation) - [1. Total Calk Physically Responded to by CARRT](#1-total-calk-physically-responded-to-by-carrt) - [2. Repeat Calls for Service](#2-repeat-calls-for-service) - [3. Referral Source](#3-referral-source) - [IL CARRT Member Survey](#il-carrt-member-survey) - [1. Working Relationship with Partners](#1-working-relationship-with-partners) - [2. Job Satisfaction](#2-job-satisfaction) - [III, Agency User Survey](#iii-agency-user-survey) - [1. Working Relationship with CARRT and AFSS](#1-working-relationship-with-carrt-and-afss) - [2. Working Relationship with Child Abuse Section](#2-working-relationship-with-child-abuse-section) - [3. Availability of CARRT](#3-availability-of-carrt) - [IV. Overall Benefits](#iv-overall-benefits) - [I. An Initial Expert Response](#i-an-initial-expert-response) - [2. A Rapid Response](#2-a-rapid-response) - [3. Improved Information Sharing](#3-improved-information-sharing) - [4. Improved Response to Children at Risk Cases](#4-improved-response-to-children-at-risk-cases) - [5. Reduction in Calls for Service](#5-reduction-in-calls-for-service) - [6. Excellent Resource for Information](#6-excellent-resource-for-information) - [7. Reduced Demands on Follow-up Services](#7-reduced-demands-on-follow-up-services) - [S. A Much Needed Initiative](#s-a-much-needed-initiative) - [TV. Improvements to the Program](#tv-improvements-to-the-program) - [1. Location](#1-location) - [2. Education](#2-education) - [3. Expansion](#3-expansion) - [a) "To provide an effective response to complaints of children at risk".](#a-to-provide-an-effective-response-to-complaints-of-children-at-risk) - [APPENDIX I](#appendix-i) - [CARRT CAR SHEET](#carrt-car-sheet) - [APPENDIX 2](#appendix-2) - [CARRT EVALUATION TRACKING SHEET](#carrt-evaluation-tracking-sheet) - [1995-96](#1995-96) - [CARRT Evaluation Agency Survey](#carrt-evaluation-agency-survey) - [APPENDIX 4](#appendix-4) ## Submitted for The 1998 Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing Prepared by: S/Sgt Dave Veitch, S/Sgt Glenda Malina and Kim Moore Edmonton Police Service Telephone No.: 403) 421-3383 Fax No: 403) 421-3367 June 10, 1998 #### Abstract In 1994, the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) and the Department of Alberta Family and Social Services (AFSS) recognized the need to provide better services to children at risk. A literature review was conducted to locate other models which addressed joint agency interventions. Other police services were also contacted to locate similar types of programs. A joint pilot project was launched in July 1994. AFSS allocated a child welfare investigator from Crisis Unit to work a variety of shifts along side a police Sergeant. The child welfare investigator and sergeant responded to urgent child welfare complaints requiring police back-up as well as police calls involving children. Due to the success of the joint response, three Child at Risk Response Teams (CARRT) were launched in October 1995. Each team was made up of a police constable and child welfare investigator, all committed to the one-year project. An action plan was developed and approved, with the goals of the CARRT project to: - provide an effective response to complaints of children at risk. - ensure that children at risk are identified as early as possible. - provide follow-up services to these children by way of referral to appropriate agencies. An evaluation of the CARRT project was completed on November 1996. Both quantitative and qualitative data were used. The results clearly show that CARRT has had a profound impact on the way child centred complainants are responded to and dealt with. All established goals of the program were met. The benefits of the CARRT team were also identified in the evaluation. CARRT: - is an initial expert response. - is a rapid response to child at risk calls. - has improved the sharing of information between the two organizations. - is an improved response to children at risk cases. - has led to a reduction in calls for service for Child Abuse investigations by patrol. - is an excellent resource of information. - has reduced demands on follow-up services for both organizations. - is a much needed initiative. - develops expertise in the interview, investigation, and intervention service CARRT provides. Suggested improvements to the program included: - organizationally placing CARRT under the Child Abuse Section (achieved - 1998). - educating police personnel on CARRT (ongoing). - expanding the program to six Teams (approved -1998). All of these suggested changes to CARRT have been institutionalized within AFSS and the EPS. CARRT has been recognized by other police services, especially the Calgary Police Service that replicated a similar CARRT model. # Table of Contents A. Scanning ..... 1 B. Analysis ..... 2 C. Response ..... 3 D. Assessment ..... 5 I. Workload Evaluation ..... 5 1. Total Calls Responded to by CARRT ..... 5 2. Repeat Calls for Service ..... 5 3. Referral Source ..... 6 II. CARRT Member Survey ..... 6 4. Working Relationships with Partners ..... 6 5. Job Satisfaction ..... 6 III. Agency User Survey ..... 7 6. Working Relationship with CARRT and AFSS ..... 7 7. Working Relationship with Child Abuse ..... 7 8. Availability of CARRT ..... 8 IV. Overall Benefits ..... 8 9. An Initial Expert Response ..... 8 10. A Rapid Response ..... 8 11. Improved Information Sharing ..... 9 12. Improved Response to Children at Risk ..... 9 13. Reduction in Calls for Service ..... 10 14. Excellent Resource for Information ..... 10 15. Reduced Demand on Follow-up Service ..... 10 16. A Much Needed Initiative ..... 10 IV. Improvements to the Program ..... 11 17. Location ..... 11 18. Education ..... 11 19. Expansion ..... 11 E. Agency Information ..... 13 F. Appendices Appendix 1 Car Sheet Form Appendix 2 Tracking Sheet Form Appendix 3 Agency Survey Appendix 4 EPS Articles in Chiefs Newsletter Appendix 5 Newspaper Articles # A. Scanning The Edmonton Police Service's move towards a community based model in dealing with child abuse cases was based on the realization that the current model was ineffective. Child abuse cases reported to the EPS rose from 403 in 1987 and peaked to 1,020 in 1992, an increase of $153 \%$. The rising number of children at risk cases placed a tremendous burden on child abuse detectives. The EPS feared that the safety of children at risk may be compromised as a result of the heavy work load. The traditional solution of adding more personnel was not an option given financial restraints. ![img-1.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/98-18/img-1.jpeg) The rising number of children at risk cases in Edmonton has huge personal and societal costs. This is a serious problem for the community because of the impact that family violence has on the individuals and the families that make up the community. Abused children are traumatized by the experience. Early intervention in helping children could prevent more serious problems and reduce the need for more intensive intervention in the future. The EPS has long realized that it can not deal with child abuse cases in isolation and requires the cooperation and assistance of other social agencies. Traditionally, police and social work agencies have not engaged in collaborative efforts easily, and at times the two disciplines have even been at odds with one another, because of competing mandates. Difference in problem solving styles and value bases, have often set up barriers for working together. However, both departments were fully committed to provide an improved response to children at risk even amid budget constraints. The value of the two different disciplines, working together collaboratively, would ultimately lead to better solutions in assisting children and their families. # B. Analysis Prior to the implementation of the Child at Risk Response Teams (CARRT), police members would investigate and on occasion charge the offender, then contact AFSS when children were at obvious immediate risk. Police members would wait for a child welfare investigator to arrive on scene to assist with the situation. At times, police patrol members may have waited one or two hours for an available child welfare investigator. The police members on scene were often unaware of the family history which may have been available from AFSS and thus could have initiated an inappropriate response to the situation. In addition, children would often be interviewed twice due to this disjointed response. These delays could cause situations to escalate resulting in frustration for those involved. Conversely, AFSS also experienced similar problems. The Emergency Crisis Unit of AFSS provides emergency response to complaints of children at risk of abuse or neglect. Child welfare investigators are sent to homes to investigate complaints and in some situations they require protection during the apprehension of children and assistance from police officers by way of laying charges. Child welfare investigators would often find themselves waiting for police members to arrive to assist them in volatile situations. CARRT is an immediate interdisciplinary response to calls of children at risk. A police member and child welfare investigator work in a marked police car and provide immediate response to complaints where a child may be at risk. Since CARRT is an initial response, it was expected to reduce workload for both operational police members and crisis workers. The sharing of information between the EPS and AFSS and the joint follow-up, provided an improved response to children at risk. The joint problem solving approach would facilitate a reduction in child welfare complaints for both organizations. # C. Response In the fall of 1994, the EPS and the Department of AFSS recognized the need to provide better services to children at risk. A literature review was conducted to locate other models which addressed joint agency interventions. Other police services were also contacted to locate similar types of programs. One such model was found in Vancouver. The Vancouver Police Department, B. C. Ministry of Social Services (MSS) and greater Vancouver Mental Health Emergency Services (MHES) call their joint venture the Car 86/87 Project. It has been in operation for over ten years and comes under the Youth Services Unit of the Vancouver Police Department. Car 86 consists of a police constable and a MSS child welfare investigator. It is mandated to deal with child abuse and family violence situations where children are present. Car 87 is staffed by a police constable and a psychiatric nurse who are responsible for the psychiatric and social assessment of individuals thought to be mentally ill and in need of the emergency intervention team. No formal evaluation of the Car 86/87 Project had been conducted. Based on the Vancouver model, a pilot project was undertaken in Edmonton. The project initially did not engage in a team approach, but this was explored to determine whether the establishment of teams were needed. A child welfare investigator was given office space in Police Headquarters and assigned to work with patrol members in a Platoon. The child welfare investigator coordinated her activities by riding with one of the four Sergeants assigned to the Platoon. The Sergeant would "call shop" and assist the worker to proactively attend to child welfare related calls. The Edmonton model did not include a mental health emergency services component. The child welfare investigator provided support to police members through intervention and apprehension when circumstances warranted such action. The patrol members duties were two fold, to prevent the eruption of violence while the child welfare investigator conducted investigations on child welfare complaints and to lay criminal charges where necessary. This union of resources was found to be effective for immediate intervention; however, it did not maintain continuity for follow-up and in-depth problem solving. It was felt that the establishment of a consistent team of a police constable and child welfare investigator would provide better services. As a result, in October 31, 1995, three CARRT teams were established to respond city wide to children/family in crisis calls. Each team was made up of a police constable and child welfare investigator, all committed to the one-year project. An action plan was developed and approved. The goals of the CARRT project are to; - provide an effective response to complaints of children at risk. - ensure that children at risk are identified as early as possible. - provide follow-up services to these children by way of referral to appropriate agencies. An evaluation of the team approach was completed on November 1996. An evaluation team was set up with representation from both departments. Members of CARRT provided valuable input to the evaluation team. The evaluation captured the workloads of the teams as well as the views of inter-agency service providers, in determining the overall effectiveness of the project. Data was collected on all investigations that the team dealt with from January 1 to June 30, 1996. This data was used as a benchmark for future evaluations. The overall evaluation of CARRT was considered exploratory since with identified children at risk, there is no prior data on response times, number of repeat calls for service as well as time currently spent by both departments (AFSS and the EPS). Another evaluation of CARRT is scheduled to take place in the fall of 1998 to determine what longer term outcomes will be identified, and any emerging issues that need to be addressed. Workload handled by the team was collected and recorded on Car Sheets (see Appendix 1) and Tracking Sheets (see Appendix 2). CARRT members were surveyed to obtain their views of the program and were asked to comment on the benefits and drawbacks on CARRT (see Appendix 3). An agency survey (see Appendix 4) was distributed to AFSS and EPS personnel as well as other agencies who had dealings with CARRT in order to obtain input on the services provided by CARRT. # D. Assessment ## I. Workload Evaluation ## 1. Total Calk Physically Responded to by CARRT Approximately three out of four calls CARRT physically responded to were calls that originally would have been handled by both the EPS and Department of AFSS. Of the remaining calls, $12 \%$ would have only required police involvement and $8 \%$ only required social services involvement. It is unknown how the calls would have been normally handled for $5 \%$ of the calls. ![img-2.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/98-18/img-2.jpeg) ## 2. Repeat Calls for Service A repeat call is defined as a call which has been responded to by either the EPS or AFSS in the past two years. There are some calls that may reach the attention of AFSS and are unknown to the EPS. Conversely, the EPS may respond to a call for service that may not involve AFSS. The data shows that $70 \%$ of the cases that the teams responded to were repeat calls for AFSS while only $49 \%$ were repeat calls for the EPS. This indicates that AFSS had more knowledge of problem families than the EPS. The sharing of information would be invaluable to the Service in order to identify and effectively deal with problem families. Responding to chronic or repeat family centered calls is significantly different then "repeat address" problems because these individuals are frequently moving. Therefore, capturing repeat locations needed to be replaced by identifying repeat family. This approach in and of itself, created a significant paradigm shift in taking a problem solving approach. # 3. Referral Source CARRT received about $60 \%$ referrals from the Crisis Unit. All calls from the Child Welfare system were funneled through the supervisor at the Crisis Unit. About 37\% of the calls were from the EPS. Of these calls, about $50 \%$ were from the Communications Division. The dispatchers from Communications were well aware of the type of calls handled by CARRT and in many occasions called CARRT directly and advised them of calls that may fall within their mandate. As a result, CARRT was able to respond to calls in a timely fashion. ## IL CARRT Member Survey ## 1. Working Relationship with Partners The method of selection of members is critical to the success of CARRT. Child welfare investigators and police officers were satisfied with the partners they worked with as evidenced by the comments taken from their survey responses. Personally, I have had nothing but great people to work with. The two regular people I have worked with have been professional, enthusiastic and a pleasure to work with. The fill-ins have been the same. Along with the professionalism, all of them have a great sense of humor which makes this difficult job much easier establishing a team approach. I can only speak on my own partnership dealings. Both my regular partners as well as other Crisis Unit members are very personable yet professional. My regular partner and I get along like a welt-oiled machine. It feels like we've been partners for years already. ## 2. Job Satisfaction All CARRT members indicated that they are satisfied with their current jobs. Generally police constables felt that they made a difference in helping children at risk. I am very satisfied with my current position. Working with CARRT is much busier than street-related duties. There is great job satisfaction when you go home and realize how you assisted needy families and children. It is more rewarding than I expected I have worked with other specialized units, but this one is the most demanding on your analytical, investigative and interpersonal skills. It is hard work but you feel great! Some felt that CARRT improved their investigative skills, but the current workload as well as the type of work involved is very stressful, CARRT has provided me with not only a professional satisfaction but one of personal growth. It has helped me develop skills and make contacts within the community. In comparison with other units which I have worked in CARRT does not have the same freedom and flexibility. I feel that whenever I am on duty we are the only show in town. At times this becomes frustrating when we cannot be at every call, assist every mit or can find the time to do the required workload. # III, Agency User Survey ## 1. Working Relationship with CARRT and AFSS Of the 166 surveyed ( $96 \%$ ) believed that their working relationship with CARRT was either good or excellent. The CARRT Team is beneficial as it has facilitated a better working relationship with the EPS andAFSS. There is now an improved closer working relationship between AFSS and the EPS. There are more charges laid in Child Welfare cases and better information sharing between the two departments. ## 2. Working Relationship with Child Abuse Section The Child Abuse Section of the EPS is responsible for investigating all serious or complex cases of child abuse reported to the Service. Generally, patrol constables respond to an address of a reported incident of child abuse or neglect When the patrol member determines there is a need to do a joint interview of a young child or it is a "serious" or "complex" case, a detective from the Child Abuse Section may be called out to investigate. If it is not emergent in nature, a report will be submitted and a copy sent to Child Abuse for follow up. As an initial response, CARRT has been able to take calls that may normally have required the dispatch of a detective from the Child Abuse Section or would have been delayed by a report submitted and later followed up by a detective and social worker. With CARRT, a joint police/child welfare interview of children can take place immediately. Detectives from Child Abuse indicated that CARRT has reduced their workload. Investigations conducted by CARRT were thorough and complete, with appropriate charges being laid immediately. # 3. Availability of CARRT The majority of respondents indicated that they have experienced some difficulty in reaching the CARRT Teams (58\%). AFSS District Office Workers (71\%) as opposed to police members (56\%) and Crisis Workers ( $40 \%$ ) have experienced more difficulty in reaching CARRT members. The CARRT teams are not always available or the AFSS District Offices is unable to contact them. CARRT is a good resource if you can get them to come! This was primarily due to: CARRT members being tied up on calls; with only three teams, they were off duty because with only three teams they could not provide 24 hour coverage; or when police/AFSS members were off; short term replacements were not obtained ## IV. Overall Benefits ## I. An Initial Expert Response Team members are specialists in the investigation of child abuse and neglect complaints. They are able to investigate, assess and take appropriate action while conducting the primary investigation into these complaints. Members who have CARRT experience are much more comfortable investigating these complaints, as they become more competent in their investigations. These joint, initial investigations also reduced the number of times child victims of physical and sexual abuse had to be interviewed, thereby reducing the traumatization to the child. # 2. A Rapid Response The teams work in a response-to-call mode, and took calls that came in for dispatch or investigation. The joint response saved both agencies time because the members of the team were familiar with each others style, they could conduct investigations more effectively. Response time was reduced as the police officer and child welfare investigator did not have to wait for the other members, making it a more efficient use of resources. CARRT responds to child welfare situations where police presence is required. The police members responds with the Child welfare investigator, therefore you have an immediate response. One benefit is the timely joint response. CARRT has developed strong police and child welfare investigator teams. There is improved communications between agencies. There is now a joint consistent response to child abuse matters. ## 3. Improved Information Sharing Prior to the implementation of CARRT, the lack of information sharing between the two departments, sometimes lead to a delayed response to protect the children involved. The sharing of information between the child welfare investigator and police member on CARRT has resulted in better investigations and improved services to children at risk cases. CARRT has resulted in better quality investigations. Patrol constables respond to the original complaint but do not deal with child welfare complaints on a regular basis. Therefore, they do not usually have the time to follow-up on very critical ongoing investigations. A good example involves a 3 year old boy without his medication. A lengthy investigation determined the child may have been neglected for a long period of time. Patrol members would not have the time or resources to determine this. This file has gone back and forth from the EPS and the Crown Prosecutor Office for three months. The continuous work between Crisis Unit, Social Services, Police and Hospital is critical for a conviction in court and most importantly for the child. ## 4. Improved Response to Children at Risk Cases Given the better information sharing between AFSS and the police, CARRT became a much more efficient and effective way to deal with child at risk situations. Time is critical in police work. With less manpower on the street, CARRT saves the EPS time and money. The very unique investigations with children require experienced police members. CARRT can investigate and conclude child welfare files in a lot less time than regular patrol members, thus freeing them up for other calls. # 5. Reduction in Calls for Service Since CARRT in most instances, is the initial response, patrol members have noticed that having CARRT has reduced the number of calls for their response, which gives them more time to problem solve at other calls. ## 6. Excellent Resource for Information Not only does CARRT act as the initial response to calls for service, but they are helpful in providing useful advice and guidance to members on the street in dealing with child at risk cases. CARRT provides an extra avenue for police officers to obtain a professional opinion as well as advice and assistance on child at risk situations. CARRT members provide patrol members with their expert opinion regarding child welfare matters. They allow for good decisions to be made based on their expertise from the police and social service perspective. ## 7. Reduced Demands on Follow-up Services The members of the E.P.S. Child Abuse Section found that CARRT was able to complete the investigations of many files that they formerly would have received from Patrol members for investigation. These were those files that fall into a middle ground; they could have been investigated either by a Patrol member, or by a Child Abuse detective. The Child Abuse detectives have been provided with more time to work on their major investigations. ## S. A Much Needed Initiative AH those who worked with CARRT saw many benefits of having the program. Both police members and child welfare investigators feel that the joint response to child at risk cases is a much needed initiative. Detailed Project Description of CARRT This is an outstanding interagency initiative. We should have had something like this years ago. CARRT brings two services with two outlooks and two areas of resources to complaints but both have the common goal to make a difference. There is now a consistent response in dealing with child at risk cases versus individual responses from AFSS or the EPS. # TV. Improvements to the Program Everyone surveyed, including child welfare investigators, crisis workers, CARRT members and detectives, provided comments as to how CARRT can improve its services to children at risk. The following reflect their suggestions. ## 1. Location Operationally, detectives felt that CARRT should be part of the Child Abuse Section based on the type of work they do. It makes sense to include CARRT as part of the Child Abuse Unit. Right now, there is a need to develop a closer working relationship with CARRT. There is a natural link between us and CARRT. Being located in the same office and having the same unit head is advantageous to CARRT as well as for Child Abuse Section. There is no need for the separation of the two areas. ## 2. Education When asked about how CARRT can improve its services to children at risk, crisis workers indicated that there was a need to educate police officers about CARRT. There is a need to educate police officers. Crisis Unit has been dealing with child at risk cases for years. CARRT child welfare investigators are the same as Crisis Unit Workers. Police officers should be comfortable using either. # 3. Expansion All detectives felt that expansion of the CARRT program was necessary. They saw a need for more teams on the street for increased coverage. This would provide better service to families and children at risk. It would be a tremendous loss if the CARRT program was stopped. Instead of looking at cutting the program, we should look at expanding it. CARRT does a lot of good work. We should increase the number of units available and extend their hours for better coverage. CARRT members felt that the optimal staffing level was to have six teams. A total of six teams is required. There would be two teams working per watch enabling better city-wide coverage and back-up. There are many files CARRT could not attend to due to time. We need three more members for the following reason. First, there is too much work for the existing 3 members who often miss lunch and work for unpaid overtime. Second, we often require another police unit for back-up and use Patrol members for assistance. This ties up a Patrol unit. Thus CARRT members have done arrests without back-up which is an officer safety issue. Overall, the results clearly show that CARRT has achieved its initial goals and objectives. These goals, and their outcomes, are as follows: ## a) "To provide an effective response to complaints of children at risk". CARRT enables both systems to be more efficient. There is no time waiting for the other investigator to arrive at the scene of a child welfare complaint Once the investigation starts, both members of the team know what tasks need to be done and are familiar with their roles. CARRT is also effective due to more information sharing and joint expertise by both members. The team members know what options are available in their systems, and can readily access these resources. Moreover, the inter-disciplinary teams are able to come up with better solutions due to the different expertise of the members involved. A problem solving approach is advocated and expected. The dedication and commitment of EPS and AFSS is clearly demonstrated by the fact that additional resources have now been allocated to CARRT. In 1997 a fourth team was approved and implemented. Two additional teams have been approved and recruitment is presently underway to increase CARRT to a total of six teams. Interviews are currently under way to satisfy the selection process for selecting individuals for the anticipated two teams. A joint video was produced describing the operation of the team and its effectiveness. As an indication of the support in the community, the production costs of the video were totally paid for by the Edmonton Rotary Club. The Edmonton media were also supportive of CARRT in numerous newspaper articles (see Appendix 5). In addition, a detailed submission to the Provincial Premiers Award for Excellence was presented and won the bronze award, and will be presented on June 16,1998. CARRT has been recognized by other police services as an excellent endeavor and multiple requests for information about the program have been received. The Calgary Police Service has replicated the CARRT-model after extensive consultation with the EPS. The EPS is committed to the interdisciplinary approach of CARRT. The Service already has developed partnerships with other social agencies to deal with problem families because it has been proven to be a more effective way and prevent gaps in delivery. The EPS recognizes that much of the crimes that occur have their roots in some form of a dysfunctional family. Not only is CARRT considered a problem solving approach to dealing with children potentially at risk, it is also a problem solving approach to working with families in crisis. This has led to the creation of a Family Protection Services Division. CARRT is now located under the Child Abuse Section within Family Protection Services Division. This has led to open discussions on child abuse cases and assisted CARRT members to develop their investigative skills further. A job description was developed and documented in the EPS Policy and Procedure Manual. The EPS has made a statement through the creation of CARRT that collaboratively response with other departments is an organizational priority. CARRT stands as an excellent example of taking a problem solving model approach to intervening, protecting, and ultimately preventing situations where children are involved. CARRT also embodies on the key principal of community policing by creating effective partnerships between AFSS and the EPS; many other agencies are engaged in safeguarding kids and families. # APPENDIX I # CARRT CAR SHEET | Date | Watch | Police Member | Mike Malish | Mike Malish | | | Social Worker | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | 2nd | John Fiorilli | | | | John Connelly | | | | 2nd | 3rd | | | | | | | | File No. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Gengrupale Boundaries | | | | | | | | | | Child Welfare | | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 103 Street D.O. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Whyte Avenue D.O. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | West | | | | | | | | | | Downtown | | | | | | | | | | Other | | Comments | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | File No. | Geographic Boundaries Child Welfare | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | # APPENDIX 2 # CARRT EVALUATION TRACKING SHEET ## 1995-96 **Case File No.: ***_******_******_******_*** | Reporting Date | Reporting Time | Arrival Date | Arrival Time | Time Concluded | Complaint | Repeat Call | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Occurrence Type | | | | | | | | | | | | ☐ Sexual Assault | ☐ Family Dispute | ☐ Neglect | ☐ A | ☐ C | ☐ Crisis Unit | | | | | | | ☐ Assault | ☐ Abandoned Child | | ☐ B | | ☐ Communications | | | | | | | | ☐ Juvenile Trouble/Out of Control | | | | | | | | | | | Child Welfare | | | | | | | | | | | | ☐ Whyte Avenue D.O. | | | | | | | | | | | | ☐ 105 Street D.O. | | | | | | | | | | | | ☐ West Division | | | | | | | | | | | | ☐ North Division | | | | | | | | | | | | ☐ South Division | | | | | | | | | | | | ☐ Downtown Division | | | | | | | | | | | | Risk to Child Involved | | | | | | | | | | | | ☐ Physical Abuse | ☐ Emotional Abuse | | | | | | | | | | | ☐ Sexual Abuse | ☐ Neglect | | | | | | | | | | | Child Health | | | | | | | | | | | | ☐ Gender | | | | | | | | | | | | ☐ Male | | | | | | | | | | | | Number (from R1) | Name (Last, First, Middle) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Action Taken | | | | | | | | | | | | ☐ No. of Children Apprehended | | | | | | | | | | | | ☐ Charges Laid by CARRT (specify) | | | | | | | | | | | | ☐ Other Arrests (CARRT Only) | | | | | | | | | | | | ☐ Additional Child Welfare Investigation Required | | | | | | | | | | | | ☐ Transport Child to ***_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_******_****** # CARRT Evaluation Agency Survey The Edmonton Police Service and Family and Social Services, Child Welfare are currently conducting an evaluation of the Child At Risk Response Teams (CARRT). It is our understanding that you may have worked directly with CARRT. The views of every participant is important. Your frank and honest participation in this survey is vital since it will assist us to determine the overall effectiveness of the CARRT project. This is not a test with right or wrong answers. Your responses will be completely anonymous and confidential. They will be used to tabulate group results which will be made available upon completion of the analysis. Only a high participation rate will provide sound results. Upon completing the survey, please return it to: CARRT Evaluation Community and Organizational Support Section Edmonton Police Service 9620- 103 A Avenue Edmonton, Alberta T5H 0H7 Thank you again for taking part in this worthwhile study. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS: Most of the questions can be answered by circling the number next to the appropriate answer. Other questions require a written response. SECTION I: This first set of questions gives us a better picture of the agencies that took part in this project. 1. Type of agency (circle only 1) | Crisis Unit | 1 | | --- | --- | | Child Welfare Services District Office | 2 | | Edmonton Police Service | 3 | | Other Government Department | 4 | | Other City Department | 5 | | School | 6 | | University | 7 | | Youth Program/Project | 8 | | Offender Program/Project | 9 | | Business Association | 10 | | Community Association/League | 11 | | Other | 12 | 1. Please indicate the area of the City that your office works with? | North | 1 | | --- | --- | | South | 2 | | West | 3 | | Downtown | 4 | | City wide | 5 | 1. Please indicate your job title. 2. How long have you been in your current position? $\qquad$ years SECTION II: This section deals with your interactions with CARRT. 5. How often have you dealt with CARRT? | Daily | 1 | | --- | --- | | 4-6 times per week | 2 | | 2-3 times per week | 3 | | once a week | 4 | | once a month | 5 | | other | 6 | 1. How often have you experienced difficulty reaching members of the CARRT Team for assistance? Have you experienced problems all the time 4 most of the time 3 some of the time 2 never 1 7. In general, how would you describe your working relationship with CARRT? Would you say that it was Excellent 4 Good 3 Fair, or 2 Poor 1 8. In your opinion, what are the benefits and/or drawbacks of having CARRT? $\qquad$ $\qquad$ $\qquad$ $\qquad$ $\qquad$ 9. How can CARRT improve its services to children at risk? $\qquad$ $\qquad$ $\qquad$ $\qquad$ 10. In your opinion, should the Edmonton Police Service and Family and Social Services continue with the CARRT Project? Yes 1 No 2 11. A) Sometimes in questionnaires we would like to resurvey individuals to get a better picture of changes over time. If we were to do this, could we send you another survey in the future? Yes 1 No 2 b) IF YES: Please write your name and address in the blanks below so that we can send you a survey in the future. $\qquad$ $\qquad$ $\qquad$ $\qquad$ $\qquad$ 12. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions you would like to make about CARRT or this survey? $\qquad$ $\qquad$ $\qquad$ $\qquad$ $\qquad$ $\qquad$ Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. # APPENDIX 4