child welfare

Effective Communications Strategies: Engaging the Media, Policymakers, and the Public

Too often, strategic communication is too lit- tle, or comes too late, when involved with a child fatality or serious injury. This article explores the challenges arising from negative publicity around child safety issues and the opportunities for communications strategies that employ a proactive public health approach to engaging media, policymakers, and the public. The authors provide a case study and review methods by which child welfare agencies across the nation are build- ing public engagement and support for improved outcomes in child safety while pro- tecting legitimate confidentiality require-

ments. Finally, the piece articulates the rationale for agency investments in the resources necessary to develop and imple- ment an effective communications plan.

Allison Blake State of New Jersey Department of Children & Families

Kathy Bonk Communications Consortium Media Center

Daniel Heimpel Fostering Media Connections

Cathy S. Wright Clarus Consulting Group

217Child Welfare • Vol. 92, No. 2

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank Kristie McCullough, senior consultant at Clarus, for her editorial contributions.

Child safety is a public health issue too often in search of a pub-lic voice. At the same time, child deaths and serious injuries of those connected to a child welfare system tend to reach public atten- tion only during a crisis.

The public’s perception of child welfare in the United States is generally painted by media reports of isolated cases of tragedy. Not only is this often an inaccurate picture of the child welfare system, but worse, it drives public will against that system’s leaders and leaves them especially vulnerable to the fallout that occurs when cases of severe abuse or child death hit the front page and television news. Public opinion research (Lake, 2009–2013; Triad Research, 1995– 1996) and select analysis of media coverage around child fatalities show that the gap between public perception and the realities of child welfare leave the system wanting for resources and allies. And politicians may respond with crisis-driven policies that are not the best for keeping children and teens safe, ensuring their well-being, and supporting families.

Child welfare professionals struggle to understand why they so frequently are left standing alone on the firing line of the media, pol- icymakers, and the public. Charged with oversight and investigation, child welfare agencies usually are called upon to be the face of cases involving child abuse or neglect—but are by no means the only pub- lic entity to have some contact with the family. Dedicated child wel- fare workers are painfully aware that by the time an adverse event occurs, children and their families may have passed through the juris- dictions of a range of educational, medical, social, law enforcement and judicial agencies, including private providers and extended fam- ily members. Child welfare professionals, from leaders to front line workers, often find themselves under orders from the family court judge, in the role of de facto manager of a revolving door team of pub- lic and private agencies, community groups, and family members. They usually have limited authority but are expected to take full responsibility. And most often, the child welfare administration winds up alone in front of a microphone, defending decisions about the child in their custody—and often in a no-win situation.

Vol. 92, No. 2Child Welfare

218

Historically, child welfare agencies have operated under a culture of confidentiality and of standing alone as a last resort for children in need of care. But today's child welfare leaders know there is another, more positive story that represents the vast majority of their work: protecting children, finding them a safe refuge, reuniting them with birth parents, or securing a life-long adoptive or kinship family wherever possible.

This article explores the challenges arising from publicity around child safety, including fatalities, as well as efforts to transform systems. The authors’ aim is to put forward examples of opportunities for communi- cations strategies that employ a proactive public health approach to engaging media, policymakers, and the public. We review methods by which child welfare agencies across the nation are building public engage- ment and support for improved outcomes in child safety while protect- ing legitimate confidentiality requirements. A case study based on experiences in New Jersey explains how these strategies were deployed. Finally, we articulate the rationale for agency investments in the resources necessary to develop and implement an effective communications plan.

Shifting the Paradigm

Harry Spence, former director of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families, knows what happens when a case of severe abuse or worse, child death, hits the front page. “Atrocities to chil- dren are the most fundamentally horrific events that people face,” Spence said in an interview (Heimpel, 2010). “It is admirable that human beings are horrified. The difficulty is that the response becomes deeply irrational.”

Irrationality is an ineffective strategy in dealing with a popula- tion-wide public health threat. Instead, one must endeavor to con- textualize the myriad factors that contribute to tragic situations including child fatalities, and to create an awareness of the perva- siveness of that threat: to develop adequate long-term visions for pre- vention, to stop the abuse, and to foment media relations that can withstand the inevitability of tragic child deaths.

Child WelfareBlake et al.

219

The news media inhabits the divide between the public’s under- standable anger and bewilderment over a child’s death and the child welfare leader’s office. Too often, both child welfare agencies and the media outlets covering them develop an adversarial relationship— one driven more by a chasm of information than by any real enmity.

When a child death occurs, reporters start reporting. Confidentiality laws and a pervasive culture of confidentiality within agencies hold administrators’ tongues, leaving a vacuum of informa- tion. Reporters turn to sources who will talk—often detractors of the agency in question—and the child welfare administration misses an opportunity to fully present the context of the tragedy as a symptom of a larger public health crisis.

The agency becomes the scapegoat of an angry public. Their prac- tices are dragged into the light, explained with little historical con- text and more often without the broader public health frame that would more clearly define child fatalities for what they are: conse- quences of high poverty rates, drug and alcohol abuse, and the lack of economic investments that too often result in certain neighbor- hoods being patently more dangerous than others (Dwyer, 2011). Instead of turning the moment of tragedy into one of examining the fundamental issues that led to it, the moment instead becomes a dra- conian exercise in the public venting its anger at the organization— which is actually doing the most to stop the tragedy in the first place.

Politicians, often driven by anecdote rather than comprehensive reality, respond to child death by firing the heads of child welfare agencies. Or directors, fearful of losing their jobs, investigate and fire front line social workers. The irrationality of the moment often cre- ates a situation where someone must be held accountable—even if the “tragedy” is the fault of the society writ large.

Child welfare agencies are, in effect, the last line of defense in the public health goal of stopping preventable child fatalities, yet they are often seen as the sole protector of children. This is due, at least in part, to the current legal and practical adherence to a culture of confidentiality present in many agencies, coupled with a dearth of responsible, contextualized, and comprehensive media coverage

Vol. 92, No. 2Child Welfare

220

produced by mainstream media outlets. To achieve a level of under- standing about the endemic societal factors contributing to pre- ventable child death will require a continued loosening of confidentiality laws and practice, coupled with a higher standard of journalism in covering these tragedies.

Confidentiality Laws Juvenile dependency courts are “presumptively closed” in 28 states (Kapalko, 2012), meaning that a journalist seeking to cover the pro- ceedings must prove that he or she has a legitimate interest in the functioning of the court and/or a particular case. In 24 other states, these hearings are “presumptively open,” meaning that the burden is on the court to make an objection to a journalist’s presence.

Despite pervasive fear that media access will result in irresponsi- ble coverage of the foster care and juvenile dependency system, there has been no evidence of journalists causing clear, undue harm in those jurisdictions where the courts are open. Further, many notable judges (Edwards, 2004) and organizations representing those judges (Resolution No. 9, 2005) have been in favor of the antiseptic quali- ties they believe an open court will provide. Anecdotally (California Assembly Judiciary Committee 2011), there is a strong association between system-based coverage and substantive reform in both the juvenile dependency and child welfare systems.

In January, 2012, Judge Michael Nash, presiding judge of Los Angeles County’s juvenile court, issued an order clarifying procedures by which a journalist could access hearings in his court (Nash, 2012). The order assumes that journalists have a “legitimate interest” in the hearings, and thus places the burden on the court to argue why they do not—or in what way their coverage my harm the child. Since the order, there have been no cases of harmful coverage, while many reporters have taken advantage of the access to file stories that more accurately described the system (Newton, 2012).

This is an important development because it creates the foundation of both of the two necessary advancements needed for a better response to preventing child fatalities: (1) it erodes the culture of confidentiality

Child WelfareBlake et al.

221

prevalent in certain child welfare agencies while (2) giving journalists a deeper knowledge of how the system functions and the broad stresses it is under. But it is only part of the solution.

Even in closed states, not everything is confidential. If an agency has established a track record of transparency, reporters are more accepting of well-founded confidentiality boundaries. Agency lead- ership must clearly understand statutory proscriptions. It is a good practice to have a handout explaining those limitations. Beyond those restrictions, agency leadership should be transparent about whatever is not legally restricted, and be equally transparent about describing the boundaries of what cannot be disclosed. States have approached this differently. Some have sought advice from their federal oversight agencies in Washington, DC; others have sought legal advice. The federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (P.L. 111-320) does allow states to be accountable and transparent when child fatalities and near-fatalities occur without endangering anyone’s safety. Guidance is available from the Children’s Bureau Child Welfare Policy Manual regarding the scope of case-specific infor- mation that can be released without compromising confidentiality requirements (DHHS, September 2012).

A New Relationship Child welfare agencies should understand that the movement toward increased transparency is afoot. Instead of fearing it, they must embrace transparency as an opportunity to teach the public about what factors contribute to child death and what the public’s respon- sibility is in stemming those factors. By filling the chasm of infor- mation with constant communication, agencies can build the kind of trust necessary for journalists to take a measured tone in the face of severe child maltreatment and deaths (Heimpel, 2012).

The challenge for child welfare agencies will be what they do in the time between tragedies. Administrators should work hard to inform journalists about the realities of trying to protect children from the endemic problems of poverty and other conditions that transcend their agency responsibilities to children. By fomenting trust and

Vol. 92, No. 2Child Welfare

222

maintaining constant contact with journalists, child welfare leaders will be able to use the media as a partner in promoting safety and preventing fatalities as a public health issue. As evidenced by other public health campaigns, the news media plays a critical role. Reporters can do this when they are given access to information about the totality of the problem and the solutions to those problems. This requires not only public health-oriented mass media campaigns, but more importantly deep, constant explanation: something that is only available in a more transparent framework than currently exists.

Building the Framework through Proven Management Tools

When Allison Blake was appointed Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families (NJDCF) in May, 2010, she faced the difficult task of uniting a fragmented agency—merging sis- ter divisions, forging a leadership team, and removing artificial bar- riers to service delivery. Although the agency had made significant progress, its public image remained mired in the issues surrounding a seven-year-old settlement agreement (Charlie, 2003). Many tradi- tional child welfare workers, child advocates, and providers were con- tent to see the decree remain in place.

Several years later—through several difficult media events— NJDCF has made great strides toward transparent, aligned partner- ships with its public and effective media communications. Commissioner Blake’s strategy began not with tackling adverse pub- licity, but by first addressing the importance of a compelling narra- tive articulating a vision for the agency. Casey Family Programs has been a consistent partner with NJDCF, and have supported a variety of strategic initiatives with advice and funding, as well as the devel- opment of a strategic plan and communications plan.

The strategic planning process served as the basis for building a new, broad communications structure and an expectation for agency success. In addition to data collection, the planning process engaged more than 150 employees and external stakeholders in a conversation

Child WelfareBlake et al.

223

about how, by working in alignment, all could contribute toward a common vision. Thus, these stakeholders are becoming advocates and defenders of the agency, and are in a position to make important points about context that the agency cannot.

Having constructed a clear vision for the future, NJDCF then needed a communications plan designed to support the strategic plan and to accomplish a number of important objectives:

(1) Create key messages as a frame for understanding the larger context for agency success.

(2) Establish that the framework is required for consistency for ALL agency communications, including proactive public relations, appropriately reactive crisis management, social media outreach, and a public health campaign approach.

(3) Provide guidance to agency employees about the form and content of information disseminated by the agency, from press releases and publications to annual reports, quality reports, compliance reports, and legal communications such as pleadings and briefs.

(4) Identify key audiences, their interests, and preferred meth- ods of communication, for example: employees, families and youth, executive branch, courts, providers, advocacy groups, partner agencies, and traditional and social media (State of New Jersey Department of Children and Families, 2012).

(5) Educate essential messengers—including all employees— about their role in supporting agency messages.

(6) Create a platform to monitor progress, evaluate message effi- cacy, and provide accountability for results (State of Oklahoma Department of Human Resources staff, 2012).

Thus, Commissioner Blake understood the critical importance of aligning operations and employees, creating cross-functional systems, and bringing staff and stakeholders together to redesign service deliv- ery so that the needs of children and families came first.

Ultimately, that success rested on effective communication. The public may be drawn to media about tragedies and attacks; readers will follow stories of tragedy, of failure, or of dire and intractable societal

Vol. 92, No. 2Child Welfare

224

ills. Observers inevitably default to what is negative, tragic, and blame- ful. When they are not guided toward solutions nor called to action, they are left with no alternative but assessing blame. But people also are engaged by stories of hope and redemption. Having these tools— a strategic plan and a supporting communications plan—in place allows an agency to place societal problems in a solution-focused con- text. The issues and work of child welfare are opaque to most people. They have neither the expertise nor the time to understand the com- plexities of child maltreatment, so, in the absence of context, they lis- ten to the loudest voice. It is an agency’s job to set this context simply and consistently, and to be responsible for its own narrative.

This strategic plan consistently informs the department’s stake- holder communications. Like many other jurisdictions, New Jersey has implemented a qualitative review process to examine case prac- tice in child protective services. In addition to relying on internal staff, NJDCF certified a cadre of outside stakeholders so each review is conducted by a team of one internal staff member and one stake- holder. New Jersey also relies on ChildStat as a systems diagnostic tool similar to that used by New York and Philadelphia. In New Jersey, ChildStat is a monthly meeting of leadership from across the organization at which presentations are made using data to explain case practice and diagnose systems challenges. Clinical staff from community agencies began attending these meetings in the fall of 2012 to assist the diagnostic process and move transparency efforts forward. In 2013, NJDCF joined with community leaders to select a qualitative review instrument to be used in children’s behavioral health cases. Similar to the child protective services review, this will also include an internal/external team approach.

Shortly after a tragic incident occurred, the NJDCF’s commissioner reached out to a small group of nonprofit CEOs, seeking their advice on a particular area of practice that the department was struggling with. Past experience told her that these agencies were doing good work with families in this area, and many of these leaders indicated their desire to provide assistance as they came to understand the full context of the work and challenges of preparing staff. This group began meeting

Child WelfareBlake et al.

225

regularly with the commissioner and her team as a quasi-kitchen cab- inet to discuss practice challenges and devise a strategy to implement and sustain long-term improvements. These meetings became a safe space for the state team to interact with other professionals and engage in honest problem solving. Ultimately, that work yielded a new approach to supervision in child welfare in New Jersey (Lee, Feldman, & Ring, 2013). By publicly joining forces in advance of tragic events, the NJDCF is not left as the only entity front and center. In the wake of some challenging media, one of the kitchen cabinet participants appeared on a news outlet to speak on behalf of the agency.

Managing Crisis Communications Despite the best efforts of dedicated child welfare professionals, tragedies do happen—and the media, at any time, can jump on a story. Obviously, crises are much easier to manage in agencies that have pre- pared their stakeholders in advance with the type of proactive strate- gies outlined above. In any event, there are some common elements to managing communications in a crisis.

(1) Have a plan: the essential elements of a crisis communication plan are well understood (and beyond the scope of this arti- cle)—the critical thing is to actually have one.

(2) Train regularly: In a world in which training time is precious, this doesn’t have to take a lot of time. One method is to ask employees to review the plan ahead of time, and run a role play scenario over a few hours. This not only makes it real, it is also wonderfully teambuilding and diagnostic. Inevitably, participants discover how the system breaks down when they fail to inform employees what to do with media calls.

(3) Communicate with employees: All employees should be informed as soon as possible of anything that may show up in the media. If employees are conversant with an agency’s vision and performance, they will already be able to speak on the agency’s behalf. Inform them of the agency’s position and provide talking points, but any effort to control employee comments will backfire.

Vol. 92, No. 2Child Welfare

226

(4) Don’t forget the receptionist: Think carefully about who will be the first line of connection with the public and the media, and do the receptionist and yourself the kindness of making sure the first line knows what to do.

(5) Be prepared to be transparent: If you are unable to talk about a specific case due to potential or pending litigation, explain what your agency does in cases like this. Child fatalities are usually not one-size-fits all, but basic crisis communications protocols apply to nearly all child welfare tragedies (Bonk, 2003).

(6) Track media coverage: Remember all major media outlets now operate on 24/7 internet editions with rolling deadlines. Immediately correct any misinformation, start with reporters, but move up the chain of command to editors or station man- agers as needed. Keep an eye on public remarks posted on media websites. Journalists frequently review public response, which can have an impact on future coverage.

Public Health Communications Can Make a Difference

The question remains: what can we learn from public health com- munications experiences? A number of agencies, both public and pri- vate, have engaged in social marketing efforts used by the public health community that focus on changing behavior to help prevent child fatalities and serious injury.

One such campaign, Be Careful about Who Cares for Your Child, was launched in New York City in response to a significant number of child fatalities in which very young children and babies were allegedly killed by their fathers or by a companion of the child’s mother. The campaign consisted of radio ads, posters, and palm cards in English and Spanish. Flyers with child safety information from the campaign are also available in Arabic, Bengale, Chinese, Creole, French, Korean, Russian, Spanish, and Urdu (New York City, Administration for Children’s Services, 2013).

These and other campaigns that have been conducted across the United States on SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome), Cribs for

Child WelfareBlake et al.

227

Kids to prevent roll-over deaths, pool and swimming safety to pre- vent drowning, and overall preventive messages that promote child safety. But these efforts need to be more than a “one-shot” campaign. Ongoing, consistent messages are key. New York City did several campaigns that were collaborations with Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to combine resources, expertise and outreach. These were developed “to educate all New York City parents about how to pre- vent injuries, accidents, and deaths among babies and young children. Information on shaken baby syndrome, the importance of choosing a caregiver carefully, and getting help for drug and alcohol abuse ran on subways, buses, billboards and in check cashing establishments citywide. In addition, radio ads on shaken baby syndrome and choos- ing a caregiver aired on several stations citywide (New York City Administration for Children's Services, 2013).

In these campaigns, local media can be brought in as partners, shift- ing from the too often adversarial roles that emerge during a crisis. Public service directors at television and radio stations and community outreach editors at local newspapers can bring important expertise and resources to these efforts, given that public safety generally is a top concern for communities across the United States and many established mainstream media still have vestiges of public service to their community.

Invest in Strategic Communications—It Pays Too often, if the media narrative is framed along the lines that an agency is incompetent and to blame for a child fatality, then hitting back with facts in the specific case likely will not change political or public perceptions. We now know, based on brain research, that if the frame does not fit the facts when people process information, they will generally reject these facts (Strategic Frame Analysis, 2012). If the agency frame is that of not doing a good job protecting children and keeping them in unsafe situations, then facts and figures about the virtues of child protective services will not work.

Thus, agencies need to see strategic communications as an invest- ment to ensure that their stakeholders fully understand the mission

Vol. 92, No. 2Child Welfare

228

and values of the child welfare system, along with the cost benefits for the whole community and its children.

Shifting the narrative of media coverage from a single portrait of one child’s death to a broader landscape that fits a public health frame is a challenge, but is achievable with the right communications tools. Agencies need to invest in a professional staff; development of core messages based on mission and values; training for spokespeople, a comprehensive review of past child fatalities; and a strategic com- munications plan based on proactive and reactive media-related activ- ities, addressing the data about those children and families at the highest risk. This means developing and investing in a range of com- munications activities, both internal and external, that address a vari- ety of services starting with prevention of what may be causing child fatalities, serious injuries, or neglect.

Agencies will need professional staff, time, money and some basic tools to set up and run a communications, public information, and media-outreach office. Often, the basics are what is most needed for positive outcomes: personal and trusted relationships with key reporters, updated websites based on values of transparency and open- ness while protecting the confidentiality and privacy of families, qual- ity information about hotline calls, numbers of open cases, child fatality reviews, and other data that combines consumer information with updated facts and figures that help answer a reporter’s questions.

Communications activities may be of interest to donors outside an agency’s normal funding streams. Local foundations, corporations or media-related companies may have an interest in supporting pub- lic media campaigns modeled after other successful awareness efforts. For example, if there are high numbers of roll-over deaths or serious injuries, then a sleep awareness campaign focused on the dangers of adults sleeping with infants that provides cribs for new parents may attract a local donor looking for a cause or an ad agency looking for an award who would produce pro-bono spots.

Campaigns based on a public health model can shift relationships with local media from adversary to partner if proposed as a public service for a wider audience on an issue of public importance. But

Child WelfareBlake et al.

229

these partnerships require participation by senior staff—likely the director and experienced communications professionals who can cul- tivate positive relationships with television station managers, news directors, publishers, and editors of local media.

Conclusion

Child welfare practice finds itself on the verge of adding another tool for promoting child safety. Public health communications campaigns on issues of car seats, childhood obesity, and side-sleeping have yielded results. While there is limited experience with and evalua- tions of public health campaigns by child welfare agencies based on child fatality data, anecdotal evidence and common sense support the concept that public campaigns can work similarly to increase child safety. If media can move from covering the single case of one child or one family to helping to educate the public on preventing child abuse and child deaths, it can help create a new partnership based on transparency and trust.

As child welfare has embraced new systems of family-centered practice, agencies are likewise implementing fresh philosophies of inclusion and community partnerships. Armed with information and data, practice interventions increasingly are research-based and evi- dence-informed. When an agency takes the next logical step of organizing and connecting these dots into a coherent narrative, it can create a context that allows the public to comprehend not only the challenges it faces, but also to appreciate its accomplishments. But without an articulated plan, neither reporters, partners, nor the pub- lic at large possess the ability to imagine the whole picture.

Following the experience of successful public health initiatives, we suggest that the investment in well-planned and executed strategic and communications plans may hold the key to bringing the safety of children in care to broader public awareness. With media participa- tion on the front end toward averting circumstances and events that lead to child endangerment, child welfare agencies can focus on stay- ing ahead of problems. With growing awareness of their roles, sister

Vol. 92, No. 2Child Welfare

230

agencies in medicine, mental health, law enforcement, education, the courts, the private sector, communities, and the families themselves, may assume greater roles in keeping children safe, thereby contribut- ing to not only the continued reduction of child fatalities and injuries but to a broad-based effort to provide for the health and well-being of all children. Understanding a fuller picture, we all may to be able to see tragedies for what they are—an invitation to address societal fail- ure to provide for the needs of our most vulnerable children.

References

American Public Human Services Association. (2009). Positioning public child welfare guid- ance: Communications guidance. Retrieved from http://www.ppcwg.org/.

Bonk, K., Tynes, E., Griggs, H., & Sparks, P. (2008). Strategic communications for nonprofits. Chapter 8: “Responding to a Media Crisis and Managing Backlash.”

Bonk, K. (2003). Managing media in a crisis. Policy and Practice, 61(2). Washington, DC: American Public Health and Services Association.

California Assembly Judiciary Committee, Staff. (2011). Options for improving outcomes for foster youth by increasing the effectiveness of dependency hearings.

Carre Lee, N., Feldman, L., & Ring, R. (April, 2013). Focus on supervision: “Improving super- visory case conferences in collaboration with community agencies.” Presented at the 2013 CWLA National Conference, Making Children and Families a Priority: Raising the Bar.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie. Civil Action No. 99-3678 (GEB). (2003). Retrieved from http://www.childrensrights.org/reform-campaigns/legal-cases/new-jersey/.

Dwyer, J. (2011). No place for children: Addressing urban blight and its impact on children through child protection law, domestic relations law, and “adult only” residential zoning. Alabama Law Review, 62(5).

Edwards, L. (2004). Confidentiality and the juvenile and family courts. Juvenile and Family Court Journal.

Child WelfareBlake et al.

231

Hauck, FR, Tanabe KO. (2008). International trends in sudden infant death syndrome: Stabilization of rates and further action. Pediatrics.

Heimpel. (2010). Responsibility lost. The Huffington Post.

Heimpel. (2012). A time for trust. The Chronicle of Social Change.

Kapalko, J. (2012). A watched system: Should journalists be granted access to juvenile depend- ency hearings? Fostering Media Connections.

Kennedy, J. (2008). This may be the last DHR article I write. The Birmingham News.

Lake, Celinda, (2010-11) Presentation to the Georgetown University Public Information Officers Learning Collaborative and based on a series of polling and focus groups done on child welfare including Lake Research, Pew Foster Group Transcripts by Hart Research, Casey Family Programs, ABC News and others.

Nash, M. (2012). Blanket Order Re: WIC 346 and Public and Media Attendance at Dependency Court Hearing. Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

New York City, Administration for Children's Services, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/acs/html/child_safety/care_giver_campaign.shtml.

Newton, J. (2012). Does secrecy serve the children? The Los Angeles Times.

NJ DCF. (2012). Keeping your DYFS case open until 21 in New Jersey: The experiences of young people like you. Retrieved from www.state.nj.us/dcf/adolescents.

CAPTA Reauthorization Act. (2010). Pub. L. No. 111-320.

Resolution No. 9. (2005). Resolution in support of presumptively open hearings with discre- tion of courts to close. National Council on Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

State of Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Staff. (2012). The Oklahoma Pinnacle Plan. Retrieved from http://www.okdhs.org/NR/rdonlyres/3AD0282C-FB6E-44B8- A714-F2CAB72D8500/0/OklahomaPinnaclePlanFinal_cfsd_07252012.pdf.

Strategic Frame Analysis. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.FrameworksInstitute.org

Traid Research, (1995-96) Report to the Public Children’s Service Association of Ohio that included 75 focus groups in 14 states.

Vol. 92, No. 2Child Welfare

232

United States Department of Health and Human Services. (September 2012). Child Welfare Policy Manual. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cwpm/programs/cb/laws_poli- cies/laws/cwpm/.

Wakefield, M., Loken, B., & Hornik, R. (2010). Use of mass media campaigns to change health behaviour. The Lancet, 376(9748), 1261-1271

Child WelfareBlake et al.

233

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.