Massachusetts News checked with Domarina Oshama at "Prevent Child Abuse America" about the system referred to by Congressman Hyde in his 1998 letter to his colleagues. According to Oshama, it is still a work in progress. She said most states, including Massachusetts, don’t even use the system software yet.

She said that the process does not involve any identifying information about the families.

However, an information sheet on the "Information Management System" put out by the national "Committee to Prevent Child Abuse" in 1996 says the opposite. It describes the system as tracking data in three areas, including information about the participants.

"[It] will contain information on client/participant characteristics, risk factors for abusing or maltreating children, home visits/services received by the family, and the date as well as the reasons for dropping out of the program."

Sample Reports

Upon request, Oshama sent Massachusetts News a thick set of sample reports which show what sort of data is collected on the software which all sites will eventually use. Spaces on the forms were filled in with sample names and data.

On just a cursory flip-through, one finds a form for screening potential clients, complete with the 15-point Kempe risk factor checklist. The method of screening used by the worker is to be indicated. One of the choices includes a category which indicates that some assessment workers are being given access to medical records, as reported in the Alabama study.

One sample has a curious notation next to some mothers’ names. It records how a home visitor reported a mom to social services for neglect. Another form is used to collect data from social services about the mother. The form instructs sites to arrange to receive regular reports about the mother from the state’s social service department on substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect.

Data is collected on participants about: education level, immunizations, marital status, employment, race, birth weight, type of delivery, alcohol or drug use, insurance, number of miscarriages, abortions, felonies, type of public assistance, ID of the father or partner, birth control methods used, language, legal history, income, income sources, type of housing, etc.

Participant’s are "scored" by Kempe’s numbering system. Categories include: potential for violence, expectations of infant, discipline of infant, bonding/attachment issues, coping skills, social services involvement, childhood history, troubled history, stressors/concerns, perception of new infant.

The most interesting sample is the "Healthy Families PIMS Home Visit Log" which is completed after each home visit by the Healthy Families worker.

The form collects specific information about the visit. It includes when and where the visit took place and who was present, including the effect others had on the visit.

A checklist on the page is titled "status of parent during the visit (check all that apply)."

The list includes: alert, angry, appears healthy, appears under influence of alcohol/drugs, clean, depressed, friendly, injured/bruised, other, participatory, quiet, sad/tearful, sick, sleepy, stressed, talkative, unkempt, upset.

A baby checklist also includes a comprehensive checklist about appearances, dress and demeanor.

Healthy Families Massachusetts claims data collection is done only for quality control and program evaluation purposes. But critics question why the state needs to be told the names of the participants if that is true. They also say it is easy to foresee a change in policy down the road when the program is fully established and becomes compulsory as Kempe envisioned. Already, Healthy Families programs in a handful of pioneering states are using the PIMS data system described above.
 

RETURN TO FRONT PAGE