What are Citizen Review Panels (CRP)?

A glimpse into Minnesota’s CRP Process

Written by Mariel Carlson, MSW, Graduate Assistant,
In the process of preparing this blog, this writer consulted with a local child welfare worker.

A Brief History

Citizen Review Panels (CRPs) are committees composed of volunteer community members, established in each state for the purpose of keeping state members accountable to child protection requirements. They may vary in their role and how they are overseen in each state; however, CRPs play a vital role in ensuring community involvement and state compliance with federal requirements for child welfare.

The Child Abuse and Prevention Treatment Act (CAPTA) was federal legislation first signed into law in 1974 in order to provide funding to states for child welfare services, including but not limited to the assessment, prevention, and investigation of child abuse. CAPTA was amended and reauthorized in 1996, establishing what we know today as Citizen Review Panels.

States are required to have a minimum of three CRPs unless they receive the minimum amount of federal funding under Title II of CAPTA, in which case they must establish a minimum of one CRP. Minnesota state statute currently requires three CRPs, according to state statute 256.01.15. In Minnesota, CRPs are county-specific. However, in other states, CRPs might be created regionally and through a state university. For reference, this would be similar to if CASCW at the University of Minnesota were to organize a regional CRP. Currently in Minnesota, the counties of Chisago, Winona, Hennepin, and Ramsey have CRPs.

CAPTA requires that each CRP submit a yearly report on what has been accomplished by the CRP in that year in addition to recommendations to improve the state’s child protection system.

Who Can Join a Panel?

In Minnesota, efforts to include a representative sample of community members is encouraged. This Minnesota Fact Sheet explains in further detail the suggestions for eligibility to join a CRP. It is encouraged that some members have expertise or training in child abuse or have lived experience in foster care or child welfare involvement. Panelists are required to serve a four year term.

What Can They Do and Why Does it Matter?

According to a local child welfare professional, CRPs have a variety of tasks to complete and can work adjacent to the county child welfare agency, but are not governed by the county agency. This allows for panel members to provide accurate, unbiased feedback on policies and practices without a conflict of interest.

Examples of possible tasks for a CRP member are reviewing the agency’s consistency and quality of its practice. Panelists are allowed by law to review any and all aspects of the child welfare system, shadow current workers, and interview families involved in child welfare as well as providers to involved families. They can review the Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) for each county in addition to reviewing maltreatment reports and cases. Bound by confidentiality laws, panelists do not have access to cases or information after the end of their terms.

Minnesota CRPs can meet monthly. One local professional recalled that a lot of time might be spent explaining the laws governing the child welfare system in addition to the limits of authority of child protection. Members are also offered ongoing education and training during their term to better understand issues affecting families, children, and child welfare policy. Oftentimes, members are baffled by the policies that regulate and possibly stifle the ability to serve families – such as why agencies cannot simply hire more staff to meet community needs or make referrals to any provider that can provide relevant services to a family.

Panelists have some freedom in the projects they can take on during their term. Some examples might be brochures for extended family members on trauma-responsive caregiving or information on the impact of trauma and child maltreatment on youth.

Something that could potentially be very powerful and impactful to families in the community is the ability of a CRP to review maltreatment appeals. If a parent or caregiver has a maltreatment determination on their record, they have a right to appeal to the county and state. CRP members can review a case and the appeal, ultimately deciding if there was a preponderance of evidence to support the determination that child maltreatment did occur. Perhaps this is the most transparent way to allow community involvement and feedback in child welfare: by allowing the public to have a voice in determining if child welfare agencies are following ethical practice.

In an ideal world, could these panels provide the system transformation and abolition of oppressive, racist values that plague child welfare policy today? Could they highlight for policymakers what is wrong with the system as it exists today? CRPs could identify what is missing in our policy. It is entirely feasible that members may attend legislative hearings, especially the Governor’s Task Force for the Protection of Children, and write letters of support or concern for the proposed policy.

As of today, only 4 of the 87 total counties in Minnesota have a CRP. Currently, these counties are seeking over 80 community members to volunteer for a CRP. Chisago County is asking its residents to give feedback on its child welfare services via volunteer participation in a CRP. Last week, County News Review summarized the influential role of CRPs in Minnesota since 1999.

For further information, you can view the 2020 Annual Report of Minnesota’s Citizen Review Panels in addition to county-specific response reports.