View
215
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
2
Overview of the 2008 CFSR
Statewide Assessment Findings
Youth Summit Recommendations
Onsite Review Findings
Program Improvement Plan
3
CFSR Changes in Second Round
Data standards are more sophisticated– 6 measures 17 measures
Review instrument is also more sophisticated--automated
Case review compliance raised from 90% to 95% for conformity
Number of case reviews increased from 39 to 65
Stratified foster care cases
4
Statewide Self Assessment
– The Statewide Assessment was conducted beginning in April 2007 and was submitted to ACF on May 27, 2008.
– Large stakeholder group
– Process included: Data, policy, practice, programming, quality assurance results, focus groups.
5
Onsite Review
Conducted July 28 – August 1, 2008 3 sites – Philadelphia, Allegheny,
Northumberland 64 cases
39 foster children25 intact families
State and local level stakeholder interviews
6
Youth SummitMarch 25-26, 2008
Over 150 youth and stakeholders
Day 1: Detailed recommendations based on safety, permanency, and well-being
Day 2: recommendations from roundtable discussion groups on each of the systemic factors
8
Safety Outcome 1: Children are first and foremost protected from abuse and neglect
60% of applicable cases in substantial compliance– Item 1: Timeliness of investigations – Item 2: Repeat Maltreatment
Performance on National data standards for: – absence of maltreatment recurrence – absence of maltreatment of children in foster care
by foster parents or facility staff.
9
Safety Outcome 2: Children are safely maintained in their homes when possible and appropriate
68% of applicable cases in substantial compliance– Item 3: Services to prevent removal – Item 4: Risk of harm
10
Safety Strengths
Timely response to reports of abuse and neglect and timely face-to-face contacts
Expedited response for younger children at 2 sites Strong array of services to meet families’ needs and
prevent placement and facilitate reunification Risk and safety assessments done regularly Repeat maltreatment
11
Safety Concerns
Transition from GPS to CPS Number of out-of-home abuse reports and lack of
communication between county and region Risk and safety assessments often focus on
presenting problem and not underlying issues, resulting in multiple reports
In JJ cases, single focus on the identified youth and not the entire family
12
Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations
The State does not meet the national standard for:– Composite 1: Timeliness and permanency of reunifications– Composite 2: Timeliness of adoptions
The State meets the national standard for:– Composite 3: Permanency for children in foster care for
extended time periods– Composite 4: Placement stability
13
Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations
31% of cases in substantial conformity– Item 5: Foster care re-entry – Item 6: Stability of foster care placement – Item 7: Permanency goal for child – Item 8: Reunification, guardianship & placement
with relatives – Item 9: Adoption – Item 10: Other planned permanent arrangement
14
Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children.
49% of cases in substantial conformity– Item 11: Proximity of placement – Item 12: Placement with siblings – Item 13: Visiting with parents and siblings in foster
care – Item 14: Preserving connections – Item 15: Relative placement – Item 16: Relationship of child in care with parents
15
Permanency Strengths
Services and casework to reunify children and prevent re-entry
Placement stability Permanency goals established timely Siblings placed together or in close proximity Relative placements Independent living
16
Permanency Concerns
Permanency is the biggest challenge for PA Lack of engaging non-custodial parents, typically
fathers Visitation between siblings positive at first but
dropped off or stopped when TPR/adoption pursued Permanence of reunification
17
Permanency Concerns (cont)
Lack of timely achievement of adoption (adoption lowest rated item in entire review)
– Concurrent planning is not occurring
– Long reunification attempts
– Various reasons for not filing TPR
18
Well Being Outcome 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs
35% of cases in substantial conformity– Item 17: Needs/services of child, parents and
foster parents – Item 18: Child/family involvement in case planning – Item 19: Worker visits with child – Item 20: Worker visits with parent
19
Well-Being Outcome 2: Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs
80% of cases in substantial conformity– Item 21: Educational needs of child
20
Well-Being Outcome 3: Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs
68% of cases in substantial conformity– Item 22: Physical health of child – Item 23: Mental health of child
21
Well-Being Strengths
Initial, comprehensive assessments Frequency of worker contacts Education Examples of good work to meet physical and
mental health needs of children
22
Well-Being Concerns
Family engagement Engaging non-custodial parents Quality of worker contacts Identifying underlying issues Dental Care
22
23
Outcomes Summary
Safety 1 – 60% Safety 2 – 68% Permanency 1 – 31% Permanency 2 – 49% Well-being 1 – 35% Well-being 2 – 80% Well-being 3 – 68%
24
Systemic Factors – Areas of Strength
Quality Assurance System Staff and Provider Training Service Array Agency Responsiveness to the Community Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing,
Recruitment, and Retention
25
Systemic Factors Needing Improvement – Statewide Information System
System varies from county to countySystem varies from county to county
State information is point-in-timeState information is point-in-time
Information flow from county to countyInformation flow from county to county
GPS historyGPS history
26
Systemic Factors Needing Improvement – Case Review System
Family engagement in case planning
Quality of Hearing
Filing for Termination of Parental Rights or Compelling Reasons
Notice and opportunity to be heard is inconsistent
28
Building on Round 1 PIP
Defined Standards Enhanced Training Provided Assistance and Support Enhanced Monitoring
Recommended