3 - Washington, D.C

1

Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) Assessment Array

What

Why Purpose and criteria

When and by whom Process

What next Analysis and decision

Danger and safety assessment (DSA) Household

To identify indicators of danger or imminent danger of serious harm/maltreatment • Serious physical harm • Lack of food, clothing, shelter, or

medical care • Serious harm by others • Sexual harm • Hazardous living conditions • Emotional harm • Refusing access To examine considerations for safety planning and create a safety plan if needed • Child vulnerabilities • Existing household safety • Existing household strengths • Complicating factors

CPS referrals: CPS social worker completes • Within 24 hours of contact Ongoing cases: Ongoing social worker completes • Within 30 days of case transfer • Within 30 days after reunification • Within 30 days of case closure • As indicated by changing

circumstances

To decide whether a child/adolescent • Can remain safely in the home

with no intervention (i.e. Safe) • Can remain safely in the home

with a safety plan (i.e. Safe with a plan)

• Cannot remain safely in the home and is in need of an alternative placement (i.e. Unsafe)

Risk assessment Risk re-assessment Household

To identify the probability of future harm/maltreatment in the next 18-24 months as: • Low risk • Moderate risk • High risk • Intensive risk To identify the level of service intensity to provide the family

CPS referrals: CPS social worker completes • Risk assessment within 30 days of

referral Ongoing in-home cases: In-home social worker completes • Risk re-assessment within 30 days

of case opening • Every 90 days thereafter until safe

case closure

To decide: • To open a case for in-home

services or to close a referral • How frequently to contact and

monitor the family • When to close a case

Exhibit C.2.7

2

What




Caregiver Strengths And Barriers Assessment (CSBA) Birth parents

To identify the nexus between caregiver functioning and the impact on children across 14 domains clustered by: • Individual caregiver items • Parenting role • Caregiver relationships • Caregiver environment

CPS-FA referrals: CPS-FA social worker completes • Within 45 days (prior to closing

referral) Ongoing cases: Ongoing social worker completes • Within 30 days of case opening • Every 90 days thereafter until safe

case closure or goal change

To organize, prioritize, and plan: • The most relevant domains to be

addressed in the service plan

Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS) Children and adolescents ages 6-21 Preschool and Early Childhood Functional Assessment Scale (PECFAS) Children ages 3-5

To identify functional impairments across 8 domains: • School • Home • Community • Behavior towards others • Moods/emotions • Self-harm • Substance use (CAFAS only) • Thinking

Ongoing cases: Ongoing social worker completes • Within 30 days of case opening • Every 90 days thereafter until safe

case closure

To organize, prioritize, and plan: • The most relevant domains to be

addressed in the service plan

Child Stress Disorders Checklist – DC version (CSDC-CW) Children and adolescents ages 2-21* *administer caregiver version only for children ages 2-5

To identify trauma exposure and clinically significant trauma symptomology: • Re-experiencing • Avoidance • Negative cognition and mood • Increased arousal • Impairments in functioning • Dissociation

In-home cases: Social worker completes • As indicated by

disclosure/emergence of symptomology

Out-of-home cases: Social worker completes • Within 45 days of removal • As indicated by disclosure/

presence of symptomology

To refer: • A child/adolescent to the

Department of Behavioral Health (DBH) for further assessment and service connection

To organize, prioritize, and plan: • Action components and

interventions on the service plan

Exhibit C.2.7

3

What




Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3) Children ages 3 months – 5 years, 10 months

To identify developmental delays/risks of delays in: • Communication • Gross motor skills • Fine motor skills • Problem-solving • Personal-social functioning

In-home cases: Nurse care managers co-located at the Collaboratives complete • As indicated Out-of-home cases: Nurse care managers at healthy horizons complete • Within 28 days of removal

To refer: • A child to Strong Start DC early

intervention program or DC Early Stages for further evaluation and service connection


interventions on the service plan Ages and Stages Social-Emotional Questionnaire (ASQ-SE) Children ages 3 months – 5 years, 10 months

To identify social-emotional difficulties/risks of difficulties in: • Self-regulation • Compliance • Communication • Adaptive functioning • Autonomy • Affect • Interpersonal interaction

In-home cases: DBH mental health coordinators co-located at the Collaboratives complete • As indicated Out-of-home cases: DBH mental health coordinators co-located at CFSA complete • Within 28 days of removal

To refer: • A child to the Department of

Behavioral Health (DBH) for further assessment and service connection


interventions on the service plan Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) Children ages 6-10

To identify behavior challenges across five domains: • Emotional symptoms • Conduct problems • Hyperactivity and inattention • Peer relationships • Pro-social behavior

In-home cases: DBH mental health coordinators co-located at the Collaboratives complete • As indicated Out-of-home cases: DBH mental health coordinators co-located at CFSA complete • Within 28 days of removal


Behavioral Health (DBH) for further assessment and service connection



Global Appraisal of Individual Needs Short Screener (GAIN-SS) Children and adolescents ages 11-21

To identify mental/behavioral health and substance abuse challenges in: • Internalizing disorders • Externalizing disorders • Crime and violence • Substance use

In-home cases: Nurse care managers co-located at the collaboratives complete • As indicated Out-of-home cases: Nurse care managers at healthy horizons complete • Within 24 hours of

placement/replacement


Behavioral Health (DBH) and/or Addiction Prevention Recovery Administration (APRA) for further assessment and service connection



Exhibit C.2.7

Performance Status: ■ 100%+ of target ■ 75-99% of target ■ Less than 75% of Target

Front Door Children have the opportunity to grow up with their families and are removed from their families only when necessary to keep them safe.

Outcome: Families stay together safely. Indicator FY15 FY16 Target FY16/Q1 FY16/Q2 FY16/Q3 FY16/Q4 FY16 Annual

Decrease foster care population 1,061 1,008 1,017 1,019 1,007 989 989 ■ Decrease new entries into foster care

381 362 83 90 71 81 325 ■

Decrease re-entries into foster care

9.9% 8% 8.8% ■

Decrease the average number of months an in-home case remains open

9 9 10 10 11 10 10 ■

Outcome: Children and youth experience a removal only when necessary for their safety.

Indicator FY15 FY16 Target FY16/Q1 FY16/Q2 FY16/Q3 FY16/Q4 FY16 Annual Decrease reports of maltreatment in foster care

3.391 - Per FY15 ■

Decrease repeat reports of maltreatment

2

11.6%3 8.7%

Per FY15

■

Decrease re-referrals of maltreatment for in-home cases

14% 12% 13% ■

Decrease the number of removals from in-home

97 92 36 27 11 34 108 ■

Increase percentage of investigations initiated within 48 hours

4

91% 95% 91% 89% 88% 91% 89% ■

Temporary Safe Haven Foster care is a temporary safe haven, with planning for permanence beginning the day a child enters care.

Outcome: Children and youth are placed with families whenever possible.

Indicator FY15 FY16 Target FY16/Q1 FY16/Q2 FY16/Q3 FY16/Q4 FY16

Annual

Increase relative placements (kinship care) 21% 22% 21% 22% 21% 21% 21% ■ Increase placements in family foster homes

5 84% 88% 85% 84% 84% 83% 84% ■

Decrease placements in group homes 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% ■ Increase children/youth with two or fewer placements in the past 12 months

78% 82% 97% 91% 85% 78% 78% ■

Increase foster care placements within the District

48% 50% 50% 49% 49% 49% 49% ■

Increase visits between parents and children/youth in foster care

6

83% 85% 86% 87% 92% 88% 88% ■

Increase visits between siblings (2x monthly)

7

77% 85% 80% 83% 87% 83% 83% ■

Outcome: Children and youth exit foster care quickly and safely.

Indicator FY15 FY16 Target FY16/Q1 FY16/Q2 FY16/Q3 FY16/Q4 FY16

Annual

Decrease average number of months to reunification

14 12 14 12 13 17 15 ■

Decrease average number of months to guardianship

41 18 31 40 38 38 36 ■

Decrease average number of months to adoption

40 24 40 35 49 38 44 ■

1 Number of victimizations per 100,000 days in care (Fed data Sep 2016) – National Standard Met 2 FY15 Performance confirmed ACF Federal data November 2015. Federal PIP target for FY16 is 8.7% 3 Fed data Sep 2016 – National Standard Not Met 4 LaShawn benchmark

5 LaShawn benchmark 6 LaShawn benchmark 7 LaShawn benchmark

DC Child and Family Services Agency

December 2016

Commitment to Positive Outcomes

FY16 Scorecard Final

Exhibit C.2.8

Well Being Every child is entitled to a nurturing environment that supports healthy growth and development, good physical and mental health, and academic achievement.

Outcome: Children and youth in foster care get quality services for good health.

Indicator FY15 FY16

Target FY16/Q1 FY16/Q2 FY16/Q3 FY16/Q4

FY16 Annual

Increase children/youth getting an initial and re-entry health screening before a foster care placement

8

94% 95% 94% 96% 92% 100% 96% ■

Increase children/youth getting a medical evaluation within 30 days of entering care

9

88% 90% 82% 80% 90% 93% 86% ■

Increase children/youth getting a dental evaluation within 30 days of entering care

10

68% 71% 66% 38% 80% 63% 62% ■

Increase children/youth receiving mental health and trauma screening within 60 days of entering care

92% 94% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% ■

Increase children entering foster care and in need linked to a mental health provider within 7 days of receiving a mental health and trauma screening

39% 75%11

90% 71% 82% 90% 85% ■

Increase youth age 11 and older getting a pre-placement substance abuse screening

86% 90% 87% 90% 97% 98% 93% ■

Outcome: Children and youth in foster care get the quality education and training they need to succeed as adults.

Indicator FY15 FY16


FY16 Annual

Increase children ages 0-5 getting a developmental screening upon entering care

79% 82% 88% 95% 90% 85% 90% ■

Increase youth in foster care who graduate from high school

60% 63%

76% ■

Increase youth in foster care who graduate from college

8% 12%

16% ■

Increase youth in foster care who complete vocational training and/or receive industry certification

44% 46% 60% 50% 66% 100% 69% ■

Outcome: Youth in foster care delay parenting, and those who are teen parents have good parenting skills.

Indicator FY15 FY16


FY16 Annual

Decrease teen mothers in foster care 15% 12% 15% 15% 14% 17% 17% ■

Decrease repeat births to teen parents in foster care

2% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% ■

Exit to Permanence Every child and youth exits foster care as quickly as possible for a safe, well-supported family environment or life-long connection. Older youth have the skills for successful adulthood.

Outcome: Children and youth leave the child welfare system for a safe, permanent home.

Indicator FY15 FY16


FY16 Annual

Increase exits to a permanent home 77% 80% 81% 79% 79% 83% 81% ■ Decrease youth who age out of foster care 22% 20% 19% 21% 21% 17% 19% ■ Increase engagement of youth in after-care services

94% 98%

92% ■

Increase youth with stable housing upon exit 88% 92% 93% 81%

86%

96% 89% ■

Increase youth age 20 who are employed or in post-secondary education

45% 50% 53% 53% 52% 84% 61% ■

D.C. Child and Family Services Agency ▪ 200 I Street SE, Washington, DC 20003 (202) 442-6100 www.cfsa.dc.gov

8 LaShawn benchmark 9 LaShawn benchmark 10 LaShawn benchmark here is very low. In this case, the annual target is the FY15 annual plus 3%. 11 FY15 Q1 was a poor performance outlier that skewed the annual %. This target is based on the average of Q2-Q4 FY15 plus 5%.

Exhibit C.2.8

http://www.cfsa.dc.gov/

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

Exhibit C.2.12

CFSA Foster Care Service Array 2017

Page 1

Services Description Provided by CFSA

Provided by CFSA

Co-located Staff

Provided by DC Agency

Provided by the

Contractor

Current CFSA Budget

# Served FY16

Mental and Behavioral Health

Community-based or in-home services for children which include: diagnostic assessments, medication management, community support, and counseling.

X

provided through DBH,

funded through DC Medicaid

295

Non-Medicaid Therapeutic Services (EMDR, expressive therapy, play therapy, etc.)

Non-Medicaid therapeutic services provide children with a sensorial-based modality for addressing trauma that is often held within regions of the brain that are not accessible to verbal expression.

X 875,000 50

Substance Use (youth and adult treatment)

Services include assessments, pre-placement screenings for older youth, substance use monitoring, and treatment.

X

provided through DBH,

funded through DC Medicaid 1

20 youth and

80 adult

Substance use Assessor for both youth and adults including services by Recovery Specialist for Family Treatment Court

Mothers and fathers who are substance using and are working toward reunification, are eligible to participle in the Family Treatment Court and receive both inpatient or outpatient services.

X NA 95 youth

and 517 adult

Education Transportation

Transportation services are provided when necessary to keep children who enter foster care enrolled in their school of origin whenever possible.

X NA 135

Early Childhood Support

Specialized services for children birth-3 including early intervention child development screening (e.g., Ages and Stages questionnaire), family assessments, occupational, physical and speech therapy, family counseling, transportation)

X

1 Supplemental local funding will be used to cover related activities that are not Medicaid eligible (e.g., participation in team meetings).

Exhibit C.2.14


Page 2


Provided by CFSA

Co-located Staff


Provided by the

Contractor

Current CFSA Budget

# Served FY16

Elementary Education Support

CFSA educational specialists provide educational consultation to social workers, (e.g., accessing specialized services, navigating special education, enrolling a child, and what to do with suspended and disengaged children).

X NA 626

Secondary Education Support

CFSA educational specialists provide educational consultation to social workers, (e.g., accessing specialized services, navigating special education, enrolling a child, and what to do with suspended and disengaged children).

X NA ~175

Career Education Support

Older youth receive vocational assessments, training, counseling and referrals. X NA ~80

College Education Support

Support to 11th and 12th grade youth in their post-secondary educational planning, and to youth in college until age 23.

X NA 58

Making Money Grow (MMG)

Matched savings are available to youth who successfully complete a financial literacy program.

X NA ~175

Clinic – Healthy Horizons Assessment Center (HHAC)

HHAC provides pre-placement medical screenings and comprehensive health assessments and identification of medication needs.

X NA 717

Nurse Care Manager (NCM)

NCMs collaborate with social workers to develop comprehensive health plans for children with serious medical needs, including home visits and monitoring of health plans.

X N/A 440

Respite Respite services include short-term, temporary “time off” for foster parents, helping to minimize placement disruptions. Two days per month, per child of respite care is will be funded by CFSA.

X TBD

Exhibit C.2.14


Page 3


Provided by CFSA

Co-located Staff


Provided by the

Contractor

Current CFSA Budget

# Served FY16

Tutoring Tutors are matched to meet individualized needs and to promote academic progress. X $750,000 250

Mentoring Mentoring services are evidence-based, matched to the needs of the children, and include one-on-one services as well as online services.

X 500,000 150

Crisis Services – 24 hours/7 days a week

Intervention for children in foster care experiencing mental, behavioral or other challenges that put a placement at risk of disruption.

X 830,000 717

Child Care CFSA support to the foster family in identifying and securing appropriate child care and/or early education programs, (including subsidies and emergency childcare vouchers) to promote the child’s healthy development.

X X $350,000 for emergency child care

50 (emergency child care)

200

(vouchers)

One-on-One Support Short term, one-on-one behavioral support to stabilize children with severe emotional or behavioral needs in foster care placement.

X 150,000 13

In-Home Nursing Nursing support for medically fragile children in foster care placement (additional services not covered by insurance)

X $500,000 Varies FY16: 5

Domestic Violence Assessment and Treatment

CFSA uses the Safe and Together model, a perpetrator-pattern-based, child-centered, survivor strengths approach which increases the effectiveness of the system to engage men to become better fathers.

X 125,260 FY16: 242 FY17 (Q1):

129

Services to teen parents

Parenting classes, childcare vouchers, connection to healthcare services, referrals to parenting programs, and other community resources.

X 11

Exhibit C.2.14

Child and Family Services Reviews

District of Columbia

Final Report

2016

Exhibit C.2.15

This page is intentionally blank.

Exhibit C.2.15

District of Columbia 2016 CFSR Final Report

Final Report: District of Columbia Child and Family Services Review

1

INTRODUCTION

This document presents the findings of the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) for the District of Columbia. The CFSRs enable the Children’s Bureau to: (1) ensure conformity with certain federal child welfare requirements; (2) determine what is actually happening to children and families as they are engaged in child welfare services; and (3) assist states in enhancing their capacity to help children and families achieve positive outcomes. Federal law and regulations authorize the Children’s Bureau, within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families, to administer the review of child and family services programs under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. The CFSRs are structured to help states identify strengths and areas needing improvement in their child welfare practices and programs as well as institute systemic changes that will improve child and family outcomes.

The findings for the District of Columbia are based on:

• The statewide assessment prepared by the District of Columbia’s Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA), and submitted to the Children’s Bureau on March 25, 2016. The statewide assessment is the District’s analysis of its performance on outcomes, and the functioning of systemic factors in relation to title IV-B and IV-E requirements and the title IV-B Child and Family Services Plan

• The results of case reviews of 65 cases (40 foster care and 25 in-home cases) conducted via a Traditional Review process in the District of Columbia, during the week of June 26, 2016

• Interviews and focus groups with District stakeholders and partners, which included:

− Attorneys representing the agency, parents, and children and youth − Child care facility staff − Child welfare agency caseworkers and supervisors − Child welfare agency director, senior managers, and program managers − Contract caseworkers and supervisors − Foster and adoptive licensing staff − Foster and adoptive parents and relative caregivers − Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) staff − Information system staff − Judges − Parents

Exhibit C.2.15


2

− Placement managers − Recruitment and retention staff − Representatives from the courts and the Court Improvement Project − Representatives from the court monitor − Service providers − Training staff − Youth served by the agency

In Round 3, the Children’s Bureau suspended the use of the state’s performance on the national standards for the 7 statewide data indicators in conformity decisions. For contextual information, Appendix A of this report shows the state’s performance on the 7 data indicators. Moving forward, the Children’s Bureau will refer to the national standards as “national performance.” This performance represents the performance of the nation on the statewide data indicators for an earlier point in time. For the time periods used to calculate the national performance for each indicator, see 80 Fed. Reg. 27263 (May 13, 2015).

Background Information The Round 3 CFSR assesses state1 performance with regard to substantial conformity with 7 child and family outcomes and 7 systemic factors. Each outcome incorporates 1 or more of the 18 items included in the case review, and each item is rated as a Strength or Area Needing Improvement based on an evaluation of certain child welfare practices and processes in the cases reviewed in the state. With two exceptions, an item is assigned an overall rating of Strength if 90% or more of the applicable cases reviewed were rated as a Strength. Because Item 1 is the only item for Safety Outcome 1 and Item 16 is the only item for Well-Being Outcome 2, the requirement of a 95% Strength rating applies to those items. For a state to be in substantial conformity with a particular outcome, 95% or more of the cases reviewed must be rated as having substantially achieved the outcome

Eighteen items are considered in assessing the state’s substantial conformity with the 7 systemic factors. Each item reflects a key federal program requirement relevant to the Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP) for that systemic factor. An item is rated as a Strength or an Area Needing Improvement based on how well the item-specific requirement is functioning. A determination of the rating is based on information provided by the state to demonstrate the functioning of the systemic factor in the statewide assessment and, as needed, from interviews with stakeholders and partners. For a state to be in substantial conformity with the systemic factors, no more than 1 of the items associated with the systemic factor can be rated as an Area Needing Improvement. For systemic factors that have only 1 item associated with them, that item must be rated as a Strength for a determination of substantial conformity.

The Children's Bureau made several changes to the CFSR process and items and indicators relevant for performance based on lessons learned during the second round of reviews and in response to feedback from the child welfare field. As such, a state’s performance in the third round of the CFSRs is not directly comparable to its performance in the second round. Appendix A provides

1 For purposes of the CFSR and this Final Report, the District of Columbia is included in the term “state.”

Exhibit C.2.15


3

tables presenting District of Columbia’s overall performance in Round 3. Appendix B provides information about District of Columbia’s performance in Round 2.

I. SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE

District of Columbia 2016 CFSR Assessment of Substantial Conformity for Outcomes and Systemic Factors None of the 7 outcomes was found to be in substantial conformity.

The following 5 of 7 systemic factors were found to be in substantial conformity:

• Statewide Information System

• Quality Assurance System

• Staff and Provider Training

• Service Array and Resource Development

• Agency Responsiveness to the Community

Children’s Bureau Comments on District of Columbia Performance The following are the Children’s Bureau’s observations about cross-cutting issues and the District of Columbia’s overall performance:

Several strengths were identified and consistently reflected in stakeholder interviews and cases reviewed during the District of Columbia’s CFSR. As reported in the statewide assessment, the District devoted significant time and resources in the past several years to initiatives and infrastructure projects, which were successful in improving the education and health care of children served.

The District of Columbia developed a comprehensive education strategy to ensure that all foster children in the District have access to an educational program appropriate to their age and abilities that is designed to meet their individual needs. Many of these efforts are ongoing. Some strong practices have been implemented, as seen in the CFSR, including the availability of educational specialists who assist and support caseworkers with educational matters such as attendance, enrollment, assessments, specialized educational services, tutoring, transportation, and post-secondary education. An early education specialist designated to promote healthy development is available to assist foster parents with identifying and securing appropriate child care. The CFSA has developed a strong relationship with the school system to provide the agency access to enrollment information and standardized test scores for children. This enables workers to monitor educational progress and offer tutoring and mentoring services when needed. School stability is routinely discussed during removal team meetings. In addition, an education specialist attends every child’s 30-day case planning meeting to identify and resolve any educational issues, including those related to school stability. Children were able to

Exhibit C.2.15


4

remain in their home schools when they were placed in foster care and were provided appropriate educational services to meet their needs due in part to these activities, which positively affected a number of cases reviewed during the CFSR.

The Healthy Horizons Assessment Center was established as an onsite 24-hour medical screening clinic for children entering or exiting foster care and for children changing placements while in foster care. Upon entry into foster care, children receive a medical screening to identify health issues requiring attention, including chronic conditions, infectious or communicable diseases, hygiene and nutritional problems, substance abuse, and developmental or mental health concerns, and to detect signs of abuse or neglect. The District of Columbia uses a mobile dental van operated by the Children’s National Medical Center to provide timely evaluations. Access to quality health and dental care assessments resulted in strong performance ratings for the assessment of physical and dental health care needs during the CFSR. However, in some cases there was a lack of follow-through with services to meet the identified needs.

Preserving sibling relationships often lessens the emotional trauma of removal. The CFSR showed that the District of Columbia is committed to locating placements that enable siblings to remain together and, when this is not possible, workers facilitate regular contact between siblings.

While the CFSR found many key practices that positively affected outcomes, several safety issues were identified. One significant issue was found with the family assessment cases. In 2014, the District implemented a differential response approach to reports of abuse or neglect. The differential response to accepted hotline reports allows for a family assessment rather than a formal Child Protective Services (CPS) investigation for low and moderate-risk cases with no immediate safety concerns. The District has a well-defined process for the family assessment approach; however, in the cases reviewed there is a lack of fidelity to established policy and protocol and to assuring the safety of children. The CFSR identified concerns in the areas of timely response to reports of abuse or neglect, the provision of safety services, and the assessment of safety and risk to children in these cases. The differential response cases consistently reflected more safety challenges than other in-home and foster care cases reviewed.

Another safety-related issue identified during the CFSR is the lack of comprehensive assessments in all case types. Initial formal and informal safety and risk assessments, although often completed, are not always comprehensive. The focus of these assessments is often only on specific issues confronting a family and do not appear to consider the family system’s functioning holistically, or the underlying issues contributing to the challenges faced by the family or child. Ongoing assessments are not completed regularly, and assessments are not consistently completed at case closure. When safety concerns are present, safety plans are not always developed or routinely monitored.

The lack of engagement of parents, more often fathers, affects practice in multiple areas, including parental needs assessment and service provision, case planning, and visitation with the caseworker. Although family team meetings are a routine practice for the District of Columbia, the CFSR did not find evidence that these meetings serve as a forum to actively engage parents in jointly developing their case plans. While involvement in case planning is an issue for both parents, case review results show that the agency is more challenged with engaging fathers. Parental involvement in case planning is more problematic when a parent is incarcerated. Although the District of Columbia has made efforts to emphasize the importance of father involvement and to identify approaches to encourage fathers’ participation, improved outcomes from these efforts are not evident in the cases reviewed.

Exhibit C.2.15


5

Achieving permanency was found to be a challenge in a significant number of cases reviewed during the CFSR. In some cases, there is a failure to change a child’s permanency goal when appropriate. Other cases show that the services needed to achieve the permanency goal, such as housing assistance, are not provided. The court’s practice of extending the time for parents to reunify or declining to terminate parental rights was identified as a barrier to timely achievement of permanency in several other cases reviewed. Concurrent planning, if used effectively, could possibly have moved cases toward permanency much sooner.

Timely filing of termination petitions, or documenting compelling reasons not to file, were identified as significant concerns in the District of Columbia’s statewide assessment. The findings from the cases reviewed reinforce the conclusion that timely filing of TPR petitions is not consistently occurring. An agency practice affecting the functioning of this requirement is that in many cases CFSA does not file motions for termination of parental rights (TPR) when a child has been in care 15 out of 22 months but waits until the child’s goal is changed to adoption and an adoptive family is identified, which can sometimes be several years from the date the child entered care. The court then integrates the termination into adoption proceedings.

With regard to placement stability, many children in the cases reviewed during the CFSR were considered to be stable in their placements. Relative placements and the support available through the Foster Parent Support Unit (FPSU) were shown in several cases to support placement stability. When placement instability was identified during the CFSR, it usually involved youth with significant behavioral, mental health, or substance abuse issues.

In both the statewide assessment and stakeholder interviews, the CB learned of the strong retention rate for foster parents due to the matching process, relative placements, and the efforts of the FPSU. The private agencies are active participants in recruiting and licensing foster parents with CFSA. There is no single recruitment plan outlining the coordination of efforts. Due to the small geographic area of the District of Columbia, the lack of collaboration among agencies results in overlapping recruitment efforts. And, absent a single recruitment plan, it is not possible to ensure that recruitment efforts are focused on families reflecting the ethnic and racial diversity of children needing homes.

More generally, the District of Columbia’s child welfare program is responsive to staff and stakeholders’ ideas for program improvement initiatives. However, it appears that initiatives are often developed independently of other projects and without consideration for potential overlap with or integration into existing programs. This has resulted in staff not always being aware of new initiatives or new services. Also, because of the multitude of services available, more attention should be placed on the coordination and monitoring of services provided to the family so that families are not overburdened or overwhelmed.

CFSA is a dynamic and evolving child welfare agency. It has demonstrated creativity in developing initiatives to meet the changing needs of families and children who become involved in the child welfare system. CFSA has a solid infrastructure and commitment to improved practice, including its recent emphasis on trauma-informed practice and an enhanced process for assessments. The agency is well-positioned to creatively build on its promising practices to improve outcomes in the areas found by the CFSR to need more attention.

Exhibit C.2.15


6

II. KEY FINDINGS RELATED TO OUTCOMES

For each outcome, we provide performance summaries from the case review findings. The CFSR relies upon a case review of an approved sample of foster care cases and in-home services cases. The District of Columbia provides an alternative/differential response to, in addition to a traditional investigation of, incoming reports of child maltreatment or children in need of services. Where relevant, we provide performance summaries that are differentiated between foster care, in-home, and in-home services alternative/differential response cases.

This report provides an overview. Results have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Details on each case rating are available to the CFSA. The state is encouraged to conduct additional item-specific analysis of the case review findings to better understand areas of practice that are associated with positive outcomes and those that need improvement.

Safety Outcome 1: Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect. The Children’s Bureau calculates the state’s performance on Safety Outcome 1 using the state’s performance on Item 1.

State Outcome Performance The District of Columbia is not in substantial conformity with Safety Outcome 1.

The outcome was substantially achieved in 73% of the 26 applicable cases reviewed.

Safety Outcome 1 Item Performance

Item 1. Timeliness of Initiating Investigations of Reports of Child Maltreatment Purpose of Assessment: To determine whether responses to all accepted child maltreatment reports received during the period under review were initiated, and face-to-face contact with the child(ren) made, within the time frames established by agency policies or state statutes.

District policy requires that all CPS investigations commence as soon as possible but no later than 24 hours after the receipt of the report, and that the initial phase of the investigation be completed within 2 hours in cases where there is an imminent safety concern and 24 hours when there is not an imminent safety concern. This includes face-to-face contact with all children in the family, completion of risk and safety assessments, and interviews with caregivers and the reporter. Differential response allows for an alternative response to accepted Hotline reports on alleged child abuse and neglect referrals, with a 5-day response time for initiating a family assessment referral.

• The District of Columbia received an overall rating of Area Needing Improvement for Item 1 because 73% of the 26 applicable cases were rated as a Strength.

For performance on the safety statewide data indicators, see Appendix A.

Exhibit C.2.15


7

Safety Outcome 2: Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate. The Children’s Bureau calculates the state’s performance on Safety Outcome 2 using the state’s performance on Items 2 and 3.

State Outcome Performance The District of Columbia is not in substantial conformity with Safety Outcome 2.

The outcome was substantially achieved in 55% of the 65 cases reviewed.

The outcome was substantially achieved in 60% of the 40 foster care cases, 58% of the 19 in-home services cases, and 17% of the 6 in-home services alternative/differential response case.

Safety Outcome 2 Item Performance

Item 2. Services to Family to Protect Child(ren) in the Home and Prevent Removal or Re-Entry Into Foster Care Purpose of Assessment: To determine whether, during the period under review, the agency made concerted efforts to provide services to the family to prevent children’s entry into foster care or re-entry after a reunification.


• Item 2 was rated as a Strength in 86% of the 14 applicable foster care cases, and 55% of the 11 applicable in-home services cases. No in-home services alternative/differential response cases were applicable for assessment.

Item 3. Risk and Safety Assessment and Management Purpose of Assessment: To determine whether, during the period under review, the agency made concerted efforts to assess and address the risk and safety concerns relating to the child(ren) in their own homes or while in foster care.


• Item 3 was rated as a Strength in 60% of the 40 applicable foster care cases, 58% of the 19 applicable in-home services cases, and 17% of the 6 applicable in-home services alternative/differential response cases.

Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations. The Children’s Bureau calculates the state’s performance on Permanency Outcome 1 using the state’s performance on Items 4, 5, and 6.

Exhibit C.2.15


8

State Outcome Performance The District of Columbia is not in substantial conformity with Permanency Outcome 1.


Permanency Outcome 1 Item Performance

Item 4. Stability of Foster Care Placement Purpose of Assessment: To determine whether the child in foster care is in a stable placement at the time of the onsite review and that any changes in placement that occurred during the period under review were in the best interests of the child and consistent with achieving the child’s permanency goal(s).


Item 5. Permanency Goal for Child Purpose of Assessment: To determine whether appropriate permanency goals were established for the child in a timely manner.


Item 6. Achieving Reunification, Guardianship, Adoption, or Other Planned Permanent Living Arrangement Purpose of Assessment: To determine whether concerted efforts were made, or are being made, during the period under review to achieve reunification, guardianship, adoption, or other planned permanent living arrangement.


For performance on the permanency statewide data indicators, see Appendix A.

Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children. The Children’s Bureau calculates the state’s performance on Permanency Outcome 2 using the state’s performance on Items 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.

State Outcome Performance The District of Columbia is not in substantial conformity with Permanency Outcome 2.


Exhibit C.2.15


9

Permanency Outcome 2 Item Performance

Item 7. Placement With Siblings Purpose of Assessment: To determine whether, during the period under review, concerted efforts were made to ensure that siblings in foster care are placed together unless a separation was necessary to meet the needs of one of the siblings.

• The District of Columbia received an overall rating of Strength for Item 7 because 96% of the 23 applicable cases were rated as a Strength.

Item 8. Visiting With Parents and Siblings in Foster Care Purpose of Assessment: To determine whether, during the period under review, concerted efforts were made to ensure that visitation between a child in foster care and his or her mother, father,2 and siblings is of sufficient frequency and quality to promote continuity in the child’s relationship with these close family members.


• In 80% of the 10 applicable cases, the agency made concerted efforts to ensure that both the frequency and quality of visitation with a sibling(s) in foster care who is/was in a different placement setting was sufficient to maintain and promote the continuity of the relationship.

• In 78% of the 23 applicable cases, the agency made concerted efforts to ensure that both the frequency and quality of visitation between the child in foster care and his or her mother was sufficient to maintain and promote the continuity of the relationship.

• In 36% of the 11 applicable cases, the agency made concerted efforts to ensure that both the frequency and quality of visitation between the child in foster care and his or her father was sufficient to maintain and promote the continuity of the relationship.

Item 9. Preserving Connections Purpose of Assessment: To determine whether, during the period under review, concerted efforts were made to maintain the child’s connections to his or her neighborhood, community, faith, extended family, Tribe, school, and friends.

2 For Item 8, “Mother” and “Father” are typically defined as the parents/caregivers from whom the child was removed and with whom the agency is

working toward reunification. The persons identified in these roles for the purposes of the review may include individuals who do not meet the legal definitions or conventional meanings of a mother and father.

Exhibit C.2.15


10


Item 10. Relative Placement Purpose of Assessment: To determine whether, during the period under review, concerted efforts were made to place the child with relatives when appropriate.


Item 11. Relationship of Child in Care With Parents Purpose of Assessment: To determine whether, during the period under review, concerted efforts were made to promote, support, and/or maintain positive relationships between the child in foster care and his or her mother and father3 or other primary caregiver(s) from whom the child had been removed through activities other than just arranging for visitation.


• In 78% of the 23 applicable cases, the agency made concerted efforts to promote, support, and otherwise maintain a positive and nurturing relationship between the child in foster care and his or her mother.

• In 55% of the 11 applicable cases, the agency made concerted efforts to promote, support, and otherwise maintain a positive and nurturing relationship between the child in foster care and his or her father.

Well-Being Outcome 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs. The Children’s Bureau calculates the state’s performance on Well-Being Outcome 1 using the state’s performance on Items 12, 13, 14, and 15.

State Outcome Performance The District of Columbia is not in substantial conformity with Well-Being Outcome 1.

The outcome was substantially achieved in 17% of the 65 cases reviewed.

The outcome was substantially achieved in 18% of the 40 foster care cases, 21% of the 19 in-home services cases, and 0% of the 6 in-home services alternative/differential response cases.

3 For Item 11, “Mother” and “Father” are typically defined as the parents/caregivers from whom the child was removed and with whom the agency is

working toward reunification.

Exhibit C.2.15


11

Well-Being Outcome 1 Item Performance

Item 12. Needs and Services of Child, Parents, and Foster Parents Purpose of Assessment: To determine whether, during the period under review, the agency (1) made concerted efforts to assess the needs of children, parents,4 and foster parents (both initially, if the child entered foster care or the case was opened during the period under review, and on an ongoing basis) to identify the services necessary to achieve case goals and adequately address the issues relevant to the agency’s involvement with the family, and (2) provided the appropriate services.

• The District of Columbia received an overall rating of Area Needing Improvement for Item 12 because 18% of the 65 cases were rated as a Strength.

• Item 12 was rated as Strength in 18% of the 40 foster care cases, 21% of the 19 in-home services cases, and 17% of the 6 in-home services alternative/differential response cases.

Item 12 is divided into three sub-items:

Sub-Item 12A. Needs Assessment and Services to Children • The District of Columbia received an overall rating of Area Needing Improvement for Item 12A because 74% of the 65 cases

were rated as a Strength.

• Item 12A was rated as a Strength in 78% of the 40 foster care cases, 68% of the 19 in-home services cases, and 67% of the 6 in-home services alternative/differential response cases.

Sub-Item 12B. Needs Assessment and Services to Parents • The District of Columbia received an overall rating of Area Needing Improvement for Item 12B because 16% of the 57

applicable cases were rated as a Strength.

• Item 12B was rated as a Strength in 13% of the 32 applicable foster care cases, 21% of the 19 applicable in-home services cases, and 17% of the 6 applicable in-home services alternative/differential response cases.

4 For Sub-Item 12B, in the in-home cases, “Mother” and “Father” are typically defined as the parents/caregivers with whom the children were living

when the agency became involved with the family and with whom the children will remain (for example, biological parents, relatives, guardians, adoptive parents). In the foster care cases, “Mother” and “Father” are typically defined as the parents/caregivers from whom the child was removed and with whom the agency is working toward reunification; however, biological parents who were not the parents from whom the child was removed may also be included, as may adoptive parents if the adoption was finalized during the period under review. A rating could consider the agency’s work with multiple applicable “mothers” and “fathers” for the period under review in the case.

Exhibit C.2.15


12

• In 45% of the 56 applicable cases, the agency made concerted efforts both to assess and address the needs of mothers.

• In 14% of the 43 applicable cases, the agency made concerted efforts both to assess and address the needs of fathers.

Sub-Item 12C. Needs Assessment and Services to Foster Parents • The District of Columbia received an overall rating of Area Needing Improvement for Item 12C because 58% of the 40

applicable foster care cases were rated as a Strength.

Item 13. Child and Family Involvement in Case Planning Purpose of Assessment: To determine whether, during the period under review, concerted efforts were made (or are being made) to involve parents5 and children (if developmentally appropriate) in the case planning process on an ongoing basis.



• In 65% of the 43 applicable cases, the agency made concerted efforts to involve child(ren) in case planning.

• In 63% of the 54 applicable cases, the agency made concerted efforts to involve mothers in case planning.

• In 24% of the 37 applicable cases, the agency made concerted efforts to involve fathers in case planning.

Item 14. Caseworker Visits With Child Purpose of Assessment: To determine whether the frequency and quality of visits between caseworkers and the child(ren) in the case are sufficient to ensure the safety, permanency, and well-being of the child(ren) and promote achievement of case goals.

• The District of Columbia received an overall rating of Area Needing Improvement for Item 14 because 71% of the 65 cases were rated as a Strength.

• Item 14 was rated as a Strength in 80% of the 40 foster care cases, 63% of the 19 in-home services cases, and 33% of the 6 in-home services alternative/differential response cases.

5 For Item 13, in the in-home cases, “Mother” and “Father” are typically defined as the parents/caregivers with whom the children were living when

the agency became involved with the family and with whom the children will remain (for example, biological parents, relatives, guardians, adoptive parents). In the foster care cases, “mother” and “father” are typically defined as the parents/caregivers from whom the child was removed and with whom the agency is working toward reunification; however, biological parents who were not the parents from whom the child was removed may also be included, as may adoptive parents if the adoption was finalized during the period under review. A rating could consider the agency’s work with multiple applicable “mothers” and “fathers” for the period under review in the case.

Exhibit C.2.15


13

Item 15. Caseworker Visits With Parents Purpose of Assessment: To determine whether, during the period under review, the frequency and quality of visits between caseworkers and the mothers and fathers6 of the child(ren) are sufficient to ensure the safety, permanency, and well-being of the child(ren) and promote achievement of case goals.



• In 56% of the 54 applicable cases, the agency made concerted efforts to ensure that both the frequency and quality of caseworker visitation with mothers were sufficient.

• In 22% of the 37 applicable cases, the agency made concerted efforts to ensure that both the frequency and quality of caseworker visitation with fathers were sufficient.

Well-Being Outcome 2: Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs. The Children’s Bureau calculates the state’s performance on Well-Being Outcome 2 using the state’s performance on Item 16.




Item 16. Educational Needs of the Child Purpose of Assessment: To assess whether, during the period under review, the agency made concerted efforts to assess children’s educational needs at the initial contact with the child (if the case was opened during the period under review) or on an ongoing basis (if

6 For Item 15, in the in-home cases, “Mother” and “Father” are typically defined as the parents/caregivers with whom the children were living when

the agency became involved with the family and with whom the children will remain (for example, biological parents, relatives, guardians, adoptive parents). In the foster care cases, “Mother” and “Father” is typically defined as the parents/caregivers from whom the child was removed and with whom the agency is working toward reunification; however, biological parents who were not the parents from whom the child was removed may also be included, as may adoptive parents if the adoption was finalized during the period under review. A rating could consider the agency’s work with multiple applicable mother and fathers for the period under review in the case.

Exhibit C.2.15


14

the case was opened before the period under review), and whether identified needs were appropriately addressed in case planning and case management activities.



Well-Being Outcome 3: Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs. The Children’s Bureau calculates the state’s performance on Well-Being Outcome 3 using the state’s performance on Items 17 and 18.



The outcome was substantially achieved in 53% of the 40 applicable foster care cases, 31% of the applicable 13 in-home services cases, and 40% of the applicable 5 in-home services alternative/differential response cases.


Item 17. Physical Health of the Child Purpose of Assessment: To determine whether, during the period under review, the agency addressed the physical health needs of the children, including dental health needs.


• Item 17 was rated as a Strength in 68% of the 40 foster care cases, 78% of the 9 applicable in-home services cases, and 75% of the 4 in-home services alternative/differential response cases.

Item 18. Mental/Behavioral Health of the Child Purpose of Assessment: To determine whether, during the period under review, the agency addressed the mental/behavioral health needs of the children.


Exhibit C.2.15


15


III. KEY FINDINGS RELATED TO SYSTEMIC FACTORS

For each systemic factor below, we provide performance summaries and a determination of whether the state is in substantial conformity with that systemic factor. In addition, we provide ratings for each item and a description of how the rating was determined. The CFSR relies upon a review of information contained in the statewide assessment to assess each item. If an item rating cannot be determined from the information contained in the statewide assessment, the Children’s Bureau conducts stakeholder interviews and considers information gathered through the interviews in determining ratings for each item.

Statewide Information System The Children’s Bureau assesses the state’s performance on this systemic factor using the state’s performance on Item 19.

State Systemic Factor Performance • The District of Columbia is in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Statewide Information System. The one item in

this systemic factor was rated as a Strength.

Statewide Information System Item Performance

Item 19. Statewide Information System Description of Systemic Factor Item: The statewide information system is functioning statewide to ensure that, at a minimum, the state can readily identify the status, demographic characteristics, location, and goals for the placement of every child who is (or, within the immediately preceding 12 months, has been) in foster care.

• The District of Columbia received an overall rating of Strength for Item 19 based on information from the statewide assessment and stakeholder interviews.

• Information in the statewide assessment and obtained during stakeholder interviews showed that the District of Columbia’s information system is functioning to identify the status, demographic characteristics, location, and goals for every child in foster care. CFSA has a process in place to address the difficulty it has had in meeting the 24-hour time frame for documenting placement change information in the system and employs numerous data quality checks to ensure that the system contains reliable and current data.

Case Review System The Children’s Bureau assesses the state’s performance on this systemic factor using the state’s performance on Items 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24.

Exhibit C.2.15


16

State Systemic Factor Performance The District of Columbia is not in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Case Review System. Three of the 5 items in this systemic factor were rated as a Strength.

Case Review System Item Performance

Item 20. Written Case Plan Description of Systemic Factor Item: The case review system is functioning statewide to ensure that each child has a written case plan that is developed jointly with the child’s parent(s) and includes the required provisions.

• The District of Columbia received an overall rating of Area Needing Improvement for Item 20 based on information from the statewide assessment and stakeholder interviews.

• Information in the statewide assessment and confirmed during interviews with stakeholders showed that although case plans are in place and that Family Team Meetings are used to engage families in case planning, CFSA has had challenges in joint development of plans with parents. In particular, the District of Columbia is not consistently making efforts to engage fathers and incarcerated parents in case planning.

Item 21. Periodic Reviews Description of Systemic Factor Item: The case review system is functioning statewide to ensure that a periodic review for each child occurs no less frequently than once every 6 months, either by a court or by administrative review.


• Information from the statewide assessment and confirmed during stakeholder interviews showed that the District of Columbia ensures that a periodic review for each child occurs no less frequently than once every 6 months by the court, as all of the hearings within the District of Columbia’s case review process, regardless of the type, generally cover the same requirements and include those federal requirements for periodic reviews. Often, more than one periodic review is held between the dispositional hearing and the child’s first permanency hearing.

Item 22. Permanency Hearings Description of Systemic Factor Item: The case review system is functioning statewide to ensure that each child has a permanency hearing in a qualified court or administrative body that occurs no later than 12 months from the date the child entered foster care and no less frequently than every 12 months thereafter.

• The District of Columbia received an overall rating of Strength for Item 22 based on information from the statewide assessment.

Exhibit C.2.15


17

• The statewide assessment presented data from the Court Improvement Program, the District of Columbia’s information system, and qualitative data, all demonstrating that permanency hearings are consistently held as required across the District and within the required time frames.

Item 23. Termination of Parental Rights Description of Systemic Factor Item: The case review system is functioning statewide to ensure that the filing of termination of parental rights proceedings occurs in accordance with required provisions.

• The District of Columbia received an overall rating of Area Needing Improvement for Item 23 based on information from the statewide assessment. The District agreed with this rating and felt that additional information collected during stakeholder interviews would not affect the rating.

• The statewide assessment presented qualitative data and data from the Court Improvement Project showing that the District of Columbia does not routinely file motions to terminate parental rights when a child has been in care for 15 of the most recent 22 months and that appropriate compelling reasons not to file at the time are not included in the case record. CFSA files a petition for TPR within 45 days of the child’s permanency goal becoming adoption, unless the parent has consented to the adoption, the parent has relinquished his or her rights, or the prospective adoptive parent has filed an adoption petition.

Item 24. Notice of Hearings and Reviews to Caregivers Description of Systemic Factor Item: The case review system is functioning to ensure that foster parents, pre-adoptive parents, and relative caregivers of children in foster care are notified of, and have a right to be heard in, any review or hearing held with respect to the child.


• Information in the statewide assessment showed that the District of Columbia has a process in place to ensure that foster parents, pre-adoptive parents, and relative caregivers are notified of, and have a right to be heard in, any review or hearing with respect to the child. Information collected during focus groups and presented in the statewide assessment supported that caregivers’ right to be heard is functioning.

Quality Assurance System The Children’s Bureau assesses the state’s performance on this systemic factor using the state’s performance on Item 25.

State Systemic Factor Performance The District of Columbia is in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Quality Assurance System. The one item in this systemic factor was rated as a Strength.

Exhibit C.2.15


18

Quality Assurance System Item Performance

Item 25. Quality Assurance System Description of Systemic Factor Item: The quality assurance system is functioning statewide to ensure that it (1) is operating in the jurisdictions where the services included in the Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP) are provided, (2) has standards to evaluate the quality of services (including standards to ensure that children in foster care are provided quality services that protect their health and safety), (3) identifies strengths and needs of the service delivery system, (4) provides relevant reports, and (5) evaluates implemented program improvement measures.


• Information in the statewide assessment showed that CFSA has a multifaceted Quality Assurance system that reviews individual cases and analyzes data to evaluate whether or not the District is providing the services necessary to the children and families served by the CFSA and to determine progress toward meeting established goals and objectives. The QA system is able to identify strengths and needs and evaluate implemented program improvement measures. The Office of Agency Performance within CFSA has established scorecards and data dashboards that show practice performance related to specific measurable standards. In addition, the Center for the Study of Social Policy monitors the District on more than 100 standards as part of the LaShawn Consent Decree.

Staff and Provider Training The Children’s Bureau assesses the state’s performance on this systemic factor using the state’s performance on Items 26, 27, and 28.

State Systemic Factor Performance The District of Columbia is in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Staff and Provider Training. Three of the items in this systemic factor were rated as a Strength.

Staff and Provider Training Item Performance

Item 26. Initial Staff Training Description of Systemic Factor Item: The staff and provider training system is functioning statewide to ensure that initial training is provided to all staff who deliver services pursuant to the CFSP that includes the basic skills and knowledge required for their positions.


• Information in the statewide assessment showed that the vast majority of new hires complete the 80 hours of required pre-service training within 90 days of hire and before being assigned cases. In addition, the training incorporates skill-building

Exhibit C.2.15


19

opportunities for new staff through specific on-the-job activities designed to use the knowledge learned in the classroom. Information provided in the statewide assessment also showed that the majority of staff surveyed believe the training provides them with the necessary skills to perform their jobs.

Item 27. Ongoing Staff Training Description of Systemic Factor Item: The staff and provider training system is functioning statewide to ensure that ongoing training is provided for staff7 that addresses the skills and knowledge base needed to carry out their duties with regard to the services included in the CFSP.


• Information in the statewide assessment showed that the District of Columbia has an in-service training program requiring caseworkers to complete 30 hours of in-service training, and requiring supervisors and program managers to complete 24 hours of in-service training after supervisors complete the required 40 hours of pre-service Art of Supervision training. Data provided during stakeholder interviews showed that the vast majority of staff completes their annual in-service training requirements. Survey information also indicated that staff members believe that the training they receive is relevant and applicable to their job responsibilities.

Item 28. Foster and Adoptive Parent Training Description of Systemic Factor Item: The staff and provider training system is functioning statewide to ensure that training is occurring statewide for current or prospective foster parents, adoptive parents, and staff of state licensed or approved facilities (that care for children receiving foster care or adoption assistance under title IV-E) that addresses the skills and knowledge base needed to carry out their duties with regard to foster and adopted children.

• District of Columbia received an overall rating of Strength for Item 28 based on information from the statewide assessment and stakeholder interviews.

• Information in the statewide assessment and collected during interviews with stakeholders shows that CFSA and licensed child placing agencies (CPAs) require 30 hours of pre-service training and 30 hours of in-service training for foster and adoptive parents every 2 years. While CPAs may elect to provide their own training, all foster and adoptive parents may attend training offered by CFSA’s Child Welfare Training Academy. Data provided in the statewide assessment showed that

7 "Staff," for purposes of assessing this item, includes all contracted and non-contracted staff who have case management responsibilities in the

areas of child protection services, family preservation and support services, foster care services, adoption services, and independent living services pursuant to the state’s CFSP. "Staff" also includes direct supervisors of all contracted and non-contracted staff who have case management responsibilities in the areas of child protection services, family preservation and support services, foster care services, adoption services, and independent living services pursuant to the state’s CFSP.

Exhibit C.2.15


20

foster and adoptive parents are routinely meeting this requirement. Stakeholders interviewed said group home and residential facility staff are meeting the 40-hour training requirement. Stakeholders also said that the training prepares caregivers and staff to carry out their duties.

Service Array and Resource Development The Children’s Bureau assesses the state’s performance on this systemic factor using the state’s performance on Items 29 and 30.

State Systemic Factor Performance The District of Columbia is in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Service Array and Resource Development. Both of the items in this systemic factor were rated as a Strength.

Service Array and Resource Development Item Performance

Item 29. Array of Services Description of Systemic Factor Item: The service array and resource development system is functioning to ensure that the following array of services is accessible in all political jurisdictions covered by the CFSP: (1) services that assess the strengths and needs of children and families and determine other service needs, (2) services that address the needs of families in addition to individual children in order to create a safe home environment, (3) services that enable children to remain safely with their parents when reasonable, and (4) services that help children in foster and adoptive placements achieve permanency.


• Information in the statewide assessment and collected during stakeholder interviews showed that the District of Columbia has a wide array of services to address the identified needs of the children and families served by CFSA. Continuous expansion of services both for families whose children remain in the home and for those who need out-of-home care has allowed CFSA to provide specialized services, including mentoring services to youth; nurse care managers to children with serious medical concerns; addiction recovery specialists for parents requiring additional assistance; school-based programs to help teen parents stay in school; and providing home visitation services to teen parents. When a service is not readily available, CFSA often developed the service. A minority of stakeholders noted that there could still be some work needed to address the availability and accessibility of housing and timeliness and quality of mental health services.

Item 30. Individualizing Services Description of Systemic Factor Item: The service array and resource development system is functioning statewide to ensure that the services in Item 29 can be individualized to meet the unique needs of children and families served by the agency.


Exhibit C.2.15


21

• Information in the statewide assessment and collected during stakeholder interviews showed that CFSA workers could be innovative to ensure that children and families receive appropriate services to meet their individual needs. Interviews with stakeholders described how staff work with children’s teams to develop creative solutions to service delivery problems. In addition, the District of Columbia provided mini-grants to the Community Collaboratives to develop services lacking in specific areas of the city. A flexible spending account allows Collaboratives to meet the concrete needs of families.

Agency Responsiveness to the Community The Children’s Bureau assesses the state’s performance on this systemic factor using the state’s performance on Items 31 and 32.

State Systemic Factor Performance The District of Columbia is in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Agency Responsiveness to the Community. Both items in this systemic factor were rated as a Strength.

Agency Responsiveness to the Community Item Performance

Item 31. State Engagement and Consultation With Stakeholders Pursuant to CFSP and APSR Description of Systemic Factor Item: The agency responsiveness to the community system is functioning statewide to ensure that, in implementing the provisions of the CFSP and developing related APSRs, the state engages in ongoing consultation with Tribal representatives, consumers, service providers, foster care providers, the juvenile court, and other public and private child- and family-serving agencies and includes the major concerns of these representatives in the goals, objectives, and annual updates of the CFSP.


• The statewide assessment reported that only a select group of agency partners and stakeholders actually provides input directly on the CFSP or APSR. However, information gathered during the stakeholder interviews showed that CFSA consults with a wide array of partners in developing, implementing, and evaluating programs which are then reported in the CFSP and APSR. CFSA makes extensive efforts to include service providers, partner agencies, the courts, and advocates in workgroups and planning activities. Youth have a growing voice in the processes CFSA has designed to gather input, as can be seen by the implementation of a Youth Ombudsman in recent years as well as the establishment of two youth advisory boards. However, while efforts have been made to engage birth parents, some stakeholders said that more could be done to ensure that these direct users of the services and activities provided by CFSA have more say in the direction of the District’s child welfare system.

Item 32. Coordination of CFSP Services With Other Federal Programs Description of Systemic Factor Item: The agency responsiveness to the community system is functioning statewide to ensure that the state’s services under the CFSP are coordinated with services or benefits of other federal or federally assisted programs serving the same population.

Exhibit C.2.15


22


• Information in the statewide assessment showed that the District of Columbia has developed strong relationships with federally funded partner agencies in an effort to better coordinate services for children and families. Longstanding endeavors as well as new initiatives have been designed by the CFSA and its partner agencies to increase program capacity, expand the service array, simplify the referral and eligibility processes, better coordinate services, and improve access.

Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention The Children’s Bureau assesses the state’s performance on this systemic factor using the state’s performance on Items 33, 34, 35, and 36.

State Systemic Factor Performance The District of Columbia is not in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention. Two of the four items in this systemic factor were rated as a Strength.

Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention Item Performance

Item 33. Standards Applied Equally Description of Systemic Factor Item: The foster and adoptive parent licensing, recruitment, and retention system is functioning statewide to ensure that state standards are applied to all licensed or approved foster family homes or child care institutions receiving title IV-B or IV-E funds.


• Information in the statewide assessment showed that the District of Columbia is functioning statewide to ensure that all providers meet the same licensing requirements, including requirements that allow for waivers and variances on a case-by-case basis. The District of Columbia has contracted with private child placing agencies in the state of Maryland to ensure that foster homes for children placed in Maryland, who are in the custody of the District of Columbia, are compliant with District regulations. A single manager in CFSA reviews all applications for an original license to operate a youth residential facility or independent living program. All licensing and monitoring staff use the same tool for every provider to further ensure compliance with requirements.

Item 34. Requirements for Criminal Background Checks Description of Systemic Factor Item: The foster and adoptive parent licensing, recruitment, and retention system is functioning statewide to ensure that the state complies with federal requirements for criminal background clearances as related to licensing or

Exhibit C.2.15


23

approving foster care and adoptive placements and has in place a case planning process that includes provisions for addressing the safety of foster care and adoptive placements for children.


• Information in the statewide assessment showed that CFSA monitors and tracks compliance with federal criminal background check requirements, including fingerprinting, for all foster family homes and facility staff. The statewide assessment provided information on the efficiencies and dependability of the CFSA’s use of LiveScan technology to maximize the availability of resources for children requiring placement. The centralization of this function provides uniform application. However, because only CFSA has the authority to fingerprint foster parents, prospective staff members of contracted congregate care facilities cannot use the LiveScan process and must go through law enforcement. This is less efficient. The District ensures ongoing safety planning for children in foster care by conducting continued criminal background checks and monitoring results so that appropriate action is taken.

Item 35. Diligent Recruitment of Foster and Adoptive Homes Description of Systemic Factor Item: The foster and adoptive parent licensing, recruitment, and retention system is functioning to ensure that the process for ensuring the diligent recruitment of potential foster and adoptive families who reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of children in the state for whom foster and adoptive homes are needed is occurring statewide.


• Information in the statewide assessment and collected during stakeholder interviews showed that the foster and adoptive parent licensing, recruitment, and retention system is not functioning. Private child placing agencies manage the cases of and provide care for approximately half of the children under the custody of the District and are required to recruit their own foster homes. The CFSA and these agencies do not coordinate recruitment activities. Although discussion has occurred about the benefits of making coordinated multi-agency District-wide recruitment efforts, no action has been taken. The District of Columbia’s 2015 recruitment plan used data to target recruitment to specific geographic areas, sibling groups, and LGBTQ youth. During interviews, stakeholders revealed that although data demonstrate a need to recruit Spanish-speaking foster homes, recruitment efforts are not specifically targeted to the growing Hispanic population.

Item 36. State Use of Cross-Jurisdictional Resources for Permanent Placements Description of Systemic Factor Item: The foster and adoptive parent licensing, recruitment, and retention system is functioning to ensure that the process for ensuring the effective use of cross-jurisdictional resources to facilitate timely adoptive or permanent placements for waiting children is occurring statewide.


Exhibit C.2.15


24

• Data and information provided in the statewide assessment and collected during interviews with stakeholders showed that theDistrict of Columbia conducts some child-specific recruitment across state lines using AdoptUSKids, Wednesday’s Child, andthe Heart Gallery. However, stakeholders said that these efforts are limited and more than 80 percent of adoptions are byfoster parents. The District does not appear to use data to best identify which children could benefit from referrals to cross-jurisdictional resources or the effectiveness of the use of adoption exchanges. Information in the statewide assessment andconfirmed in interviews with stakeholders showed that the District is challenged in meeting the requirement to complete ICPChome studies for families within the required time frames. Home studies for less than half of the requests received arecompleted within 60 days of receipt. While efforts are being made to decrease the time needed to approve a home, theagency’s internal deadline of 100 days exceeds the requirement.

Exhibit C.2.15

Appendix A: Summary of District of Columbia 2016 CFSR Performance

Appendix A Summary of District of Columbia 2016 Child and Family Services Review Performance

I. Ratings for Safety, Permanency, and Well-Being Outcomes and Items Outcome Achievement: Outcomes may be rated as in substantial conformity or not in substantial conformity. 95% of the applicable cases reviewed must be rated as having substantially achieved the outcome for the state to be in substantial conformity with the outcome.

Item Achievement: Items may be rated as a Strength or as an Area Needing Improvement. For an overall rating of Strength, 90% of the cases reviewed for the item (with the exception of Item 1 and Item 16) must be rated as a Strength. Because Item 1 is the only item for Safety Outcome 1 and Item 16 is the only item for Well-Being Outcome 2, the requirement of a 95% Strength rating applies.

SAFETY OUTCOME 1: CHILDREN ARE, FIRST AND FOREMOST, PROTECTED FROM ABUSE AND NEGLECT. Data Element Overall Determination State Performance Safety Outcome 1 Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect

Not in Substantial Conformity 73% Substantially Achieved

Item 1 Timeliness of investigations

Area Needing Improvement 73% Strength

SAFETY OUTCOME 2: CHILDREN ARE SAFELY MAINTAINED IN THEIR HOMES WHENEVER POSSIBLE AND APPROPRIATE.

Data Element Overall Determination State Performance Safety Outcome 2 Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate


Item 2 Services to protect child(ren) in home and prevent removal or re-entry into foster care


Item 3 Risk and safety assessment and management


A-1

Exhibit C.2.15


PERMANENCY OUTCOME 1: CHILDREN HAVE PERMANENCY AND STABILITY IN THEIR LIVING SITUATIONS. Data Element Overall Determination State Performance Permanency Outcome 1 Children have permanency and stability in their living situations


Item 4 Stability of foster care placement


Item 5 Permanency goal for child


Item 6 Achieving reunification, guardianship, adoption, or other planned permanent living arrangement


PERMANENCY OUTCOME 2: THE CONTINUITY OF FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS AND CONNECTIONS IS PRESERVED FOR CHILDREN. Data Element Overall Determination State Performance Permanency Outcome 2 The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children


Item 7 Placement with siblings

Strength 96% Strength

Item 8 Visiting with parents and siblings in foster care


Item 9 Preserving connections


Item 10 Relative placement


Item 11 Relationship of child in care with parents


A-2

Exhibit C.2.15


WELL-BEING OUTCOME 1: FAMILIES HAVE ENHANCED CAPACITY TO PROVIDE FOR THEIR CHILDREN'S NEEDS. Data Element Overall Determination State Performance Well-Being Outcome 1 Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs


Item 12 Needs and services of child, parents, and foster parents


Sub-Item 12A Needs assessment and services to children


Sub-Item 12B Needs assessment and services to parents


Sub-Item 12C Needs assessment and services to foster parents


Item 13 Child and family involvement in case planning


Item 14 Caseworker visits with child


Item 15 Caseworker visits with parents


WELL-BEING OUTCOME 2: CHILDREN RECEIVE APPROPRIATE SERVICES TO MEET THEIR EDUCATIONAL NEEDS. Data Element Overall Determination State Performance Well-Being Outcome 2 Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs


Item 16 Educational needs of the child


A-3

Exhibit C.2.15


WELL-BEING OUTCOME 3: CHILDREN RECEIVE ADEQUATE SERVICES TO MEET THEIR PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS. Data Element Overall Determination State Performance Well-Being Outcome 3 Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs


Item 17 Physical health of the child


Item 18 Mental/behavioral health of the child


II. Ratings for Systemic Factors The Children’s Bureau determines whether a state is in substantial conformity with federal requirements for the 7 systemic factors based on the level of functioning of each systemic factor across the state. The Children’s Bureau determines substantial conformity with the systemic factors based on ratings for the item or items within each factor. Performance on 5 of the 7 systemic factors is determined on the basis of ratings for multiple items or plan requirements. For a state to be found in substantial conformity with these systemic factors, the Children’s Bureau must find that no more than 1 of the required items for that systemic factor fails to function as required. For a state to be found in substantial conformity with the 2 systemic factors that are determined based on the rating of a single item, the Children’s Bureau must find that the item is functioning as required.

STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM Data Element Source of Data and Information State Performance Statewide Information System Statewide Assessment and Stakeholder Interviews In Substantial

Conformity

Item 19 Statewide Information System

Statewide Assessment and Stakeholder Interviews Strength

A-4

Exhibit C.2.15


CASE REVIEW SYSTEM Data Element Source of Data and Information State Performance Case Review System Statewide Assessment and Stakeholder Interviews Not in Substantial

Conformity

Item 20 Written Case Plan

Statewide Assessment and Stakeholder Interviews Area Needing Improvement

Item 21 Periodic Reviews


Item 22 Permanency Hearings

Statewide Assessment Strength

Item 23 Termination of Parental Rights

Statewide Assessment Area Needing Improvement

Item 24 Notice of Hearings and Reviews to Caregivers


QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM

Data Element Source of Data and Information State Performance Quality Assurance System Statewide Assessment In Substantial

Conformity

Item 25 Quality Assurance System


STAFF AND PROVIDER TRAINING

Data Element Source of Data and Information State Performance Staff and Provider Training Statewide Assessment and Stakeholder Interviews In Substantial

Conformity

Item 26 Initial Staff Training


Item 27 Ongoing Staff Training


A-5

Exhibit C.2.15


Data Element Source of Data and Information State Performance Item 28 Foster and Adoptive Parent Training


SERVICE ARRAY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Data Element Source of Data and Information State Performance Service Array and Resource Development Statewide Assessment and Stakeholder Interviews In Substantial

Conformity

Item 29 Array of Services


Item 30 Individualizing Services


AGENCY RESPONSIVENESS TO THE COMMUNITY

Data Element Source of Data and Information State Performance Agency Responsiveness to the Community Statewide Assessment and Stakeholder Interviews In Substantial

Conformity

Item 31 State Engagement and Consultation With Stakeholders Pursuant to CFSP and APSR


Item 32 Coordination of CFSP Services With Other Federal Programs


A-6

Exhibit C.2.15


FOSTER AND ADOPTIVE PARENT LICENSING, RECRUITMENT, AND RETENTION Data Element Source of Data and Information State Performance Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing,Recruitment, and Retention

Statewide Assessment and Stakeholder Interviews Not in Substantial Conformity

Item 33 Standards Applied Equally


Item 34 Requirements for Criminal Background Checks


Item 35 Diligent Recruitment of Foster and Adoptive Homes


Item 36 State Use of Cross-Jurisdictional Resources for Permanent Placements


A-7

Exhibit C.2.15


III. Performance on Statewide Data Indicators8 The state’s performance is considered against the national standard for each statewide data indicator and provides contextual information for considering the findings. This information is not used in conformity decisions. State performance may be statistically above, below, or no different than the national performance. If a state did not provide the required data or did not meet the applicable item data quality limits, the Children's Bureau did not calculate the state’s performance for the statewide data indicator.

Statewide Data Indicator National Performance

Direction of Desired Performance

RSP* 95% Confidence Interval**

Data Period(s) Used for State Performance***

Recurrence of maltreatment 9.1% Lower 12.4% 10.8%–14.1% FY13–14

Maltreatment in foster care (victimizations per 100,000 days in care)

8.50 Lower Excluded due to Data

Quality****

Excluded due to Data Quality

14A–14B, FY14

Permanency in 12 months for children entering foster care

40.5% Higher Excluded due to Data

Quality


12B–15A

Permanency in 12 months for children in foster care 1223 months

43.6% Higher 42.9% 36.7%–49.3% 14B–15A

Permanency in 12 months for children in foster care 24 months or more

30.3% Higher 32.3% 28.6%–36.2% 14B–15A

8 In October 2016, the Children’s Bureau issued Technical Bulletin #9 (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/resource/cfsr-technical-bulletin-9), which alerted states to the fact that there were technical errors in the syntax used to calculate the national and state performance for the statewide data indicators. The syntax revision is still underway, so performance shown in this table is based on the 2015 Federal Register syntax.

A-8

Exhibit C.2.15

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/resource/cfsr-technical-bulletin-9


Statewide Data Indicator National Performance

Direction of Desired Performance

RSP* 95% Confidence Interval**

Data Period(s) Used for State Performance***

Re-entry to foster care in 12 months

8.3% Lower Excluded due to Data

Quality


12B–15A

Placement stability (moves per 1,000 days in care)

4.12 Lower 3.29 2.89–3.75 14B–15A

* Risk-Standardized Performance (RSP) is derived from a multi-level statistical model and reflects the state’s performance relative to states with similar children and takes into account the number of children the state served, the age distribution of these children, and, for some indicators, the state’s entry rate. It uses risk-adjustment to minimize differences in outcomes due to factors over which the state has little control and provides a more fair comparison of state performance against national performance.

** 95% Confidence Interval is the 95% confidence interval estimate for the state’s RSP. The values shown are the lower RSP and upper RSP of the interval estimate. The interval accounts for the amount of uncertainty associated with the RSP. For example, the CB is 95% confident that the true value of the RSP is between the lower and upper limit of the interval.

*** Data Period(s) Used for State Performance: Refers to the initial 12-month period and the period(s) of data needed to follow the children to observe their outcomes. The FY or federal fiscal year refers to NCANDS data, which spans the 12-month period October 1 – September 30. All other periods refer to AFCARS data. "A" refers to the 6-month period October 1 – March 31. "B" refers to the 6-month period April 1 – September 30. The 2-digit year refers to the calendar year in which the period ends.

****Excluded due to Data Quality: Identifies when performance was not calculated due to the state failing one or more data quality checks for this indicator.

A-9

Exhibit C.2.15

B-1

Appendix B: District of Columbia 2007 CFSR Key Findings

Appendix B Summary of CFSR Round 2 District of Columbia 2007 Key Findings

The Children’s Bureau conducted a CFSR in the District of Columbia in 2007. Key findings from that review are presented below. Because the Children's Bureau made several changes to the CFSR process and items and indicators relevant for performance based on lessons learned during the second round and in response to feedback from the child welfare field, a state’s performance in the third round of the CFSR is not directly comparable to its performance in the second round.

Identifying Information and Review Dates General Information Children’s Bureau Region: 3

Date of Onsite Review: June 25–29, 2007

Period Under Review: April 1, 2006, through June 25, 2007

Date Final Report Issued: January 30, 2008

Date Program Improvement Plan Due: February 25, 2008

Date Program Improvement Plan Approved: January 1, 2009

Highlights of Findings Performance Measurements A. The State met the national standards for one of the six standards.

B. The State achieved substantial conformity for none of the seven outcomes.

C. The State achieved substantial conformity for all of the seven systemic factors.

Exhibit C.2.15


B-2

State’s Conformance With the National Standards Data Indicator or Composite National

Standard State’s Score

Meets or Does Not Meet Standard

Absence of maltreatment recurrence (data indicator)

94.6 or higher 94.7 Meets Standard

Absence of child abuse and/or neglect in foster care (data indicator)

99.68 or higher 99.66 Does Not Meet Standard

Timeliness and permanency of reunifications (Permanency Composite 1)


Timeliness of adoptions (Permanency Composite 2)


Permanency for children and youth in foster care for long periods of time (Permanency Composite 3)


Placement stability (Permanency Composite 4)


State’s Conformance With the Outcomes Outcome Achieved or Did Not Achieve Substantial

Conformity

Safety Outcome 1: Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect.

Did Not Achieve Substantial Conformity

Safety Outcome 2: Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate.


Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations.


Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children.


Exhibit C.2.15


Outcome Achieved or Did Not Achieve Substantial Conformity

Child and Family Well-Being Outcome 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs.


Child and Family Well-Being Outcome 2: Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs.


Child and Family Well-Being Outcome 3: Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs.


State’s Conformance With the Systemic Factors Systemic Factor Achieved or Did Not Achieve Substantial

Conformity Statewide Information System Achieved Substantial Conformity

Case Review System Achieved Substantial Conformity

Quality Assurance System Achieved Substantial Conformity

Staff and Provider Training Achieved Substantial Conformity

Service Array and Resource Development Achieved Substantial Conformity

Agency Responsiveness to the Community Achieved Substantial Conformity

Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention

Achieved Substantial Conformity

B-3

Exhibit C.2.15


Key Findings by Item Outcomes Item Strength or Area Needing Improvement

Item 1. Timeliness of Initiating Investigations of Reports of Child Maltreatment

Area Needing Improvement

Item 2. Repeat Maltreatment Strength

Item 3. Services to Family to Protect Child(ren) in the Home and Prevent Removal or Re-entry Into Foster Care

Strength

Item 4. Risk Assessment and Safety Management Area Needing Improvement

Item 5. Foster Care Re-entries Strength

Item 6. Stability of Foster Care Placement Area Needing Improvement

Item 7. Permanency Goal for Child Area Needing Improvement

Item 8. Reunification, Guardianship, or Permanent Placement With Relatives


Item 9. Adoption Area Needing Improvement

Item 10. Other Planned Permanent Living Arrangement Strength

Item 11. Proximity of Foster Care Placement Strength

Item 12. Placement With Siblings Strength

Item 13. Visiting With Parents and Siblings in Foster Care


Item 14. Preserving Connections Strength

Item 15. Relative Placement Area Needing Improvement

Item 16. Relationship of Child in Care With Parents Area Needing Improvement

Item 17. Needs and Services of Child, Parents, and Foster Parents


B-4

Exhibit C.2.15


Item Strength or Area Needing Improvement

Item 18. Child and Family Involvement in Case Planning Area Needing Improvement

Item 19. Caseworker Visits With Child Area Needing Improvement

Item 20. Caseworker Visits With Parents Area Needing Improvement

Item 21. Educational Needs of the Child Area Needing Improvement

Item 22. Physical Health of the Child Strength

Item 23. Mental/Behavioral Health of the Child Area Needing Improvement

Systemic Factors Item Strength or Area Needing Improvement Item 24. Statewide Information System Strength

Item 25. Written Case Plan Area Needing Improvement

Item 26. Periodic Reviews Strength

Item 27. Permanency Hearings Strength

Item 28. Termination of Parental Rights Strength

Item 29. Notice of Hearings and Reviews to Caregivers Strength

Item 30. Standards Ensuring Quality Services Strength

Item 31. Quality Assurance System Strength

Item 32. Initial Staff Training Area Needing Improvement

Item 33. Ongoing Staff Training Strength

Item 34. Foster and Adoptive Parent Training Strength

Item 35. Array of Services Area Needing Improvement

Item 36. Service Accessibility Strength

Item 37. Individualizing Services Strength

Item 38. Engagement in Consultation With Stakeholders Strength

B-5

Exhibit C.2.15


Item Strength or Area Needing Improvement

Item 39. Agency Annual Reports Pursuant to CFSP Strength

Item 40. Coordination of CFSP Services With Other Federal Programs

Strength

Item 41. Standards for Foster Homes and Institutions Strength

Item 42. Standards Applied Equally Strength

Item 43. Requirements for Criminal Background Checks Strength

Item 44. Diligent Recruitment of Foster and Adoptive Homes

Strength

Item 45. State Use of Cross-Jurisdictional Resources for Permanent Placements

Strength

B-6

Exhibit C.2.15

PRACTICE GUIDANCE ON

As utilized by the DC Child and Family Services Agency

CISF™

™

Exhibit C.2.18

The Consultation and Information Sharing Framework™


2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION TO THE CONSULTATION INFORMATION SHARING FRAMEWORK™............................... 3

UTILIZING CISF™ ................................................................................................................................................. 4

CISF™ COMPONENTS ....................................................................................................................................... 5

GENOGRAM/ECOMAP ................................................................................................................................. 5

REASON FOR REFERRAL ................................................................................................................................ 6

AGENCY INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................................................... 6

STRENGTHS/PROTECTIVE FACTORS ............................................................................................................. 7

SAFETY AND BELONGING ............................................................................................................................. 7

RISK STATEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................ 8

GRAY AREA & NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................................................ 8

COMPLICATING FACTORS ........................................................................................................................... 9

REFERENCE ...................................................................................................................................................... 9

Exhibit C.2.18



3

INTRODUCING THE CONSULTATION & INFORMATION SHARING FRAMEWORK™

Critical thinking is the process of applying clinical skills by continuously gathering, organizing,

analyzing, and reexamining information to support sound decision-making. This creates a space

in which workers can develop the analytical skills needed to respond to and discuss the complex

situations commonly seen in child welfare, also referred to as reflective inquiry.

The Consultation and

Information Sharing

Framework™ (CISF™) embeds

critical thinking that prompts

reflective inquiry. This creates a

space in which teams can

develop the analytical skills

needed while sharing

information and consulting with

others when discussing the

complex situations commonly

seen in child welfare to make

sound decisions. Given that

there are many extraneous factors that impact decision-making in child welfare CISF is the

infrastructure that supports CFSA’s Four Pillars by aligning the strategic agenda and vision. It

allows for all operationalized practices, tools, and assessments to be aligned to the outcomes

desired through the four pillars.

In short, The Consultation and Information Sharing Framework™ is a comprehensive approach to

gather and organize information to assist in critical thinking and decision making. As part of the

clinical decision making process it allows child welfare staff to develop common language

regarding decision-making practices while helping CFSA accomplish its mission.

CISF is used for group supervision, case consultation and family team meetings in all areas of

direct practice here at CFSA. This process of using the framework is intended to help CFSA

cultivate a more collaborative, partnership-based approach to working with children and

families in care.

It is a simple structure that supports:

critical thinking

applied knowledge,

collaborative practice

comprehensive assessment

inclusion

Exhibit C.2.18



4

The CISF™ underlines a

multidisciplinary approach that

brings the family, the child welfare

agency, and the child welfare

system together to collaborate

around the services/supports

being provided to the family.

These meetings are a time for all

team members to express their

concerns and suggestions for all

involved based on their area of

expertise.

Multidisciplinary meetings utilize this approach to assess the strengths and needs of families. The

framework is utilized among the

various service providers and

teams that interact with families

associated with child welfare.

This provides an overview of the

benefits of the structure of the

teaming meeting. During the

remainder of the training, we

will focus on the framework

within DC CFSA.

UTILIZING CISF™

Exhibit C.2.18



5

The Consultation and Information Sharing Framework™ was built in 1999. It seeks to gather

information about families which answers three key questions: what are we worried about, what

is working well, and what needs to happen?

What are We Worried About?

Danger/Harm

Complicating/Risk Factors

Child Vulnerability

Could include History (depending on nature)

What is Working Well?

Safety

Strengths/Protective Factors

Could include your Cultural Information

Could include History (depending on nature)

What Needs to Happen?

Next Steps

Could include Grey Areas and what information is needed

CISF™ COMPONENTS

The CISF™ is made up of several components that help guide the gathering and organizing of

pertinent information. The following components make up the framework:

Genogram

Ecomap

Reason for Referral

History of Agency Involvement

Strengths/Protective Factors

Safety and Belonging

Risk Statement

Gray Areas & Next Steps

Complicating Factors

GENOGRAM/ECOMAP

Exhibit C.2.18



6

The genogram and ecomap provide a more holistic view of the family. The overall purpose is to

get an understanding of the family’s support system and possible kinship providers. It allows for

family input as they are the experts of their families.

REASON FOR REFERRAL

For on-

going/permanency

cases, this would be

the reason the case

was opened or the

reason for removal

depending on if it is

an in-home case or

an out-of-home case.

Sometimes the reason

of referral could be a

gray area, so you

want to get clear

information and not

guess. It can evolve from the conversation amongst those in the meeting. The reason for

referral should be connected to the reason for consultation. Every time you meet you should be

sure that everyone is clear about the reason for the meeting.

When discussing the reason for referral the most immediate risk statement will emerge.

AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

Generally with

history, we are

trying to focus on

the past 12 months

if the agency has a

lot of prior history

with the family. This

information is very

helpful in

developing the

genogram and Eco

map.

Exhibit C.2.18



7

STRENGTHS/PROTECTIVE FACTORS

CFSA focuses on strength-based perspectives. Therefore, it is important to focus on this area and

avoid missing opportunities to gather this valuable information. This is a key point to focus

everyone because this provides the opportunity to understand what the family has been able to

do well in the past and what resources are already in place.

Here it is important to make a

clear distinction between

strengths and safety factors.

There may be many strengths

in the family (e.g. the mom

ensures the children are in

school on time every day, that

they attend a variety of fun

activities at weekends that

they have a regular, consistent

bedtime routine etc.) but

unless these behaviors directly

address the identified risks they

are not safety factors (e.g. a

strength that is also a safety factor might be that grandmother spends every Sunday visiting the

family and has the children to stay every other weekend with her. Mother experiences significant

depression so this allows grandmother to regularly check that mother is coping and also offers

mother regular respite).

SAFETY AND BELONGING

The safety and

belonging heading

seeks to capture

information regarding

assets, resources,

capacities within the

family, individual, and

community. This is also

the space to highlight

the skills of living,

nurturing, or support

that directly address the

harm, danger, or risk.

Safety is defined as

actions of protection taken by the caregiver that mitigate the risk, and these actions are

demonstrated over time.

Exhibit C.2.18



8

RISK STATEMENTS

Risk statements are short, clear statements of what the agency worries may happen to the child

if nothing else changes (potential impact on the child) and when this is likely to occur (context).

These statements provide clarity about worries – both within the organization and within the

family. The purpose of the risk statement is to gather information to answer:

If nothing changes…when are we worried this will happen

Who are we worried about

What we are worried about if nothing change

When discussing risk statements, it is important to delineate between danger and harm.

Danger—Imminent threat of serious action that could hurt the child right now physically,

developmentally or emotionally

Harm—Past actions by the caregiver that have hurt the child physically, developmentally or

emotionally

GRAY AREA & NEXT STEPS

This section provides an arena to identify uncertainties or conflicting information. ‘Grey areas’

are the things that still hold uncertainty or which require more information to understand whether

they are a risk, a complicating factor or a strength. This section should be considered as a way

of putting forward those pieces of the jigsaw which do not appear to fit neatly into the general

picture so that they can be discussed openly.

Exhibit C.2.18



9

Questions to consider:

What information are

we missing?

What do we want to

know more about?

Is information

complete?

Do we know what we

want/need to know?

COMPLICATING FACTORS

Complicating factors are things

that may make it much harder

for a parent to look after their

child well but are not risks in

themselves.

Making a clear distinction

between dangers/risks and

complicating factors is

necessary.

Some examples of complicating

factors include: parent feeling

depressed and low, poor housing, parents having experienced an abusive childhood, poor

housing, financial issues, etc.

REFERENCE

Lohrbach, S. (1999). Child Protection Practice Framework – Consultation and

Information Sharing. Unpublished manuscript; Lohrbach, S., & Sawyer, R.

(2003). Family Group Decision Making: A process reflecting partnership

based practice, Protecting Children, 19(2): 12-15.

Exhibit C.2.18

POLICY TITLE: Access Control Security Standard CHAPTER: HIPAA Security Policy

PAGE 1 OF 4

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES AGENCY

PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS See Section VII.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 2008

LATEST REVISION: April 22, 2008

REVIEW BY LEGAL COUNSEL: April 15, 2008

I. AUTHORITY The Director of Child and Family Services Agency adopts this policy to be

consistent with the Agency’s mission and applicable federal and District of Columbia laws, rules and regulations, including Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, Security Rule, 45 C.F.R. § 164.312 (a)(1) Access Control; DC Law 5-168, Section 4, 32 DCR 721; DC Law 11-259, Section 305(a), 44 DCR 1423; DC Code Section 1-1135, b, (6); DC Law 12-175. Act 12-239; and the LaShawn A. v. Fenty Amended Implementation Plan.

II. APPLICABILITY Full or part-time CFSA employees; contractors who are authorized to use CFSA’s equipment or facilities; and volunteers who are authorized to use and have been provided with a user account to access CFSA resources.

III. RATIONALE This document establishes a policy for the workforce members of all HIPAA covered agencies to/your agency comply with the Access Control Standard of the Administrative Simplification provision of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The purpose of this policy is to establish and implement specific guidelines for gaining access to and procedures for automatic logoff from the computer networks, as well as, guidelines for the appropriate use of computer networks and equipment, and the encryption and decryption of sensitive or confidential information.

IV. POLICY The CFSA will ensure appropriate access of all workforce members and shall establish procedures that, based upon the workforce members’ job requirements, document, review, and modify a user’s right of access to a workstation, transaction, program, or process.

V. CONTENTS A. Computer User Access Control B. Access Control User Guidelines C. Electronic Access Security D. Advanced Authentication Techniques E. Roles and Responsibility

Approved by:__________________________ Signature of Agency Director

Exhibit C.2.26

POLICY NUMBER/TITLE CHAPTER NUMBER/TITLE PAGE NUMBER Access Control Security Standard HIPAA Security Policy 2 of 4

VI. PROCEDURES Procedure A: Computer User Access Control

CFSA is committed to providing an environment that encourages the use of computers and electronic information. Computer facilities and systems include, but are not limited to, the computers, printers, networks, routers, and related equipment, as well as data files, programs and/or documents managed or maintained by CFSA, which reside on electronic media. Computer facilities also include computer rooms, telecommunication and data distribution areas, computer labs, offices, classrooms, and furnishings operated and maintained by CFSA. 1. CFSA's computer network system and facilities are to be used for

legitimate business and education purposes only and are not for personal use. The following uses, among others, are considered violations of this standard, and are strictly prohibited: a. Game-playing; b. Use of CFSA computers for personal work or political purposes; and c. Accessing, viewing or downloading pornographic or other obscene

material.

2. No CFSA computer or network system or facility shall be used to transmit or receive any material that may be considered offensive, demeaning, disruptive or harassing in nature. Such material includes, but is not limited to: • material that is inconsistent with CFSA's policies and regulations

governing equal employment opportunity and harassment.

3. Computers network facilities are the property of CFSA, and in order to ensure compliance with applicable law and this standard and the Information Security Policy, CFSA reserves the right to inspect all computer files and any information transmitted via its computer network facilities. Such inspection may occur if CFSA has reasonable cause to suspect that anyone is using its facilities for illegal or illicit purposes, or for purposes inconsistent with these standards and other applicable policies. CFSA authorities without notice, consent or a search warrant may conduct an inspection.

4. Accordingly, no user should have any expectation of privacy in any information that is transmitted, received or stored on CFSA computer network facilities. This specifically applies to, but is not limited to, e-mail and Internet messages and information.

Procedure B: Access Control User Guidelines

1. Never share your username, password, or security access token with anyone else.

2. Do not use someone else's username, password or security access token. If you need additional access or if you are having problems with your current access, contact the Help Desk.

Exhibit C.2.26


3. Do not use obvious, trivial or predictable passwords such as; names of relatives or pets; street names; days and months; repetitive characters; dictionary words; and common words such as PASSWORD, SECURITY, SECRET, etc.

4. Beware of "Shoulder Surfers", (people who stand behind you and look over your shoulder) while you are keying in your password, or while you are working with confidential information.

5. Do not use your access privileges to enable other individuals to access information that they are not authorized to access, or to submit transactions that they are not authorized to submit.

6. Never write down your passwords, or, post them on your PC, or other obvious places.

7. Always change the initial password assigned to you by the Help Desk as soon as you receive it.

8. Always change your passwords when prompted, at least every 60 days or more often if necessary.

9. Log-off when you are finished using your terminal or workstation, or if you are stepping away from your desk, even momentarily. If you are going to be away from your office for an extended period, contact the Help Desk to have your username temporarily disabled until your return.

10. If you suspect that someone else knows any of your passwords, request a change via the Help Desk immediately.

11. If you lose your security access token, notify your supervisor immediately and/or notify the ISO.

Procedure C: Electronic Access Security

Users of CFSA computer network system must comply with the following guidelines: 1. Users must not deny or interfere with or attempt to deny or interfere with

service to other users.

2. Users must not cause, permit, or attempt any destruction; modification or copying of software installed on computing or network facilities.

3. Users must not cause, permit or attempt any destruction or modification of computing or communications equipment, including, but not limited to, reconfiguration of hubs, switches, routers, etc.

4. Users must not move or remove any CFSA-owned or administered computer equipment or documents from the computer network. This includes, but is not limited to, detaching any desktop computer or printer from an Ethernet, ISDN, ATM, Token Ring, etc., port.

Exhibit C.2.26


5. Users must not physically or electronically attach any other device (such

as an external disk, printer or video system) to a CFSA computer without prior approval. Any expense incurred in time, labor or parts from an incompatible or corrupting device will be charged to and is considered the responsibility of the user. Verification of compatibility should be coordinated through the CFSA help desk .

6. In accordance with the Software Management Standard, users must not install any software on any CFSA-owned or administered networked equipment, including, but not limited to operating systems, word-processing software, spreadsheets, games, wallpapers and screen savers.

7. For the purposes of software audits, systems backups or diagnosing systems problems, users must allow CFSA personnel access to all data files and software kept on the networked system.

8. CFSA network and system administrators, and information security personnel will remove any unauthorized or unlicensed software from any CFSA computer. The user is responsible for backing up any files and data under such circumstances.

9. CFSA computer facilities must not be used to threaten or harass any person. A user must cease sending messages or interfering in any way with another user's normal use of the computing or network facilities if the aggrieved user makes a reasonable request for such cessation.

Procedure D: Advanced Authentication Techniques

Considering that one of the most dangerous security threats is impersonation, in which someone uses the username and password of someone else. The identity of a user who has access to data and information classified as CFSA RESTRICTED and CFSA INTERNAL USE ONLY should be verified and authenticated not only by what he/she knows (e.g. password), but also by what he/she owns (e.g. smart card) or by his/her human characteristics (biometrics).

Procedure E: Roles and Responsibility 1. Acceptable Use

a. Information Security Officer i. Establish and maintain an effective Access Control Standard on

behalf of the Chief Information Officer. ii. Help agencies implement and comply with security standards

contained herein. iii. Verify CFSA compliance with the minimum requirements of this

standard. b. CFSA Managers/Supervisors/Users

i. Comply with this standard. ii. Consult the Information Security Officer to obtain assistance.

Exhibit C.2.26

CFSA Older Youth Benchmarks

Domain Ages 14-16 Ages 17-18 Ages 19 & Older Education Outcome: Every youth completes high school diploma or GED and pursues post-secondary opportunities

See below for details by grade


• Participate in post-secondary credentialing program and supportive services

• Develop a plan to fund post-secondary program after transition from care

Employment/Vocation Outcome: Every youth identifies career goal and pathway to achieve that goal



• Obtain responsible and progressive work experience

• Develop skills necessary to obtain and maintain employment

Financial Management Outcome: Every youth completes the Financial Literacy curriculum and maintains checking and savings accounts

• Obtain credit report annually with the assistance of Social Worker. Check and review with the support of an adult

• Enroll in financial literacy program through the Office of Youth Empowerment

• Develop a budget and savings plan

• Maintain a savings and checking account

• Demonstrate how to obtain a credit report and review it with an adult

Housing Outcome: Every youth has sustainable and stable housing upon exiting from care

• Learn household daily and living skills such as cleaning, laundry, and grocery shopping

• Understand housing costs, leasing responsibilities, and housing options

• Identify permanency and stable housing options

Exhibit C.2.32

Grade College Readiness Benchmarks Career Readiness Benchmarks

8th Grade

• Participate in college campus tours and attend college fairs

• Participate in afterschool and summer enrichment programs

• Engage in career awareness and career exploration activities

• Explore career options to provide motivation and inform decision-making

9th Grade

• Meet with School Counselor to create Individualized Learning Plan o Understand graduation and college

ready entry requirements o Explore interest in secondary

education o Discuss and understand GPA; set goal

for GPA of 3.0 or higher • Participate in college tours and attend

college fairs (at least one) • Participate in afterschool and summer

enrichment programs • Participate in opportunities to complete

community services hours

• Build awareness of the variety of careers available, understand the post-secondary education related to those careers, and begin to identify areas of interest

• Job shadow and/or workplace tours • Community service and volunteer activities • Attend a college and career fair and/or

college and career readiness workshop • Complete career assessment(s) • Research and understand the education and

training requirements, and the job responsibilities and opportunities for potential career paths

10th Grade

• Participate in college campus tours and attend college fairs (at least one)

• Take the PSAT • Explore the educational requirements of a

career of interest with the assistance of social worker or a trusted adult

• Review academic record and meet with school counselor to develop a plan to strengthen any problem areas o Discuss and understand GPA; set goal

for GPA of 3.0 or higher • Enroll in test prep (SAT and/or ACT) • Participate in afterschool and summer

enrichment programs • Participate in opportunities to complete

community services hours

• Meet with counselor to complete a career inventory

• Develop a career plan • Pursue a course of study and participate in

extracurricular activities that will help achieve career goals

• Engage in work-based learning and/or summer youth employment

• Research and understand the monetary and non-monetary benefits of career interest(s)

• Understand the preparation needed for career

• Job readiness training / soft skills training o Professional etiquette o Interviewing techniques o Resume writing

• Create a resume

11th Grade

• Enroll in honors and/or AP courses if possible

• Meet with school counselor to ensure youth are on track for graduation

• Take the PSAT • Enroll in SAT and/or ACT prep • Meet with OYE Education Specialist to

discuss post-secondary plans • Research scholarships • Register the SAT and/or ACT • Create a college list, based on cumulative

GPA that includes reach, match and safety schools with the assistance of social worker or a trusted adult

• Engage in career preparation and career training activities

• Continue career awareness and exploration • Explore vocational or technical classes • Build an employment/career portfolio • Participate in internship and/or summer

youth employment • Explore job search and submitting

employment applications

Exhibit C.2.32

Grade College Readiness Benchmarks Career Readiness Benchmarks

• Participate in afterschool and summer enrichment programs

• Participate in opportunities to complete community services hours

12th

Grade

• Meet with OYE Education Specialist to develop a plan to complete the college application process o Narrow down college list, based on

cumulative GPA, that includes reach, match and safety schools)

o Complete applications with the assistance of education specialist (recommendations, essay, transcript request, etc.)

o Complete financial aid applications (FAFSA, DC-TAG, ETV)

• Meet with school counselor to ensure youth is on track for graduation

• Register for early fall SAT/ACT • Apply for scholarships with the assistance of

social worker or a trusted adult • Complete college applications by Christmas

break • Review college decision letters (with team)

and decide where to enroll • Enroll with the assistance of education

specialist, social worker or a trusted adult

• Continue career development through career awareness, exploration, preparation and training

• Assess appropriate vocational training programs and apprenticeships

• On-the-job training experiences • Participate in internships and/or summer

youth employment • Plan for additional hard and soft skills

training with the assistance of career specialist, social worker or a trusted adult

• Complete resume and cover letter, professional etiquette, and interview techniques

• Obtain professional references

Exhibit C.2.32

ATTACHMENT J.13 – NON-COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT Each of the undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that:

A. ______________________ is the _____________________ of ________________________ and

______________________ is the _____________________ of ________________________, which

entity(ies) are the ____________________________ of ____________________________, the entity

making the foregoing Proposal. B. The Proposal is not made in the interest of, or on behalf of, any undisclosed person, partnership,

company, association, organization, joint venture, limited liability company or corporation; the Proposal is genuine and not collusive or a sham; the Offeror has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other Offeror to put in a false or sham Proposal, and has not directly or indirectly colluded, conspired, connived, or agreed with any Offeror or anyone else to put in a sham Proposal or that anyone shall refrain from proposing; the Offeror has not in any manner, directly or indirectly, sought by agreement, communication, or conference with anyone to fix the prices of the Offeror or any other Offeror, or to fix any overhead, profit, or cost element included in the Proposal, or of that of any other Offeror, or to secure any advantage against CFSA or anyone interested in the proposed agreement; all statements contained in the Proposal are true; and further the Offeror has not, directly or indirectly, submitted its prices or any breakdown thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulged information or data relative thereto, or paid, and will not pay, any fee to any corporation, partnership, company, association, joint venture, limited liability company, organization, Proposal depository or any member, partner, joint venture member, or agent thereof to effectuate a collusive or sham Proposal.

C. The Offeror will not, directly or indirectly, divulge information or data regarding the price or other

terms of its Proposal to any other Offeror, or seek to obtain information or data regarding the price or other terms of any other Proposal, until after award of the Contract or rejection of all Proposals and cancellation of the RFP.

Signature Signature

Printed Name Printed Name

Title Title Subscribed and sworn to before me this ____ day of ____, 2017. Notary Public in and for said County and State [Seal] My commission expires:

Documents

3 - Washington, D.C