Improving Permanency Outcomes for Older Youth: Leveraging the Strengthening Families Act

Improving Permanency Outcomes for Older Youth: Leveraging the Strengthening Families Act

AUGUST 9, 2016

0

1

• Dec. 8, 2015: Creating Effective Normalcy Policies

• Jan. 26, 2016: Effective Court Oversight to Support and Enforce Normalcy and Youth Engagement

• March 28, 2016: Keeping Systems Accountable in the Implementation of SFA

• May 26, 2016: Maximizing Youth Engagement in Court Reviews and Case Planning

• TODAY: Improving Permanency Outcomes for Older Youth

• FINAL SESSION: Thursday, Sept. 29, 2016 (2 p.m. – 3 p.m. Eastern)Model Extension of Care and Re-Entry Policies —Creating a Legal Structure That Promotes Engagement

For links to recordings of past webinars, please contact Molly Coplan at [email protected].

Webinar Series Review

2

• If you experience technical difficulties during this webinar, visit www.aecf.org/webex for guidance. If you still have trouble, notify us using the chat or Q&A window, or contact WebEx technical support at 1-866-229-3239.

• If you do not see the Q&A window, make sure the Q&A icon at the top of that column is blue (see image to left; icon circled in red). If it is not blue, click the icon, and the window should appear.

• You can type questions for presenters in the Q&A window at any time during the webinar.

• The webinar is being recorded and will be available after the presentation.

Questions?

3

• Hope Cooper, Child Welfare Consultant, True North Group [email protected]

• Gail Johnson Vaughan, Director Emerita/Chief Permanency Officer, Families [email protected] www.familiesnow.org

• Jenny Pokempner, Child Welfare Policy Director, Juvenile Law Center [email protected]

ModeratorMolly Coplan, Program Assistant, The Annie E. Casey Foundation

Today’s Presenters

4

• SFA’s permanency provisions

• Promising practices for improving permanency outcomes for older youth

• Effectively implementing the permanency provisions through innovative policies

Agenda

5

On September 30, 2014

• 415,129 youthwere in the U.S. child welfare system

• 33,942 youth(or 8%) had the goal of long-term foster care or emancipation

Data Snapshot

22,392The number of youth in 2014

exited the child welfare system with the exit reason of

emancipation.

LEGAL BACKGROUND AND

REQUIREMENTS

6

SFA’s Three Main AreasP.L. 113-183

Well-Being Normalcy,

Youth Engagement, Transition Planning and Discharge Documents

Permanency Reduction of APPLA*,

Successor Guardianship, Financial Incentives for

Permanency

SafetyTrafficking and

Runaway Provisions

*APPLA = Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement7

8

• Return home

• Adoption

• Guardianship

• Placement with a fit and willing relative

• APPLA

The Federal Framework: Permanency Hierarchy

9

• Relative notification within 30 days of removal42 U.S.C.A. § 671 (a)(29)

• Preference to place children with relatives42 U.S.C.A.§ 671 (a)(29)

• Requirement that reasonable efforts be made to place siblings together and ensure visitation if joint placement cannot be done safely42 U.S.C.A. § 671 (a)(31)

Permanency-Related Requirements and Incentives

10

• Extended adoption and kinship guardianship subsidies42 U.S.C.A. § 675 (8)(B)

• Medicaid benefits until 26 for youth adopted or entering guardianships at 18 or older

• Education and Training Vouchers and independent living services for youth adopted or entering guardianships at 16 or older 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 677 (a)(7) & (i)(2)

• Independent-student status for the purposes of FAFSA* for youth in foster care at 13 or older or in a guardianship arrangement before reaching the age of majority20 USC § 1087vv(d)(1)

Permanency-Related Requirements and Incentives

*FAFSA = Free Application for Federal Student Aid

11

• Extended foster care allows youth to access support services past 18 if they have not achieved permanency

• The obligation to make efforts and provide services to achieve permanency continues until youth is 21 or exits care

• Fostering Connections required states that extended foster care to also prolong adoption and kinship guardianship subsidies

• Early results from Chapin Hall’s CalYouth Study show extended care:

– Has not negatively affected permanency outcomes, but

– Has reduced exits from care by youth running away and leaving without a discharge plan

Fostering Connections, Extended Foster Care And Permanency

12

• APPLA is prohibited for youth under 16

• To select or maintain APPLA, the court:

– Must determine whether the agency has documented intensive, ongoing, unsuccessful efforts to achieve reunification, adoption, guardianship or placement with a fit and willing relative

– Must find APPLA is the best permanency plan for the child

– Must find there is a compelling reason it is not in the youth’s best interest to return home, be placed for adoption, enter guardianship or be placed with a fit and willing relative42 U.S.C. §§ 675(a)(2)(A) & (a)(3)

SFA’s Permanency Planning Requirements

13

• If APPLA is the proposed permanency plan, the court:

– must ask the child about their desired permanency outcome;

– must confirm the agency is taking steps to ensure the reasonable and prudent parent standard is being exercised; and

– must ensure the agency has documented that the child has regular, ongoing opportunities to engage in age- or developmentally appropriate activities

• These findings and inquiries must occur at least at each permanency hearing until the case is closed42 U.S.C. §§ 675a(a)(2)(A) & (a)(3)

SFA’s Permanency Planning Requirements

14

Pre and Post-SFA Comparison

What are Intensive, Ongoing Efforts?

Full array of permanency

services have been provided

Services were tried

multiple times

Barriers to permanency

and strategies to address barriers

are identified

The youth has been engaged

in permanency efforts

The youth understands

permanency options

15

What the Court Should See to Approve an APPLA

Documentation of the following criteria:

• A stable living arrangement or placement that is the least restrictive possible

• Services being provided to meet well-being and special needs

• The relationships the youth has with caring adults

• The permanency services that will continue to be provided

16

Why Outcomes Should Improve with SFA

• Evidentiary and procedural bars should be higher to get to APPLA, improving case planning and delivery of permanency services as well as a greater investment and availability of innovative permanency services

• Requiring courts to speak with youth about permanency should result in the youth’s team fully engaging and explaining what permanency is and how it can be achieved

• Focusing on normalcy in the case plan and in court should provide youth more opportunities to establish supportive connections that could lead to permanency

17

18

• Ensure normalcy and youths’ connections to the community are prioritized in case planning and court

• Ensure the system has sufficient capacity to provide innovative and diverse permanency services, including:

– Targeted placement prevention for adolescents

– Trauma-informed permanency services and sufficient treatment to address trauma, grief and loss

– Reunification and family engagement services for older youth who have been in the system for extended periods of time

– Enhanced post-permanency services

What Actions Should We Be Taking?

19

• Ensure permanency barriers are identified with a plan to address them. Barriers could include:

– Myths or preconceptions about older youth permanence

– Readiness of youth

– Identification of permanency resources

– Capacity/need for support of resource to support youth

Financial support

Service support

Training

Advocacy


20

• Ensure youth are meaningfully engaged in permanency planning. Engagement includes:

– Make sure they know what permanency is, how to achieve it

– Address their fears, concerns and attitudes about building relationships and permanency

– Involve them in identifying, connecting with permanency resources, including family and others they find important


21

• Myth: It’s better not to leave foster care to permanency so you can continue to have access to benefits

• Myth: Achieving permanency means you can’t have a relationship with your biological family

• Myth: When a youth hits a certain age, the focus should be the development of independent living skills, not permanency

• Myth: It’s too late to work on permanency for older youth

• Myth: Respecting youth voice means accepting their “no” to permanency without further inquiry or work

Debunking the Myths

WHAT WORKS

22

Services and Practices to AdvanceOlder Youth Permanency

• Family Strengthening and Family Connections

‒ Family preservation and reunification services‒ Family finding and kinship notification‒ Kinship and guardianship assistance‒ Pre- and post-permanency supports‒ Extended permanency subsidies

• Youth Voice

‒ Youth-led planning and decision making‒ Youth involvement in court

23

24

• Workforce improvements ‒ Training in adolescent development‒ Trauma-informed training‒ Child-specific recruitment ‒ Culture and attitude changes

• Relational permanency‒ Mentorship

• Family-based care‒ Quality foster parenting‒ Promoting normalcy ‒ Limiting group care settings, focusing on treatment needs

Services and Practices to AdvanceOlder Youth Permanency

INNOVATIVE POLICY REFORM

CALIFORNIA’S YOUTH PERMANENCY MOVEMENT

AND AB 1879

25

Permanency: A Moral and Fiscal Imperative

• Proving it is possible to find permanent families for “hard-to-place” youth, young people 18-21

• Keeping them in foster care is costly, results in dismal adult outcomes

• Money saved placing them with permanent families far outweighs costs of effective child-centered specialized permanency services

Costs are recouped, often in same fiscal year, freeing up funds for other critical local needs

How many legs does the

elephant have?

Things aren’t always as they seem

26

27

Enter Youth Permanency Movement

28

Challenge Prevailing Beliefs

29

Change Organizational Culture

Best Practices

More than 15 years’ experience points to these effective efforts:

• Child-centered services designed with child, young person

• Services targeting child’s history of trauma, separation and loss

• Mental health care to heal trauma, open youth to permanency

• Family Finding and Engagement

• Child-specific recruitment

• Adoption/permanency-competent preparation, support for families

30

31

Lessons Learned

• Best practices are not enough: Must address systemic barriers, shift beliefs, instill what-ever-it-takes culture throughout organization

• Programs with external partners yield best results

• Involve judiciary and attorneys early

• Make the youth “real” to potential families

• Provide pre- and post-adoption/permanency support to families

• Permanency best practices have double bottom line:

‒ Improved permanency outcomes

‒ Fiscal savings

• Support of “electeds” for fiscal investments key to driving high ROI

Making the Financial Case:Example 1a: Youth in California adopted at 14

Group home (Level 12) $107,220Minus adoption subsidy $ 15,000Annual savings $ 92,220

Number of years savings accrue = 4

Total savings: $92,220 x 4 years = $368,880Estimated one-time cost of

specialized permanency services = $12,000

32

Example 1b: Youth in Guardianship at 14

Group home (Level 12) $107,220Minus guardianship subsidy $ 7,419Annual savings $ 99,801


Total savings: $99,801 x 4 = $399,204

Estimated one-time cost of specialized permanency services = $12,000

33

Example 1c: Youth With 2nd Chance Reunification at 14

Group home (Level 12) $107,220No subsidy $ 0Annual savings $ 107,220


Total savings: $107,220 x 4 years = $428,880

Estimated one-time cost of specialized permanency services = $12,000

34

Example 2a: Youth Adopted at 14

Foster family agency $24,312Minus adoption subsidy $12,000Annual savings $12,312


Total savings: $12,312 x 4 = $49,248Approximate one-time cost

of specialized permanency services = $12,000

35

Example 2b: Youth in Guardianship at 14

Foster family agency $24,312Minus guardianship subsidy $ 7,419Annual savings $16,893




36

Example 2c: Youth With 2nd Chance Reunification at 14

Foster family agency $24,312No subsidy $ 0Annual savings $24,312




37

Typical savings from youth permanency for California counties without Title IV-E waivers (per child/per year)

Total Annual County Savings

Adoption from Foster Family Agency Home $10,411

Adoption from Group Home Level 10 $57,291

Adoption from Group Home Level 14 $76,852

Kin Guardianship from Foster Family Agency Home $11,873

Kin Guardianship from Group Home Level 12 $69,864

Reunification from Foster Family Agency Home $16,411

Reunification from Group Home Level 10 $64,791

Savings accrue for each year youth would have remained in care

FamiliesNOW.org

Savings With Youth Permanency

Youth 12 to 21 by Placement and Permanency Type (July 2015)

38

Includes costs for specialized youth permanency services!

39

FamiliesNOW.org

Sample Total County SavingsFor 40 Youths Achieving Permanency at 14 in CA

• Target level of government where savings accrue

• Build coalition of support

• Use policy improvement AND legislative strategies — sometimes litigation strategies are what it takes

• California’s permanency legislation

– AB 1790 (2014) improves access to experienced mental health providers with specialized training

– AB 1879 (2016)

40

How to Advocate for Permanency

41

AB 1879: Innovative Legislative Approach to Promote Permanency

• Defines child-centered specialized permanency services

• Requires court to order child-centered specialized permanency service for children and youth who have no viable option for permanency with family and no prospective adoptive parents or guardians (including probation-supervised youth in foster care)

• Provides prospective adoptive families and guardians information about working with mental health professionals with specialized training and experience in adoption/permanency clinical issues

• Read text of the bill: http://goo.gl/lT5NJ2

42

Child-Centered Specialized Permanency Services

• Designed for and with child

• Address child’s history of trauma, separation and loss

• Include mental health (and other) services, as needed, to alleviate impairments in significant areas of life functioning that may impede child’s placement with a permanent family

• Use Family Finding and Engagement to locate relatives

• Use child-specific recruitment

• Prepare family to meet child’s needs, set appropriate expectations for pre- and post-permanency and stabilize placement

43

Legislative Update

• Sailed through initial policy committees with strong support

• Died in suspense (misinformation that led bill to be priced too high)

• New bill to be introduced in next legislative session

– Tighter language to clarify low costs

– Improved based on talks with state child welfare agency

• Raised awareness of effective specialized permanency services

• Not needed for counties to engage child-centered specialized permanency services

44

Improvements in New Bill

• Will define child-centered specialized “service elements”

• Will require inclusion of child-centered specialized service elements, as needed, to finalize a placement in child’s permanency plan

• Will not require court to order services, determine compliance with child-centered specialized permanency service elements in the plan

• Will define “intensive and ongoing efforts” and require court to ensure they have been provided to youth with an APPLA

• Will add language to clarify applicable existing funding for services

Additional Resources

45

Visit familiesnow.org/tools-and-resources/permanency/

• AB 1879 fact sheet• Bill info• Typical CA savings• Funding Youth Permanency Guide• Older Youth Adoption report

46

For additional informationwww.aecf.org/work/child-welfare/jim-casey-youth-opportunities-initiative/

Questions?

47

Government & Nonprofit

Improving Permanency Outcomes for Older Youth: Leveraging the Strengthening Families Act