| Module
2: Understanding The Impact of ASFA on the Child Welfare
Agency
Time
Approximately 3 hours
Rationale
Successful implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families
Act (ASFA) depends largely on the ability of child welfare
supervisors and managers to understand the changes ASFA
is making in the child welfare agency, especially in management,
casework practice and administrative systems. Additionally,
child welfare supervisors and managers are now working within
a system that measures and monitors outcomes associated
with delivering services to children and families, not just
the process. As middle managers, they are accountable for
leading the transition to a performance based system, while
at the same time supporting frontline workers as they incorporate
ASFA responsive practice changes into their ongoing casework.
Learning
Objectives
When this module is complete, the participant should be
able to:
-
Define the major requirements of ASFA
-
Introduce the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR)
-
Explain the impact of ASFA on case practice with children,
youth and families
-
Explain the agency’s progress toward meeting child welfare
goals, outcomes and measures as defined by the U.S. DHHS,
Children’s Bureau and his/her state/county
-
Identify strengths and areas for improvement in the agency's
key internal systems
-
Implement an approach to problem solving that can be used
in team, service and system planning, management and evaluation
Activities
-
Present the ASFA Goals and Highlights (10 minutes)
- Exercise:
Apply ASFA using the Meyer Family case vignette (30 minutes)
-
Discuss the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) philosophy,
practice principles, measures and indicators and the agency’s
performance results in the CFSR (50 minutes)
-
Optional Exercise: Storyboard the strengths and challenges
in the agency's current internal systems (15 minutes)
-
Discuss the performance glossary, what action planning
is and how action plans can be used, including a walkthrough
of sample action plans (15 minutes)
-
Exercise: Create a supervisory/managerial action plan
to address a predefined issue (60 minutes)
Sample
Materials
-
ASFA Goals (Section II.2.1)
-
ASFA and Final Rule: The Highlights (Section II.2.2)
-
ASFA Timeline (Section II.2.3)
-
The Meyer Family Case Vignette (Section II.2.4)
-
The Trainer’s version of the Meyer Family Case Vignette
(Section II.2.5)
-
Child and Family Services Reviews: Philosophy and Conceptual
Framework (Section II.2.6)
-
Child and Family Services Reviews: Practice Principles
and Approaches (Section II.2.7)
-
Comparison of the Final List of Child Welfare Outcomes
and Measures and the Review Performance Measures (Section
II.2.8)
-
National Standards for Child and Family Service Review
Measures (Section II.2.9)
-
Systemic Factors and Indicators (Section II.2.10)
-
CFSR results report, PIP and /or State/County plan, goals,
outcomes and indicators (provided by the agency)
-
Case and Action Planning Steps (Section II.2.11)
-
Performance Measurement Glossary (Section II.2.12)
-
York Unit Action Plan (Section II.2.13)
-
Jones Family Action Plan (Section II.2.14)
-
County Social Service Agency Adoption Initiative Action
Plan (Section II.2.15)
-
Nana's House Action Plan (Section II.2.16)
-
Uses of Outcomes in Child Welfare (Section II.2.17)
Glossary
of Terms
Action
plan: a tool that can be used to describe, manage and
evaluate a unit/team, case, program or system by defining
goals, outcomes, indicators and approaches to achieving
those goals.
Activities:
the work to be done.
Assumptions:
what you know or think you know about the case, program,
system or practice.
Child
and family outcomes: the results effecting the child
or family.
Goal:
expression of direction or priority.
Indicator:
evidence of achievement or non-achievement of any outcome.
Outcome:
consequence or result of actions or a set of actions.
System
outcomes: what results will the activities produce
in the administrative systems or infrastructure.
Advance
Preparation
Gather
the state/county's outcomes and measures and related reports
and plans, determine how familiar the participants will
be with the material and adapt the trainer's instructions
and materials for those sections of this module. Use the
CFSR report or PIP results if that information is available.
Complete
handout/overhead (Section II.2.9), National Standards for
Child and Family Service Review Measures by adding state/county/regional
data.
Review
and customize, if needed, the ASFA timeline and Meyer Family
Case Vignette. You may want to invite an agency attorney
to participate in the preparation for and /or delivery of
this section of the training.
Determine,
in conjunction with Senior Administrators, an appropriate
managerial/supervisory topic for the group to use to develop
an action plan. (Topics may include issues such as: what
the unit/region needs to do to prepare for/follow-up on
the child and family services reviews, address poor morale,
review the case assignment process or deal with a staff
issue such as a worker who is so enmeshed with a family,
that he/she has lost objectivity and doesn't want to make
permanency decisions.)
Make
sure that a flip chart, markers, newsprint pad, overheads
and an overhead projector are in the room.
Bibliography
and Suggested Reading
Alter,
Catherine and Egan, Marcia (1997), Logic Modeling: A
Tool for Teaching Critical Thinking in Social Work Practice,
Journal of Social Work Education, Vol. 33, No 1, Council
of Social Work Education.
Child
Welfare Outcomes 1998: Annual Report, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children
and Families, Administration on Children Youth and Families,
Children's Bureau.
Federal
Register/Vol. 64, No. 161/Friday, August 20, 1999/Notices.
Federal
Register/Vol. 65, No. 16/Tuesday, January 25, 2000, Rules
and Regulations.
http://www.childwelfarereview.com/
This site provides information useful in managing the child
and family services and title IV-E foster care eligibility
reviews.
New
Child and Family Services Review. (Winter 2001), Managing
Care for Children and Families Newsletter, Volume III, Number
2, National Child Welfare Resource Center for Organizational
Improvement, Portland, ME.
Strategic
Planning for Child Welfare Agencies. (Spring 2002)
, Managing Care for Children and Families Newsletter, Volume
IV, Number 1, National Child Welfare Resource Center for
Organizational Improvement, Portland, ME.
www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb
This Children’s Bureau website contains valuable information
on the Child and Family Services Reviews.
Trainer's
Instructions
1.
Introduce the module by presenting the rationale and objectives.
Refer to the ‘Theme’ flipchart and highlight the theme covered
in this module: assuring that agency systems support effective
child welfare practice.
2. Begin
the discussion referring to overhead Section II.2.1, ASFA
Goals and using the following as a guide:
Many
times when we think of the Adoption and Safe Families
Act (ASFA), we think about all the practice and compliance
issues it has changed for us as practitioners. We sometimes
forget the underlying reasons and issues it was developed
to address--- the needs of children and families in our
system. We want to stress that ASFA is really about what
is good for children and families. ASFA is about good
social work practice.
ASFA
was passed in response to a growing national concern about
the extended periods of time that children spend in foster
care. The Act mandated tighter timeframes and established
three goal areas for child welfare systems -- attaining
safety, permanency and well being for children in care.
The Act requires the development of outcome measures in
each goal area on which all states must report. ASFA also
outlines the conditions under which a state should terminate
parental rights and seek a permanent placement for a child,
sets timeframes and deadlines for permanency determinations
and provides financial incentives to states to increase
adoptions.
These
requirements, in combination with the mandates of other
relevant legislation and regulations, substantially change
the way child welfare systems are to be managed. One example
of that is the Final Rule, which was published by HHS
on January 25, 2000 and established new approaches to
monitoring state child welfare programs under ASFA. It
addresses the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR)
and the Title IV-E eligibility review. These new reviews
focus on outcomes for children and families and practice
improvements rather than on the accuracy and completeness
of the case files in isolation.
3. Summarize
with the participants the Highlights of ASFA and the Final
Rule, using the ASFA and The Final Rule: The Highlights
overhead (Section II.2.2) and the ASFA Timeline (Section
II.2.3). During this review the trainer should specifically
note that a major change to practice is the more structured
timeframes imposed to ensure timely and consistent oversight
of a case.
4. Explain
to the participants that we are now going to apply ASFA
and The Final Rule to one case vignette, The Meyer Family.
Ask participants to refer to (Section II.2.4) in their binders
and assign each of the groups one of the questions to answer.
Ask each group to select a reporter, who will present the
group’s discussion to the large group. Give the group 10
minutes to answer their question.
5. Bring
the small groups back together after 10 minutes. Ask each
small group’s reporter to report on the group’s conclusion,
as the trainer assures the accurate response (found within
the trainer’s version of the The Meyer Family case vignette
scenario (Section II.2.5)) and adds the additional comments
from the trainer’s version. Summarize and assure all questions
are answered before moving on.
6. Reference
the Child and Family Services Reviews: Philosophy and Conceptual
Framework handout (Section II.2.6) and the Child and Family
Services Reviews Practice Principles and Approaches (Section
II.2.7) handout and continue:
One
of the key features of the CFSR process is that the focus
is on practice, results and accountability. A basic foundation
of the CFSR process is the belief that the interactions
a family has with the agency have very powerful effects
on the outcomes. What happens between the caseworker and
the family, the quality of the case planning, strategies
used to engage the family, how families’ needs are assessed
and matched to services have huge impacts on outcomes.
For
agencies, the CFSR will :
-
Identify both the needs and strengths of state programs
and drive toward program improvements
-
Promote practice principles believed to support improved
outcomes for children and families, such as family-centered
practice, community-based services, strengthening parental
capacity to protect and provide for children and individualizing
services that respond to the unique needs of children
and families.
-
Emphasize accountability. While the review process includes
opportunities for States to make program improvements
before having Federal funds withheld because of nonconformity,
there are significant penalties associated with the failure
to make the improvements needed to attain substantial
conformity.
-
Focus on improving systems that support effective practice.
-
Enhance state capacity to become self-evaluating.
By
conducting the Statewide Assessment and participating
in the onsite review, States will become familiar with
the process of examining outcomes for children and families
and systemic factors that affect those outcomes. They
can adapt this process for use in the ongoing evaluation
of their systems and programs.
7. Move
to a discussion of the agency’s performance under ASFA using,
if available, the agency’s CFSR report or Performance Improvement
Plan (PIP). Reference the 'Comparison of the Final List
of Child Welfare Outcomes and Measures and the Review Performance
Measures overhead and handout (Section II.2.8). If the agency
does not yet have a CFSR report, use overhead Section II.2.9.
Highlight and discuss the specific measures the reviews
focus on and the state/county's/region's performance. Introduce
the topic using the following as a guide:
This
material presents the list of child welfare outcomes and
measures as published August, 1999 in the Federal Register
and the Review Performance Measures -- January, 2000.
These outcomes and measures reinforce the focus on safety,
permanency and child and family well being. These measures
will be the basis for the Children's Bureau reports to
Congress on how states are doing meeting the goals and
objectives of the child welfare system. As you can see,
some of these measures are covered in the state by state
reviews.
8. Probe
for reactions to the performance results information using
the following as a guide:
Each
of the numbers in this report represents a child or family,
indicates significant effort by our workers and presents
just a small piece of our practice. It is, however, appropriate
to take a few minutes to reflect on what this information
is trying to say about certain areas of our performance.
Let’s do that by answering the following questions:
- What
is this information trying to tell us?
-
Are you surprised by any of it? If so, how?
-
How could this information be used to help us improve
our performance on these measures?
Process
the responses to these questions with the group.
9. If
the CFSR report or PIP are available, you will have already
reviewed the agency’s performance on each of the systemic
factors during the report walkthrough and won’t need this
activity. If you are using the activity, put up overhead
Section II.2.10, Systemic Factors, and continue this storyboarding
activity using the following as a guide:
During
the CFSR these seven systemic factors will be reviewed
to see how they relate to the agency’s capacity to deliver
services leading to improved outcomes how each of these
systems is working to support the agency’s practice. Each
of these systemic factors in reality represents an internal
agency unit or team that performs the function described
by the factor (for example, training, QA, and Information
Technology).
10.
Go through each factor and ask the group to define each
factor (for example, what makes up our case review system?).
Ask if there are other systems, groups or factors that are
key to the agency's internal management. Write them on a
flip chart.
11.
Refer to the 7 flipcharts posted around the room, noting
that each flipchart lists one of the systemic factors. (if
needed, include the flipcharts created in the previous discussion.)
Provide each participant with some sticky notes and ask
that they answer the question for each of the factors: ‘How
could this factor be strengthened?’. Mention that the senior
administrators want feedback on this discussion of the factors,
especially the 'how could each factor be strengthened' comments,
and encourage answers that are honest, strength based and
fair. Explain that the results of this activity will be
provided to the administrators.
12.
After 5 minutes, ask participants to post their sticky note
on the associated flipchart. Process the comments posted
on each flipchart.
13.
Wrap up this activity by summarizing the discussion, reinforcing
the need to collaborate with each of these internal units
and reminding participants that the results will be forwarded
to agency administrators.
14.
Introduce the action planning concept using the following
as a guide:
In
child welfare, beyond the requirements of ASFA, ICWA and
the Final Rule, one of the primary reasons that we measure
performance is to collect information that lets us know
how we are progressing toward achieving agreed upon goals
and outcomes, to make corrections or alter practice if
needed and thus improve services to children and families.
Whether we are talking about a case, a program, the unit
or a county or the state as a whole, to effectively measure
performance, we need to know what is the ultimate aim,
what the expected results will be and how we'll know when
we get there.
One
tool that can help ensure that you and those you supervise
are working toward the same goals is an action plan. What
is an action plan? An action plan defines goals, lays
out approaches to achieving those goals and describes
measures of progress. It’s a management tool -- a visual
way to look at the relationship between 'what is', an
intervening set of activities and a result. When you are
here and want to get there, action planning provides a
structured way to think about priorities, activities,
resources, assumptions and results.
The
term action plan indicates a series of defined steps aimed
at providing maximum support to the adopted policies and
priorities of the unit, team, county, region or agency.
As
child welfare supervisors and mangers, you are constantly
going through a series of decision making and planning
activities with others -- families, workers, managers,
community partners, and courts. Ultimately you reach agreement,
stop planning and begin a course of action. The process
used to create the action plan can support that planning/implementation/monitoring
cycle by helping establish common direction, setting priorities
and devising indicators to measure progress at the unit,
region, county, program, or system level. In fact, the
process used for action planning is quite similar to the
process you and the workers use to put together a case
plan.
15.
Put up the Comparison of Action Planning to Case Planning
(Section II.2.11) overhead and highlight the four major
steps and note:
Like the case planning process, the action planning
process:
-
is circular and ongoing not linear
-
should be strengths based
-
involves key participants in all steps of the process
-
aims for results
-
ensures monitoring and revisions
16.
Put up the Performance Measurement Glossary (Section II.2.12)
overhead and continue the discussion:
So let's now look at some basic action planning terms. Not
surprisingly, you’ll see that like the process, some of
the terms used in action planning are similar to the terms
used in case planning.
• Goals: goals are an expression
of direction or priority. Your goal establishes what you
want to achieve for the client or from the program, for
example, keep children safe.
• Outcomes: outcomes are the consequence
or result of actions or a set of actions. Outcomes can
be measurable. They may be system outcomes, defining the
results the work will produce in the administrative systems,
or child and family outcomes, defining the results the
activities will produce for the children and families,
or both.
• Indicators: help you measure the progress
being made (or not made).
17.
Put up overhead York Unit Action Plan (Section II.2.13)
and continue:
Building on those terms, what are the components of
an action plan? The components can vary from situation
to situation depending on the need of the agency and the
complexity of the issues being addressed. In general,
action plans have five components and are supported by
a detailed work plan. The five components are:
-
Goals, outcomes and indicators, which we've already
discussed, and
- Underlying
assumptions: what you know or think you know
about the program that has meaning for the design of
the program or service plan. Often, the assumptions
include statements of what needs to be changed.
- Activities:
what work will be done.
The
assumptions should lead to the activities, which support
the outcomes, which ultimately should promote the goal
although it is often not quite that straight forward or
simple. You can see how there could be layers of needs
and loops in the activities or interventions.
Some
action plans also have slots for who the responsible person
or unit is for each activity and associated time lines.
The who and the when can be part of the action plan or
a related work plan but they must be considered in the
planning process.
Ok,
we've covered a lot here…does anyone have any questions
on the purposes of action plans and their several potential
uses?
Let's
look at a few examples of action plans.
18.
Quickly walk through some of the sample action plans; use
as many as you think are needed to reinforce the key concepts.
The
York Unit Action Plan
This action plan presents an example of how this tool
can be used at the unit or team level. The background
here is that a supervisor has heard from her manager that
her unit is 'way behind' in its visits to children in
foster care. So the supervisor sets out to uncover what
is happening in terms of the visits that are being made
and those that aren't. A major assumption (and key fact)
in this example is that caseworkers are not visiting children
in foster homes as frequently as is needed or required.
In other words, some foster home visits are not being
conducted. In this action plan, the unit supervisor has
defined certain activities---such as reviewing data that
show worker by worker the frequency and timing of foster
home visits--- that should accomplish the outcome of increasing
the number and frequency of caseworker visits to children
in foster homes.
The
Jones Family Action Plan
This action plan represents an example of how this tool
can be used at the case level. The goal here is permanency
for the Jones children, the desired outcomes are that:
-
The Jones children will be placed together in a permanent
home.
-
The Jones children will be adopted and live with relatives.
-
The Jones children’s relatives will support the parents
in relinquishment and have open adoption.
-
The Adoption Unit will support the relatives in caring
for the children.
So…how do we get to those Child and Family Outcomes? We
start with some assumptions, in this case that it will
be difficult to place four children together, the biological
parents will be uncooperative and adoption resources are
limited. From there, we see a set of activities and indicators
to help us measure our progress toward the desired outcomes.
County
Social Service Agency Adoption Initiative
Action Plan
This action plan is based on a real life situation. In
response to some extremely negative publicity regarding
kids languishing in care for excessively long periods
of time, the Governor mandated the outcomes of reducing
the length of stay in foster care by an established %
and placing a certain number of children in adoptive homes.
Failure to meet these targets would result in sanctions.
This was pretty cold stuff. Clearly the name of the game
here, the goal, was permanency, adoption.
The
first step was to set out the assumptions, which in this
case is really a barrier analysis of internal organizational
issues that were retarding effectiveness. '…children in
long term care are not consistently reviewed for adoption
potential, the level of collaboration between adoption
and other child welfare staff is poor, kinship placements
are not targeted for special focus…’
Once
the main barriers were specified, the activities to address
these assumptions were developed; they actually flowed
from the assumptions. You can see how an activity like
're-assessing status of all children with a permanent
plan of long term care' flows from the first assumption
of sporadic adoption reviews. The activities of having
adoption workers participate in pre-placement process
and provide secondary support clearly addresses the perceived
poor collaboration between adoption and other workers.
You
can see that the outcomes are mostly systemic outcomes,
the agency felt that it had a lot of internal work to
do to get the desired benefits of the children…things
like increased % of new kinship homes willing to consider
adoption, and the child and family outcomes and indicators…the
12-month targets…are the ones mandated by the Governor.
This
action plan presents assumptions as a barrier/needs analysis
and strong links between the assumptions and the concrete,
solid activities.
Nana's
House Action Plan
This action plan, again developed to address a real life
situation, represents a Family Preservation, Family Support
Program where, following a report, the child is not removed
from the home however the family then is referred to Nana's
House to receive a variety of services. This is sort of
the settlement house model.
Looking
at this action plan, you can see that the assumptions
are truly that…assumptions, with only a hint of the needs
assessment element. 'Most parents of children known to
the child protective system want to be effective parents'
and 'Basic services are often unavailable'.
The
activities flow from the assumptions…offering drop in,
emergency food and shelter services is responsive to the
assumption that basic services are unavailable.
What's
neat about this model is that the measures are linked
to a data source.
19.
Ask for and address questions.
20.
Introduce the next activity in this module, developing a
supervisory/managerial action plan. Use the issue(s) defined
by the agency administrators while planning for this training
or a topic generated by the review of the CFSR or storyboarding
activities or a combination. Once you have agreed on the
topics, ask each participant to join a group that is focusing
on a topic of interest to him/her and create an action plan
using the material provided combined with their experience/expertise.
Ask each group to appoint a recorder/reporter. Provide flip
charts, markers and tape to each group for them to use to
display their model. Give the groups 30 minutes to create
their models. At the end of that time, have each group present
their model and ask the other groups to comment on the clarity
of the model (it should be clear to anyone who reads it),
the connections between the assumptions, the activities
and the outcomes (they should easily be linkable) and the
indicators (they should be measurable). Probe for who
needs to do what by when
and in what sequence. Spend time on each
model. Record the work plans on a flip chart.
21.
Wrap the activity up by noting that:
Planning
at the case, agency and community level provides a framework
for the complex decisions that you as child welfare supervisors
and managers make every day. Understanding and using a
structured tool for planning such as the action plan will
help you think through the connections between selecting,
then implementing, monitoring and, if needed, adjusting
a set of activities and the anticipated results of those
activities for a client, service, practice or system.
22.
Ask for and respond to questions.
23.
Wrap-up the module using the 'Uses of Outcomes in Child
Welfare' overhead and handout (Section II.2.17) and the
following as a guide:
We're
in this room discussing outcomes and measures primarily
because of a process launched by Federal requirements
and expectations. The federal focus on achieving the goals
of safety, permanency and well being for each child and
family is a driving force in the discussion of outcomes
and measures and the funding of child welfare programs.
However, these federal requirements are in concert with
a broader national commitment to and growing emphasis
on what is being achieved for families and children versus
what is being done.
In
many ways, this focus is not new. You've always worried
about case/client and service outcomes every day…will
Sally not leave her four pre-teen children unattended?
Will Gloria find childcare so she can go back to high
school? Why is the success rate of the XYZ drug program
so much higher than the success of the POL drug program?
Looking at such outcomes helps us make day to day decisions
about the work we do, the people who do it and checkout
if our practice serves effectively the client mix we are
seeing today.
So
outcome based management is here; it's a way of life in
child welfare. Supervisors and managers thus must constantly
ensure that their day to day work effort is responsive
to an outcomes approach, both at the case and the agency
level and have an increased concern about meeting the
established timelines. This approach puts new emphasis
on responsibility, accountability, effectiveness, and
results, both for child welfare agencies, the child welfare
system and families. It is the child welfare system, not
any one agency that needs to stand prepared to help support
the families as they try to resolve their individual issues
and achieve desired outcomes.
24.
To wrap the module up, ask participants to reflect on and
then share the key points they learned from these discussions
and activities about the impact that ASFA is having on the
child welfare system.
25.
Introduce the next module using the following as a guide:
We've
been discussing how setting up outcomes and performance
measures forces us to shift our thinking from a focus
on what we've been doing to a focus on what are we accomplishing.
We're now going to delve more deeply into this topic by
looking at:
-
how ASFA has changed (or not changed) elements of 'good'
practice for child welfare managers and supervisor,
and
- some
ways supervisors and managers can help workers understand
his/her role in achieving outcomes for children.
|
. |
<<
Module 1
Module
3 >>
If
you are using the Pre-training Skills and Knowledge Evaluation
form, ask participants to complete it as they arrive.
The
numbers following the name of a handout or overhead refer
to the number of the handout or overhead not to a page number.
The handout/overhead number is found on the top right hand
corner of each document; the page number is on the right
lower corner. For example, the Training Agenda (Section
II.1.2), the first sample handout and overhead in module
one, is found on page 1.8
The
Core Competency Document (Section II.1.4 and the Competency
Matrix (See Introduction) are provided for the benefit of
the trainer and are not directly incorporated into the trainer's
notes as instructional material.
In preparation for upcoming exercises, the trainer may find
it useful to divide the large group into smaller groups
of 5-7 people at this point.
|
| . |
Mimi
Laver
National Child Welfare Resource Center on Legal and Judicial
Issues
ABA Center on Children and the Law
©2000 American Bar Association
'Reproduced by permission. All rights reserved. This information
or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in
any way or by any means or downloaded or stored in any electronic
database or retrieval system without the express written consent
of the American Bar Association.'
Section
II.2.3
Adoption
and Safe Families Act Timeline
(1) When calculating when to have
the permanency hearing or the 15 of 22 months, use earlier of
the date of adjudication OR 60 days after the child is removed
from the home.
(2) Unless child is being cared for by relative or compelling
reason not to TPR exists.
Copyright
© 1998 by the American Bar Association
'Reproduced by permission. All rights reserved. This information
or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in
any way or by any means or downloaded or stored in any electronic
database or retrieval system without the express written consent
of the American Bar Association.'
Section
II.2.4
The Meyer Family
On March 30, 2002 at 7:30 a.m.,
the local department of health/social services receives a call
from a neighbor who is concerned about the Meyer children who
live next door. He reports that the children, ages four and
six, are at his door in their pajamas asking for food because
their parents are not home. The neighbor is advised to keep
the children with him and that law enforcement and social services
will be there shortly. The agency case records show a history
of the Meyer children being left alone and AODA issues with
both parents. A safety plan that was developed less than one
month ago is in place.
Based on the children’s statements
and the absence of the parents, the children are taken into
temporary physical custody and placed in a licensed foster home.
No relatives were available. The parents are located later that
day and the parents and the worker sign a waiver of temporary
physical custody form.
On June 5, 2002, the court issues
a dispositional order for each child that continues the out-of-home
placement. The two court orders include judicial findings for
each child that “it is contrary to the child’s welfare to remain
in the home” and that “the agency has made reasonable efforts
to prevent the removal of the children from the home through
provision of safety services to the Meyer family, including
supervision/ observation one-hour, three times per week; assistance
from the social worker to help the parents identify a safe and
appropriate caregiver for instances when parent choose to consume
alcohol; and arrangements for respite care two times per week.”
The children remain in the same foster care placement.
On May 30, 2003, the court enters
an order to extend the original dispositional order. In the
extension order, the court makes a judicial finding that “the
agency has made reasonable efforts to carry out the provisions
of the permanency plan—see the court report.”
1. Is the Judicial Finding of Contrary
to the Welfare:
a. Timely?
b. Sufficient?
2. Is the Judicial Finding of Reasonable
Efforts to Prevent Removal:
a. Timely?
b. Sufficient?
3. Is the Judicial Finding of Reasonable
Efforts to Carry Out the Provisions of the Permanency Plan:
a. Timely?
b. Sufficient?
Developed jointly by the four Wisconsin
Child Welfare Training Partnerships and the State of Wisconsin
Department of Child and Family Services.
Section
II.2.5
The
Meyer Family
Trainer’s Version
On March 30, 2002 at 7:30 a.m.,
the local department of health/social services receives a call
from a neighbor who is concerned about the Meyer children who
live next door. He reports that the children, ages four and
six, are at his door in their pajamas asking for food because
their parents are not home. The neighbor is advised to keep
the children with him and that law enforcement and social services
will be there shortly. The agency case records show a history
of the Meyer children being left alone and AODA issues with
both parents. A safety plan that was developed less than one
month ago is in place.
Based on the children’s statements
and the absence of the parents, the children are taken into
temporary physical custody and placed in a licensed foster home.
No relatives were available. The parents are located later that
day and the parents and the worker sign a waiver of temporary
physical custody form.
On June 5, 2002, the court issues
a dispositional order for each child that continues the out-of-home
placement. The two court orders include judicial findings for
each child that “it is contrary to the child’s welfare to remain
in the home” and that “the agency has made reasonable efforts
to prevent the removal of the children from the home through
provision of safety services to the Meyer family, including
supervision/ observation one-hour, three times per week; assistance
from the social worker to help the parents identify a safe and
appropriate caregiver for instances when parent choose to consume
alcohol; and arrangements for respite care two times per week.”
The children remain in the same foster care placement.
On May 30, 2003, the court enters
an order to extend the original dispositional order. In the
extension order, the court makes a judicial finding that “the
agency has made reasonable efforts to carry out the provisions
of the permanency plan—see the court report.”
4.
Is the Judicial Finding of Contrary to the Welfare:
a. Timely? Technically, Yes. The first court order
is the dispositional order if no Temporary Physical Custody
Order is generated.
However,
the intent of ASFA is that this judicial review and finding
occur as close to the removal as possible, recognizing the severity
of removing a child, even temporarily, from the home. Under
new state legislation (pending at this time), a temporary physical
custody hearing is required and the contrary to the welfare
finding is required to be in the temporary physical custody
order.
b.
Sufficient? No. Although the court order does include
the words “contrary to the welfare,” it does not include detailed,
child-specific information as the basis for the finding. If
a more detailed finding was made in the hearing, but was not
documented on the court order, then the only documentation that
is sufficient is a transcript.
5.
Is the Judicial Finding of Reasonable Efforts to Prevent Removal:
a.
Timely? No. This finding must be made no later than
60 days from removal with no exceptions. In this scenario, the
removal was on March 30th, the finding was due on May 29th,
but the actual finding wasn’t made until June 5, 2002.
A
common mistake may be to simply count two months from date of
removal (May 30th). In that instance, the finding would be late
by one day.
b.
Sufficient? Yes. The finding provides detail about
the efforts and activities of the agency specific to this child
and family to prevent the removal. The more detail provided
for all judicial findings the better. The intent is for the
court to provide an important procedural safeguard against inappropriate
agency action by providing individualized oversight, not “rubber-stamping.”
This
requires that the worker provide detailed information to the
court to serve as the basis for any finding of fact. The importance
of communication with the court, district attorney and/or corporation
counsel about the ASFA timeline, the content of judicial findings,
and the administrative impact of needing to have more information
in court orders.
6.
Is the Judicial Finding of Reasonable Efforts to Carry Out the
Provisions of the Permanency Plan:
a.
Timely? No. The finding is required no later than 12
months from the date of removal and every 12 months thereafter.
The removal date is March 30, 2002, the finding is due no later
than March 30, 2003, but it was made late on May 30, 2003.
One
solution for getting the timing on track would be to request
a dispositional order that expires 12 months from the date of
removal rather than the standard request that it expire one-year
from date of disposition.
b.
Sufficient? Probably yes. If the court report has a
discrete section that provides a detailed description of the
agency’s efforts to carry out the provisions of the permanency
plan, then a reference to the attached court report is sufficient
under the most recent guidance given by the Children’s Bureau.
If the court report does not specifically
address the actions of the agency to support this particular
judicial finding, then the finding is not sufficient.
Developed jointly by the four Wisconsin Child Welfare Training
Partnerships and the State of Wisconsin Department of Child
and Family Services.
Section
II.2.6
Child
and Family Services Reviews Philosophy and
Conceptual Framework
Prepared
by the
Child Welfare Review Project
July 2001
The new child and family services
reviews, authorized by the 1994 Amendments to the Social Security
Act (SSA) and administered by the Children's Bureau, Administration
for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS), provide a unique opportunity for the
Federal government and State child welfare agencies to work
as a team in assessing the State's capacity to promote positive
outcomes for children and families engaged in the child welfare
system.
The child and family services reviews
are based on a number of central principles and concepts, including
the following:
•
Partnership Between the Federal and State Governments
The child and family services reviews are a collaborative effort
between the Federal and State governments. A review team composed
of both State and Federal and State staff conducts the reviews
and evaluates State performance.
•
Use of Multiple Sources To Assess State Performance
The
review teams collect information from a variety of sources to
make decisions about a State’s performance. The sources of information
include a Statewide Assessment, completed by State members of
the review team; statewide aggregate data; onsite reviews of
a sample of case records and case-related interviews with children,
parents, foster parents, and case managers and other professionals
working with a child; and interviews with State and community
stakeholders.
•
Examination of Outcomes of Services to Children and Families
and State Agency Systems That Affect Those Services
The
reviews examine State programs from two perspectives. First,
the reviews look at outcomes of services provided to children
and families served by the State agency. Second, they examine
systemic factors that have an effect on the agency’s ability
to help children and families achieve positive outcomes.
•
Comprehensive Review of All Relevant Child Welfare Programs
The
reviews will focus on how all the State's child welfare programming
affects positive outcomes for children and families.
•
Identification of State Needs and Strengths
The
reviews are designed to capture both the strengths and the needs
of State programs. With a strong emphasis on using the reviews
to drive program improvements, the reviews identify the strengths
of State programs that can be used to make improvements in other
program areas, where needed.
•
Promotion of Practice Principles
The
reviews promote practice principles believed to support improved
outcomes for children and families, such as family-centered
practice, community-based services, strengthening parental capacity
to protect and provide for children, and individualizing services
that respond to the unique needs of children and families.
•
Emphasis on Accountability
The
reviews emphasize accountability. While the review process includes
opportunities for States to make program improvements before
having Federal funds withheld because of nonconformity, there
are significant penalties associated with the failure to make
the improvements needed to attain substantial conformity.
•
Focus on Improving Systems
Following
the reviews, State Child Welfare agencies, with the support
of their Federal ACF Regional Office partners, will develop
plans for strengthening their system’s capacity to create positive
outcomes for children and families.
•
Enhancement of State Capacity To Become Self-evaluating
Through
conducting the Statewide Assessment and participating in the
onsite review, States will become familiar with the process
of examining outcomes for children and families and systemic
factors that affect those outcomes. They can adapt this process
for use in the ongoing evaluation of their systems and programs.
Adapted
from Johnson, Bassin & Shaw, Inc and their work with the
Child Welfare Review Project supported by the Children’s Bureau;
Administration on Children, Youth and Families; Administration
for Children and Families; U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. Further information can be found at http://www.childwelfarereview.com/
Section
II.2.7
Child and Family Services Reviews Practice Principles
and Approaches
Prepared by the
Child Welfare Review Project
July 2001
Recent shifts in the delivery of
child welfare services have focused on family-centered community-based
and individually focused approaches. The child and family services
reviews, administered by the Children's Bureau, Administration
for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, are designed to promote these practice principles,
which are believed to support improved outcomes for children
and families.
Family-Centered
Practice Is Designed To:
• Strengthen, enable, and empower families to protect and nurture
their children
• Safely preserve family relationships and connections when
appropriate
• Recognize the strong influence that social systems have on
individual behavior
• Enhance family autonomy
• Respect the rights, values, and cultures of families
• Focus on an entire family rather than select individuals within
a family
Community-Based Practice Is Designed To:
• Support the needs of children within the context of their
families and communities
• Emphasize prevention-oriented services and supports
• Provide local communities a role in identifying, designing,
implementing, and overseeing services within the community
Individualizing Services Are Designed To:
• Tailor interventions to meet the specific needs of children
and families served
• Recognize that children and families are affected by both
individual and environmental factors
• Recognize that children and families and the environments
in which they operate are unique
• Offer children and families opportunities to provide input
in the identification of their strengths, needs, and goals and
the means to achieve those goals
Adapted from Johnson, Bassin & Shaw, Inc and their work
with the Child Welfare Review Project supported by the Children’s
Bureau; Administration on Children, Youth and Families; Administration
for Children and Families; U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. Further information can be found at http://www.childwelfarereview.com/
Section
II.2.8
| Goal |
Final
List Outcomes |
Final
List Measures* |
Review
Performance Outcomes |
Review
Performance Indicators ** |
| Safety |
1.
Reduce Recurrence of Child Abuse and/or Neglect |
Measure
1.1: Of all children who were victims of substantiated or
indicated child abuse and/or neglect during the reporting
period, what percentage had another substantiated or indicated
report within a 12-month period? |
1.
Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and
neglect |
Timeliness
of initiating investigations of reports of child maltreatment
Repeat
maltreatment
Incidence
of child abuse and /or neglect in foster care provider
|
| |
2.
Reduce the Incidence of Child Abuse and /or Neglect in Foster
Care |
Measure
2.1: Of all children who were in foster care during the
reporting period, what percentage was the subject of substantiated
or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
staff? |
2.
Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible
and appropriate |
Services
to families to protect children in the home and to prevent
removal Current
risk of harm to the child
|
| Permanency |
3.
Increase Permanency for Children in Foster Care |
Measure
3.1: For all children who exited the child welfare system,
what percentage left either to reunification, adoption,
or legal guardianship? Measure
3.2: For children who exited the system and were identified
as having an identified diagnosed disability, what percentage
left either to reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship?
Measure
3.3: For children who exited the system and were age 12
or older at the time of their most recent entry into care,
what percentage left either to reunification, adoption,
or legal guardianship?
Measure
3.4: For all children who exited the system, what percentage
by racial/ethnic category left either to reunification,
adoption, or legal guardianship?
Measure
3.5: Of all children exiting the system to emancipation,
what percentage was age 12 or younger at the time of entry
into care?
|
1.
Children have permanency and stability in their living
situations
2.
The continuity of family relationships and connections
will be preserved for children |
Incidence
of foster care reentry's Stability
of foster care placement
Length
of time to achieve permanency goal of reunification
Length
of time to achieve permanency goal of adoption
Permanency
goal for the child
Provision
of independent living services
Permanency
goal of other planned permanent living arrangement
Proximity of current foster care placement
Placement
with siblings
Visiting
with parents and siblings in foster care
Preserving
connections
Relative
placement
Current
relationship of child in care with parents
|
| |
4.
Reduce the Time in Foster Care to Reunification Without
Increasing Re-entry |
Measure
4.1: Of all children who were reunified with their parents
or caretakers at the time of discharge from foster care,
what percentage was reunified in the following time periods?
(1) Less that 12 months from the time of latest removal
from the home
(2) At least 12 months, but less than 24 months
(3) At least 24 months, but less than 36
(4) At least 36 months, but less than 48 months
(5) 48 or more months Measure
4.2: Of all children who entered foster care during the
reporting period, what percentage re-entered care within
12 months of a prior foster care episode?
|
|
|
| |
5.
Reduce Time in Foster Care to Adoption |
Measure
5.1: Of all children who exited care to a finalized adoption,
what percentage exited care in the following time periods?
(1) Less than 12 months from the time of latest removal
from the home
(2) At least 12 months, but less than 24 months
(3) At least 24 months, but less than 36
(4) At least 36 months, but less than 48 months
(5) 48 or more months
Measure 5.2: Of all children who exited
care to a finalized adoption and were age 3 or older at
the time of entry into care, what percentage exited care
in the following time periods?
(1) Less than 12 months from the time of latest removal
from the home
(2) At least 12 months, but less than 24 months
(3) At least 24 months, but less than 36
(4) At least 36 months, but less than 48 months
(5) 48 or more months
|
|
|
| |
6.
Increase Placement Stability |
Measure
6.1: Of all children served who had been in care for the
time periods listed below, what percentage had no more than
two placement settings during that time period?
(1) Less than 12 months from the time of latest removal
from the home
(2) At least 12 months, but less than 24 months
(3) At least 24 months, but less than 36
4) At least 36 months, but less than 48 months
(5) 48 or more months
|
|
|
| |
7.
Reduce Placements of Young Children in Group Homes or Institutions |
Measure
7.1: For all children who entered care during the reporting
period and were 12 or younger at the time of their most
recent placement, what percentage was placed in a group
home of institution? |
|
|
| Child
and Family Well Being |
|
|
1.
Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children's
needs
2. Children receive appropriate services to meet their
educational needs
3. Children receive adequate services to meet their physical
and mental health needs
|
Needs
and services of child, parents, foster parents
Child and family
involvement in case planning
Worker visits
with child
Worker visits
with parents
Educational needs of the child
Physical health of the child
Mental
health of the child
|
*
August 20, 1999 – Final List of Child Welfare Outcomes and Measures-
“The following outcome measures will be used as the basis for
the first and subsequent Annual reports to the Congress on the
performance of each State in meeting the goals and
objectives of the child welfare system”
**
Review Performance Measures - February 2000 - State/Regional
Training Sessions on the New Child Welfare Regulations - Handouts
– Pathway to Substantial Conformity – performance indicators
and outcomes
Section
II.2.9
National
Standards for
Child and Family Service (CFS) Reviews
The
following are the national standards for certain statewide data
indicators that will be used, in part, to determine conformity
of IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. States not operating
in conformity can work toward program improvement prior to the
withholding of any Federal funds. The standards were developed
at the points where, as of the NCANDS 1997 and 1998 (calendar
years) submission and the AFCARS 1998 (federal fiscal year)
data, 25 percent of the states were above the standard and 75
percent of the states were below (for those states who could
submit adequate data). State's CFS review is scheduled for the
year 20XX.
| Statewide
Data Indicator |
Description |
National
Standard |
National
Average |
Name
of State/Country
/Region Information |
| Recurrence
of maltreatment |
All
children who were victims of substantiated child abuse/neglect
during the first six months of the period under review,
6.1% or fewer children had another substantiated report
within six months. |
6.1%
or less |
8.8%
(1998) |
Statewide
(1997) ____
(1998) ____
(1999) ____
Region
(1997) ____
(1998) ____
(1999) ____
County
(1997) ____
(1998) ____
(1999) ____
|
| Incidence
of child abuse and/or neglect in foster care |
Of
all children in foster care in the state during the period
under review, the percentage of children who were the subject
of substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent
or facility staff is 0.57% or less. |
0.57%
or less |
0.7%
(1998) |
Statewide
(1998) ____
(1999) ____
Region
(1998) ____
(1999) ____
County
(1998) ____
(1999) ____ |
| Foster
care re-entries |
Of
all children who entered foster care during the year under
review, 8.6% or fewer of those children re-entered foster
care within 12 months of a prior foster care episode. |
8.6%
or less |
11.1%
(1999) |
Statewide
(1998) ____
(1999) ____
Region
(1998) ____
(1999) ____
County
(1998) ____
(1999) ____ |
| Stability
of foster care placements |
Of
all children who have been in foster care less than twelve
months from the time of the latest removal, 86.7% or more
children had no more than two placement settings. |
86.7%
or more |
74.9%
(1999) |
Statewide
(1998) ____
(1999) ____
Region
(1998) ____
(1999) ____
County
(1998) ____
(1999) ____ |
| Length
of time to achieve reunification |
Of
all children who were reunified with their parents or caretakers
at the time of discharge from foster care, 76.2% or more
children were reunified in less than twelve months from
the time of the latest removal from home. |
76.2%
or more |
63.1%
(1999) |
Statewide
(1998) ____
(1999) ____
Region
(1998) ____
(1999) ____
County
(1998) ____
(1999) ____ |
| Length
of time to achieve adoption |
Of
all children who exited foster care during the year under
review to a finalized adoption, 32% or more children exited
care in less than 24 months from the time of the latest
removal from home. |
32%
or more |
19.7%
(1999) |
Statewide
(1998) ____
(1999) ____
Region
(1998) ____
(1999) ____
County
(1998) ____
(1999) ____ |
Source: Navina Forsythe, Information
Analyst, Utah Department of Child and Family Services
Section
II.2.10
Systemic Factors and Indicators
1.Information
System Capacity
1.1 The state is operating a statewide information system that,
at a minimum, 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.
2.
Case Review System
2.1 Provides a process that assures that each child has a written
case plan to be developed jointly with the child's parent(s)
that includes the required provisions.
2.2 Provides a process for the periodic review of the status
of each child no less frequently than once every six months
by either a court or administrative review.
2.3 Provides a process that assures each child in foster care
under the supervision of the state has a permanency hearing
in a qualified court or administrative body no later than 12
months from the date that the child entered foster care and
no less frequently than every 12 months thereafter.
2.4 Provides a process for termination of parental rights proceedings
in accordance with ASFA.
2.5 Provides a process for foster parents, pre-adoptive parents
and relative caregivers with notice of and an opportunity to
be heard in any review or hearing held with respect to the child.
3.
Quality Assurance
3.1 The state has developed and implemented standards to ensure
that children in foster care placements are provided quality
services that protect the safety and health of the children
3.2 The state is operating an identifiable quality assurance
system that is in place in the jurisdictions where the services
included in the CFSP are provided, identifies strengths and
needs of the service delivery system, provides relevant reports
and evaluates program improvement measures implemented.
4.
Staff and Provider Training
4.1 The state is operating a staff development and training
program that supports the goals and objectives of the CFSP,
addresses services provided under IV-B and IV-E and provided
initial training for staff who deliver these services.
4.2 The state provides ongoing training for staff that addresses
the skills and knowledge base needed to carry out their duties
with regard to the services included in the CFSP.
4.3 The state provides short-term training 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.
5. Service Array
5.1 The state has in place an array of services that assess
the strengths and needs of children and families and determine
other service needs, address the needs of families in addition
to individual children in order to create a safe home environment,
enable children to remain safely with their parents when reasonable,
and help children in foster and adoptive placements achieve
permanency.
5.2 Such services are accessible to families and children in
all political jurisdictions covered in the state's CFSP.
5.3 Such services can be individualized to meet the unique needs
of children and families.
6.
Agency Responsiveness to the Community
6.1 In implementing the provisions of the CFSP, 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 and objectives of the CFSP.
6.2 The agency develops, in consultation with these representatives,
annual reports of progress and services delivered pursuant to
the CFSP.
6.3 The state's services under the CFSP are coordinated with
services or benefits of other federal or federally assisted
programs serving the same population.
7.
Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment and Retention
7.1 The state has implemented standards for foster family homes
and childcare institutions which are reasonably in accord with
recommended national standards.
7.2 The standards are applied to all licensed or approved foster
family homes or childcare institutions receiving title IV-E
or IV-B funds.
7.3 The state complies with federal requirements for criminal
background clearances as relating to or 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.
7.4 The state has in place a process for effective use of cross-jurisdictional
resources to facilitate timely adoptive or permanent placements
for waiting children.
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 16/Tuesday, January
25, 2000, Rules and Regulations
Section
II.2.11
Case
and Action Planning Steps
| Case
Planning |
Action
Planning |
PREPARE
Assessment
• Family
• Needs and Strengths
Vision – Goals for Child and Family
Family and community involvement in the case planning
process
|
PREPARE
Assessment
• Internal and external
• Needs and Strengths
Vision – Outcomes for Agency and Families
Stakeholder/staff involvement in the action
planning process
|
CREATE
Draft the plan
What interventions and services will be
used to achieve the goals?
How will the case plan be evaluated to
determine goals accomplishment?
What are the timeframes for goal
achievement?
Who is responsible for the steps?
What are priorities among the goals?
Engage family, providers etc. in case
plan
|
CREATE
Draft the plan
Action steps
Indicators of achievement
Benchmarks
Timeframes
Responsible Parties
Prioritize
Build consensus for the plan with stakeholders
and staff, finalize and distribute plan
|
IMPLEMENT
Case manager coordinates delivery of treatment services;
monitors progress
Supervisors monitor progress (case reviews,
utilization management)
|
IMPLEMENT
Management assigns responsibilities; plan manager coordinates
those responsible for action steps
Supervisors and managers monitor implementation of plan
(develop reporting systems)
|
REVIEW
AND REVISE
Evaluate family progress
Revise plan
|
REVIEW
AND REVISE
Evaluate progress towards outcomes
Revise plan
|
Source:
Strategic Planning for Child Welfare Agencies. (Spring
2002) , Managing Care for Children and Families Newsletter,
Volume IV, Number 1, National Child Welfare Resource Center
for Organizational Improvement, Portland, ME. Modified for training
purposes.
