Transcript Document

Quality Counts:
Helping Improve
Outcomes for Pennsylvania’s
Children & Families
September 22, 2008
1
Overview of the 2008 CFSR
Statewide Assessment Findings
Youth Summit Recommendations
Onsite Review Findings
Program Improvement Plan
2
CFSR Changes in Second Round

Data standards are more sophisticated
–




3
6 measures
17 measures
Review instrument is also more
sophisticated--automated
Case review compliance raised from 90% to
95% for conformity
Number of case reviews increased from 39
to 65
Stratified foster care cases
Statewide Self Assessment
4
–
The Statewide Assessment was conducted
beginning in April 2007 and was submitted to ACF
on May 27, 2008.
–
Large stakeholder group
–
Process included: Data, policy, practice,
programming, quality assurance results, focus
groups.
Onsite Review



Conducted July 28 – August 1, 2008
3 sites – Philadelphia, Allegheny,
Northumberland
64 cases
 39
foster children
 25 intact families

5
State and local level stakeholder interviews
Youth Summit
March 25-26, 2008
6

Over 150 youth and stakeholders

Day 1: Detailed recommendations based on
safety, permanency, and well-being

Day 2: recommendations from roundtable
discussion groups on each of the systemic
factors
Pennsylvania Findings
Results presented by:
7

7 federal outcomes

7 systemic factors
Safety Outcome 1: Children are first and foremost
protected from abuse and neglect

60% of applicable cases in substantial
compliance
–
–

Performance on National data standards for:
–
–
8
Item 1: Timeliness of investigations
Item 2: Repeat Maltreatment
absence of maltreatment recurrence
absence of maltreatment of children in foster care
by foster parents or facility staff.
Safety Outcome 2: Children are safely
maintained in their homes when possible
and appropriate
68% of applicable cases in substantial
compliance
–
–
9
Item 3: Services to prevent removal
Item 4: Risk of harm
Safety Strengths





10
Timely response to reports of abuse and neglect and
timely face-to-face contacts
Expedited response for younger children at 2 sites
Strong array of services to meet families’ needs and
prevent placement and facilitate reunification
Risk and safety assessments done regularly
Repeat maltreatment
Safety Concerns




11
Transition from GPS to CPS
Number of out-of-home abuse reports and lack of
communication between county and region
Risk and safety assessments often focus on
presenting problem and not underlying issues,
resulting in multiple reports
In JJ cases, single focus on the identified youth and
not the entire family
Permanency Outcome 1: Children have
permanency and stability in their living
situations
The State does not meet the national standard for:
–
–
Composite 1: Timeliness and permanency of reunifications
Composite 2: Timeliness of adoptions
The State meets the national standard for:
–
–
12
Composite 3: Permanency for children in foster care for
extended time periods
Composite 4: Placement stability
Permanency Outcome 1: Children have
permanency and stability in their living
situations

31% of cases in substantial conformity
–
–
–
–
–
–
13
Item 5: Foster care re-entry
Item 6: Stability of foster care placement
Item 7: Permanency goal for child
Item 8: Reunification, guardianship & placement
with relatives
Item 9: Adoption
Item 10: Other planned permanent arrangement
Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of
family relationships and connections is
preserved for children.

14
49% of cases in substantial conformity
– Item 11: Proximity of placement
– Item 12: Placement with siblings
– Item 13: Visiting with parents and siblings in foster
care
– Item 14: Preserving connections
– Item 15: Relative placement
– Item 16: Relationship of child in care with parents
Permanency Strengths






15
Services and casework to reunify children and
prevent re-entry
Placement stability
Permanency goals established timely
Siblings placed together or in close proximity
Relative placements
Independent living
Permanency Concerns




16
Permanency is the biggest challenge for PA
Lack of engaging non-custodial parents, typically
fathers
Visitation between siblings positive at first but
dropped off or stopped when TPR/adoption pursued
Permanence of reunification
Permanency Concerns (cont)
Lack of timely achievement of adoption (adoption
lowest rated item in entire review)

17
–
Concurrent planning is not occurring
–
Long reunification attempts
–
Various reasons for not filing TPR
Well Being Outcome 1: Families have
enhanced capacity to provide for their
children’s needs

35% of cases in substantial conformity
–
–
–
–
18
Item 17: Needs/services of child, parents and
foster parents
Item 18: Child/family involvement in case planning
Item 19: Worker visits with child
Item 20: Worker visits with parent
Well-Being Outcome 2: Children receive
appropriate services to meet their
educational needs

80% of cases in substantial conformity
–
19
Item 21: Educational needs of child
Well-Being Outcome 3: Children receive
adequate services to meet their physical and
mental health needs

68% of cases in substantial conformity
–
–
20
Item 22: Physical health of child
Item 23: Mental health of child
Well-Being Strengths




21
Initial, comprehensive assessments
Frequency of worker contacts
Education
Examples of good work to meet physical and
mental health needs of children
Well-Being Concerns





Family engagement
Engaging non-custodial parents
Quality of worker contacts
Identifying underlying issues
Dental Care
22
22
Outcomes Summary







23
Safety 1 – 60%
Safety 2 – 68%
Permanency 1 – 31%
Permanency 2 – 49%
Well-being 1 – 35%
Well-being 2 – 80%
Well-being 3 – 68%
Systemic Factors – Areas of Strength





24
Quality Assurance System
Staff and Provider Training
Service Array
Agency Responsiveness to the Community
Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing,
Recruitment, and Retention
Systemic Factors Needing Improvement – Statewide
Information System
System varies from county to county
State information is point-in-time
Information flow from county to county
GPS history
25
Systemic Factors Needing Improvement – Case
Review System

Family engagement in case planning

Quality of Hearing


26
Filing for Termination of Parental Rights or Compelling
Reasons
Notice and opportunity to be heard is inconsistent
Youth Recommendations
Stacy Johnson
Sam Waite
Shaheed Days
27
Building on Round 1 PIP




28
Defined Standards
Enhanced Training
Provided Assistance and Support
Enhanced Monitoring
Pennsylvania’s Program Improvement
Plan




29
Ongoing State initiatives
Building on the last PIP
Using a logic model to identify themes and
strategies
Discussion and response