Transcript PERMANENCY - Georgia Association of Homes and Services for

PERMANENCY FOR
CHILDREN
Division of Family
&
Children Services
July G-Force Meeting
July 30, 2009
1
END OF G -- QUESTION
If G-Force is to be an
environment for hypothesis
testing and critical thinking,
what will you do differently
as a result of participating in
this G-Force Meeting?
2
AGENDA
• Permanency for Children at Every Stage
• Family Preservation Analyses
• Safety Resource Review: Ron Magbee &
The FAST Team
• Permanency Planning for Children
• Permanency Roundtable Success Stories
• Office of Family Independence
3
SHIFT OF PARADIGM FOR PERMANENCY
INEFFECTIVE LENS
- Incident-Based
- Child-Focused
- Placement-Driven
(Ineffective for accomplishment of
today’s outcomes)
EFFECTIVE LENS
- Comprehensive Assessment
of Strengths & Challenges
- Family-Centered
- Permanency-Driven
Permanency Pathways
4
BUSINESS MODEL
PATHWAYS
Individualized
Service
Planning
Financial
Policies & Procedures
State Statutes
PERMANENCY
5
PERMANENCY FOCUS AT EVERY STAGE
Preserve
Safe & Thriving
Forever Families
Children Safe &
Thriving in Forever
Families Sooner
Family
Family
Safety
Foster
Investigation
Support
Preservation Resource Family
IN - HOME
HYBRID
OF BOTH
Group
Home
CCI
OUT-OF-HOME
PRTF
After
Care
IN
HOME
6
SHIFT OF PARADIGM FOR G-FORCE
INEFFECTIVE LENS
Single Data Points
(Ineffective for decision-making)
EFFECTIVE LENS
- Comprehensive View of
Practice
- Data Chains Reflecting
Practice
Permanency Pathways
7
DATA COLLECTION, MEASUREMENT &
ANALYSIS OF PERMANENCY PATHWAYS
PERMANENCY
How might we
measure and analyze
Permanency Pathways?
PATHWAYS
Individualized
Service Planning
8
EXAMPLE: TIMELINESS OF INITIATING
INVESTIGATIONS
OUTCOME S1: 84.92%
According to the Quality Case Review Report from Program Evaluation & Analysis Unit (PEAS), our
timeliness of initiating investigations of reports of child maltreatment was at 84.92%; however, our
SHINES data reflects 94.7% for January – June 2009. Why is there such a wide variation between
these two reports? SHINES data only reflects one data point whereas the PEAS unit reviews
several elements to determine the actual timeliness rate.
9
The low timeliness rates from September 2008 –
December 2008 appear to be a result of staff not
understanding how to correctly code the information
in SHINES.
10
BEYOND SINGLE-DATA POINTS
TO DATA-CHAINS
DATA
CHAINS
Data Points
Data points only provide a
small slice of information and
are not able to provide the
Data needed to test
context
hypotheses;
weAnalysis
must use data
In-Depth
chains instead. These data
chains should be a
compilation of data points
related to a particular event.
•Finish the Drill: Start from the beginning with the data and take it through.
•Answer the question: Is what we did enough to move the needle?
11
PERCENTAGE OF FAMILY PRESERVATION CASES
OPENED DURING SFY 2009 THAT HAD A PRIOR
REPORT OF ABUSE/NEGLECT
100%
Statewide:
86.2%
95%
93.0%
91.5%
89.6%
89.1%
89.8%
88.9%
90%
85.8%
85%
88.4%
87.4%
87.2% 87.3%
85.1%
82.8%
82.5%
81.9%
80.4%
78.8%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Statewide, 86.2% of the family preservation cases opened during SFY 2009 had a previous report of
abuse/neglect associated with it.
17
12
PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN WHO ENTERED
FOSTER CARE IN SFY 2009 FROM FAMILY
PRESERVATION SERVICES
60%
51.2%
50.0%
50%
41.4%
40.4%
40%
40.1%
36.0%
33.0%
32.4%
32.9%
34.0%
Statewide:
30%
29.0%
30%
24.7%
22.0%
19.4%
18.4%
20%
11.9% 12.4%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Question: How do we know that children in Regions 12, 15, 16 & 17 are safe and
thriving?
17
13
PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN WHO ENTERED FOSTER CARE IN
SFY 2009 FROM FAMILY PRESERVATION SERVICES BY REGION
FROM LOWEST TO HIGHEST
60%
50%
51%
50%
40%
32%
30%
33%
33%
34%
40%
40%
41%
6
1
5
36%
29%
State Average 30%
25%
22%
20%
18%
12%
12%
15
16
19%
10%
0%
17
12
14
13
7
8
9
2
10
4
11
3
Note: The majority of children who came into care in Regions 15, 16, 17, 12, 14, 13 & 7 were not
receiving Family Preservation services. These regions are either metro areas or have large metropolitan
areas such as Region 12 (Chatham County) and Region 7 (Richmond County).
15
TIMELY COMPLETION OF INVESTIGATIONS
SFY2004 – SFY2009
100%
96%
92%
94%
90%
84%
80%
77%
76%
70%
60%
50%
40%
SFY 2004
SFY 2005
SFY 2006
SFY 2007
SFY 2008
SFY 2009
16
SUBSTANTIATED & CLOSED INVESTIGATIONS
WITH NO FURTHER DFCS INVOLVEMENT
July 2008 – May 2009
39.8%
40%
•
38%
35.6%
35.7%
36%
•
How many of these families
experience a recurrence of
maltreatment?
•
What maltreatment types are
most often presented in these
cases?
33.6%
34%
32%
30%
July - September
October - December
Follow-Up Questions
How many of these families
received OFI services?
January - March
April - May
Note: Two of the most common reasons investigations are substantiated and closed with no
further DFCS involvement are that the alleged perpetrator no longer has access to the child,
and/or the family is already receiving services or involved with community resources and risk to
children has been reduced or eliminated.
17
18
MALTREATMENT TYPES ASSOCIATED WITH FAMILY
PRESERVATION CASES OPENED IN SFY 2009 (N=9,195)
Alleged Maltreatment
Percent of Total Cases
Inadequate Supervision
56.2%
Inadequate Food, Clothing, Shelter
18.9%
Bruises, Welts, Abrasions
14.9%
Emotional/Psychological Neglect
14.0%
Inadequate Health, Medical Care
9.1%
Domestic Violence
7.9%
Birth Addicted/Birth Exposed
6.7%
Fondling
4.1%
Verbal Threats/Abuse
3.5%
Educational/Cognitive Neglect
3.3%
Abandonment/Rejection
3.2%
Note: Less than one percent of cases were opened for other alleged maltreatments such as
corporal punishment, malnourishment, sexual exploitation, etc. Also note that percentages
19
do not add up to 100% because there was more than one maltreatment type in many
instances.
MALTREATMENT TYPES & AVERAGE NUMBER OF MONTHS
FAMILY PRESERVATION IN SFY 2009
IN
5.0
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.0
3.9
4.0
Average
time: 4.2.
3.6
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Verbal Threats Birth Exposed
Emotional
Neglect
Inadequate Inadequate
Food/Clothing Supervision
Inadequate
Medical
Bruises,
Welts,
Educational
Neglect
Fondling
Abandonment
Note: The maltreatment type does not appear to impact the number of months a case is open.
How would this be different if we were applying Pathways to Permanency?
Domestic
Violence
20
PRIOR SUBSTANTIATION & AVERAGE NUMBER OF MONTHS
FAMILY PRESERVATION CASES WERE OPEN IN SFY 2009
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Average Months Open - Prior Sub
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
4.4 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.5 4.7 3.8 4.1 3.5 4.4 4.0 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.3
Average Months Open-No Prior Sub 3.8 4.1 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.2 3.3 3.3 3.4 4.2 4.0 4.4 4.1 4.2 3.2 3.9 3.9
Note: Cases with prior substantiations tended to be open longer in Family
Preservation than those without.
21
FAMILY PRESERVATION, FOSTER CARE
& SAFETY RESOURCES (N=9,195)
• Five percent (5%) or 454 of the Family Preservation
cases opened in SFY 2009 consisted of children who
had previously been in foster care (697 children).
• The average time from the child’s exit from foster care to
the opening of the Family Preservation case was 42
months.
• Twenty-four percent (24%) of the Family Preservation
cases opened during SFY 2009 had a safety resource
stay for one or more children.
22
23
24
25
PERMANENCY PLANNING FOR CHILDREN
• The goal of permanency planning is to provide
children with safe and stable environments in
which to grow up, while in the care of a nurturing
caregiver, committed to a life long relationship
with them.
• A sense of urgency must exist for every child
who is not in a permanent home.
Source: Permanency Planning Practice Guide for Social Workers. Children’s
Administration, August 2006.
26
PERMANENCY FOR CHILDREN
• Starts at first contact
• Continues throughout the lifetime of the child’s case until
permanency is reached,
• Secures a safe, stable and permanent home for the child
as soon as possible,
• Protects/maintains primary attachments and/or creates
new attachments, and
• Preserves cultural and family connections.
Source: Permanency Planning Practice Guide for Social Workers. Children’s
Administration, August 2006.
27
WHAT A
DIFFERENCE
A
ROUNDTABLE
MAKES!!
Permanency roundtables
held from January 2009
through July 2009 with
approximately 2,179
children.
28
NUMBER OF CHILDREN BY REGION
January 2009 – July 2009
350
16.0%
300
14.0%
12.0%
250
10.0%
200
8.0%
150
6.0%
100
4.0%
50
0
Number
2.0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
149
212
142
215
37
23
28
73
43
110
130
63
308
126
0
121
298
1.1%
1.4%
3.5%
2.1%
5.3%
6.3%
Percent 7.2% 10.2% 6.8% 10.4% 1.8%
3.0% 14.8% 6.1%
0.0%
0.0%
5.8% 14.3%
Note: There were 2,078 children from permanency roundtables matched with SHINES
records. The remaining 101 children not matched due to problems identifying them in SHINES
because of limited information received regarding them.
29
PLACEMENT TYPE FOR CHILDREN IN
ROUND TABLE (N=2,078)
• CPA Foster Home: 27.6%
• DFCS Foster Home: 23.2%
• CCI: 17.5%
• Group Home: 10.4%
30
PERMANENCY PLAN FOR CHILDREN IN
ROUND TABLE (N=2,078)
• Adoption: 30.4%
• Reunification: 28.8%
• Emancipation: 18.1%
• Long Term Foster Care: 11.8%
• Placement with Relatives: 9.4%
31
COMPARISON OF AGE & TIME IN CARE OF CHILDREN IN
PERMANENCY ROUNDTABLE WITH OVERALL FOSTER CARE
POPULATION IN GEORGIA
AGE
DAYS IN CARE
AVERAGE FOR
ROUNDTABLE
10.8
1,498
AVERAGE FOR FOSTER
CARE POPULATION
8.8
612
MEDIAN FOR
ROUNDTABLE
12.0
1,254
MEDIAN FOR FOSTER
CARE POPULATION
8.0
470
Overall, children were in care for an average of 612 days and a median of 470 days from
January through June 2009 as compared to higher averages and medians for children who
were round-tabled.
32
POSITIVE PERMANENCY EXITS
(N=212)
70
35.0%
61
60
60
28.7%
28.3%
30.0%
54
25.5%
50
25.0%
37
40
17.5%
30
20.0%
15.0%
20
10.0%
10
5.0%
0
0.0%
Finalized Adoption
Reunification
Custody to Relative/Others
Guardianship
Note: 10% of children who were round-tabled have exited care to
Positive Permanency since January 2009.
33
ROUNDTABLE SUCCESSES
• Children 16 & over
• Children in care for 48 months or more
• Siblings in care
• Children with physical and behavioral health
needs
• Paternal Connections
34
Region 1
Region 10
16 year-old moved
from group home
to foster home
after 2 years.
FP seeking
Guardianship
16 year-old confined
to a wheelchair
being adopted
by foster parent
Region 9
17 year-old
reconnected with
Mother after 8 years
(divorce)
CHILDREN
16
& OVER
Region 12
Region 8
16 year-old in foster care for
5 years received permanency
through guardianship
with foster parents
17 year-old
moved from group
home; being adopted
by former group home
staff member
35
Region 1
Region 13
17 year-old in care
since 2005 obtained
permanency with uncle
11 year-old in care for
9 years in residential
facility; foster parent
now identified who will
adopt child
Region 3
14 year-old in care
for 77 months
now in an
adoptive home
CHILDREN
IN CARE FOR
48 MONTHS
OR MORE
Region 9
Region 9
17 year-old in care since 1997,
being adopted by
Therapeutic Foster
Parent
Child reunited with mother
after 4 years in care;
permanency goal had
been emancipation
36
Region 3
Region 4
12 and 13 year-old siblings
in care for 7 years are now
with grandmother awaiting
guardianship
Sibling group of 5 in
care for 20 months, in
two different settings, are
now in the home of a
relative awaiting transfer
of custody
SIBLINGS
ACHIEVING
PERMANENCY
TOGETHER!
Region 3
Sibling group of
two (13 & 14) in
care for 122 months
will obtain
permanency through
guardianship with
foster parent
Region 2
Region 4
Finalized adoption on
June 29, 2009 for three
siblings
Sibling group of two
(12 & 13) in care for
48 months transitioned
into an adoptive
home in July
37
Region 4
Region 13
14 year-old in care
for 7 years with long-term
PRTF & MRBWO
placements reunified
with mother on
July 7, 2009
Siblings in care since
2001 with severe
medical and
behavioral health
needs now in home of
former group home staff
via guardianship
CHILDREN WITH
PHYSICAL &
BEHAVIORIAL
HEALTH NEEDS
Region 3
14 year-old with an infant,
and has been in 16
different placements, now
moving toward adoption
by foster parent
Region 16
16 year-old in care for
22 months after an adoption
disruption was reunited
with adoptive parents after
long-term PRTF
placement
38
PATERNAL CONNECTIONS
•Father and other paternal relatives located for a child who has
been in care for 64 months; father wants custody of child
(Region 1).
•Father granted custody of a 22-month old who has been in
care since birth on June 25, 2009 (Region 4).
•Father granted custody of a 3 year-old who has been in care
since birth (Region 16).
PATERNAL FAMILY
An aunt and paternal grandmother located through Accurint
search for a 17 year-old, in care since 1995. Both want to
establish a relationship with the child (Region 9).
39
What practice changes
did we improve
to get these
success stories?
Excluding positive
permanency exits,
how can we
measure success?
40
41
CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILDREN IN CARE
June 2009
• Average days in care is 598
• Median days in care is 437
(488 in June 2008)
• 84.9% had only one foster care entry and
12.4% had two
• Average age = 8.8 years; median = 8 years
42
What practice chain resulted in rates we see in Region 17 and Region 6?
What resources are necessary to impact this measure?
43
FOSTER CARE ENTRIES, EXITS & RE-ENTRY RATES
SFY 2004 – SFY 2009
14,000
9.0%
National Standard =
8.60% or less
12,000
8.0%
7.0%
10,000
6.0%
8,000
5.0%
6,000
4.0%
3.0%
4,000
2.0%
2,000
0
1.0%
SFY 2004
SFY 2005
SFY 2006
SFY 2007
SFY 2008
SFY 2009
Entries
11,757
10,609
10,291
9,145
6,862
5,719
Exits
10,185
11,108
10,319
9,373
8,273
7,598
8.0%
8.1%
7.4%
8.2%
6.4%
4.4%
Reentry Rate
The number of children exiting foster care continues to outpace those entering care. In addition, the
foster care re-entry rate for SFY 2009 is almost half of what it was in SFY 2007. As more children
exit foster care, fewer are returning.
0.0%
44
FOSTER CARE ENTRIES, EXITS & RE-ENTRY RATES
July 2008 – June 2009
1000
900
9.00%
National Standard =
8.60% or less
8.00%
800
7.00%
700
6.00%
600
5.00%
500
4.00%
400
3.00%
300
2.00%
200
1.00%
100
0
Jul-08
Aug-08
Sep-08
Oct-08
Nov-08
Dec-08
Jan-09
Feb-09
Mar-09
Apr-09
May-09
Jun-09
Entries
566
555
517
564
498
468
397
421
388
479
463
403
Exits
707
620
660
653
650
872
555
579
484
597
587
634
4.96%
3.60%
5.79%
3.28%
2.65%
3.13%
4.86%
3.52%
2.43%
6.69%
5.71%
7.20%
Reentry Rate
Note: Foster care reentry rate is slightly higher for February and March than was reflected in
previous G-meetings due to late entry of data needed for calculation of the rate.
0.00%
45
What is the relationship between length of time to achieve
reunification and foster care re-entry?
46
OFFICE OF FAMILY INDEPENDENCE
47
As of July 9, 2009
48
49
50
OFI Performance Management
Under Construction
51
END OF G -- QUESTION
If G-Force is to be an
environment for hypothesis
testing and critical thinking,
what will you do differently
as a result of participating in
this G-Force Meeting?
52