Transcript Frequency and Tracking of Visitation for Youth in Care

PCCYFS Children’s
Services Policy Day
Office of Children, Youth and Families
Richard J. Gold, Deputy Secretary
October 18, 2010
Fostering Connections




Proximity and Appropriateness
Ensure Same School
Immediate Enrollment
Enrollment and Attendance
Proximity and Appropriateness

The child’s case plan must include “assurances
that the placement of a child in foster are takes
into account the appropriateness of the current
educational setting and the proximity to the
school in which the child is enrolled at the
time of placement.”
School Stability

The child’s case plan must include assurances
that the local child welfare agency has
coordinated with appropriate local education
agencies (schools) to ensure that the child
remains enrolled in the school in which the
child was enrolled prior to placement unless
moving is in the child's best interest.
Enrollment

If remaining in the same school is not in the
child’s best interest, the child’s case plan must
include assurances by the child welfare agency
and local education agency provide immediate
and appropriate enrollment in a new school.
Transportation

Permissible to use IV-E funds to pay for
transportation costs which includes
“reasonable travel for the child to remain in the
school in which the child was enrolled at the
time of placement.”
Fostering Connections
Older Youth



Transition Planning
Educational Training Grants
Extension of Care for 18-21



Stakeholder workgroup convened by Pennsylvania
Partnerships for Children and Juvenile Law Center
Facilitated by Finance Project
Charged with completion of fiscal analysis and
recommendations
Out of Home Care Safety
Assessment


Applies ONLY to resource homes and informal
arrangements, NOT congregate care settings
County safety lead (CSL) training occurs from
September – October



Training on Content and Development of Trainers from
October – November 2010
CSLs train their staff from February–June 30, 2011
Counties must begin using the tool July 1, 2011 with one
full year to become fully implemented and operational
Out of Home Care Safety

Letter will be sent to Legal Entity Administrator with
details and request for designated “safety leads” to
become a Trainer-of-Trainer



Helps ensure in-house expertise
Private provider safety lead would attend training on
the tool, training on content and development of
trainer through February 2011
Private provider safety lead would train their own
agency staff on the tool through June 30, 2011 in
order to be ready for July 1, 2011 implementation
Out of Home Care Safety


Responsibility for completion of the tool rests with
the county children and youth agency
Private providers should be providing information
related to the 10 Indicators and other relevant safety
areas to help inform and assist the county in
completion of the formal tool

Private providers can use the standard tool to ensure
consistency, but this is not required
Out of Home Care Safety

Present Danger Assessment Tool



Additional tool to assist counties in determining if
a home in which the child is being placed is safe
Must be done prior to the child being placed in the
home for all homes, including those already
approved
Can be done by the private provider on behalf of
the county agency
“Proposed” Private Provider Training Dates –
Western Region
204 Assessing Safety in Out-of-Home Care Training
9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Date: December 7, 2010


Date: December 14, 2010


Location: Monroeville Regional Training Room
Location: Meadville Regional Training Room
Date: January 21, 2011

Location: Monroeville Regional Training Room
Training on Content

9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Date: December 21, 2010


Date: January 20, 2011


Location: Monroeville Regional Training Room
Location: Meadville Regional Training Room
Date: February 7, 2011

Location: Monroeville Regional Training Room
“Proposed” Private Provider Training Dates –
Central Region
204 Assessing Safety in Out-of-Home Care Training
9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Date: December 9, 2010


Date: December 16, 2010


Location: PA Child Welfare Training Program
Location: PA Child Welfare Training Program
Date January 13, 2011

Location: Williamsport Regional Training Room
Training on Content
9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Date: January 11, 2011


Date: January 12, 2011


Location: PA Child Welfare Training Program
Location: PA Child Welfare Training Program
Date: February 1, 2011

Location: Williamsport Regional Training Room
“Proposed” Private Provider
Training Dates – Northeast Region
204 Assessing Safety in Out-of-Home Care Training
9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.
 Date: January 25, 2011

Location: Mayfield Training Room
Training on Content
9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.
 Date: February 11, 2011

Location: Mayfield Regional Training Room
“Proposed” Private Provider
Training Dates – Southeast Region
204 Assessing Safety in Out-of-Home Care Training
9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.
 Date: January 19, 2011

Location: Montgomery County Human Services Center
Training on Content
9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Date: February 3, 2011

Location: Montgomery County Human Services Center
“Proposed” Private Provider
Training Dates – Philadelphia
204 Assessing Safety in Out-of-Home Care Training
9:00 a.m. 4:00 p.m.
 Date: December 10, 2010


Location: Temple University Center City Campus
Date: December 21, 2010

Location: Temple University Center City Campus
Training on Content
9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.
 Date: January 10, 2011


Location: Temple University Center City Campus
Date: January 26, 2011

Location: Temple University Center City Campus
Program Improvement Plan (PIP)
Update

PA’s PIP was approved by ACF effective
June 30, 2010


PIP matrix and narrative have been posted to
DPW website at:
http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/PubsFormsReports/
ReportsPoliciesPlans/003684358.htm
PIP implementation period is 2 years from date
of PIP approval (6/30/10 – 6/30/12)
Child, Youth & Family Engagement
 Enhancing Assessments
 Timely Permanence
 Collaboration
 Quality Practice
 Sustaining Change

18
Timely response to GPS referrals
 Enhancing child/youth/family
assessments to identify underlying
issues
 Safety Assessment and Management
Process

19


Concurrent Planning and Action
Establishing and achieving timely and appropriate goals
 Increased use of SWAN LSI and unit of service,
 Expedited review hearings and TPR appeals,
 GAL trainings,
 Examining and addressing barriers to timely
permanence,
 Transition planning for older youth.
20
Increased use of child, youth and
family engagement strategies
 Attempts to locate kin at all stages of
the case process
 Increased frequency and quality of
worker visits with the
child/youth/family

21
Phased in approach to Continuous
Quality Improvement (CQI)
 Long term statewide information
technology solution

22
A closer look at Continuous
Quality Improvement (CQI)
CQI – What it isn’t and what it is
CQI is not a time limited project or initiative.
It is the ongoing process by which an
agency makes decisions and evaluates its
progress.
“A framework for implementation” Casey Family Programs & NRCOI
Phases of CQI
Technical Assistance
Collaboration
Building relationships by learning and
understanding more about one another
 Taking a collaborative approach to our work
with counties
 Identifying approaches to streamline
processes and reducing unnecessary
duplicity by connecting/focusing efforts
 Identifying any gaps that are discovered and
planning together how best to fill them

A Closer Look at Monitoring:
Quality Service Reviews

History and background

Differences from round one QSR

County experience
CQI Implementation: Next
Steps




Revisions to PA QSR tool, training, and
process Jan – Oct 2010
Phased implementation of CQI across the
Commonwealth beginning October 2010
(approximately 6-8 counties per phase)
Phase One includes: Allegheny, Butler,
Lackawanna, Philadelphia, Venango, and York
counties.
Upon completion of phase, each county will
internally drive all 4 phases of CQI, including
an internally lead QSR each year
For more information or to get
involved, please contact:

Stephanie Maldonado
[email protected]

Jeanne Schott
[email protected]
28
Bulletins –Recently Issued






Act 45 of 2010
Educational Stability and Continuity and Use
of Education Screen
Developmental Evaluation and Early
Intervention Referral Policy
Clean Indoor Air Act
Educational Portions of Non-Educational
Residential Placements
Shared Case Responsibility
Bulletins – Drafts Issued for
Comment


Independent Living Services
Safe Haven Program
Bulletins – Under Development








Safety Assessment and Management Process
Child Fatality and Near Fatality Reviews
Disaster Planning
Concurrent Planning
Resource Family Home Approval
Master Client Index
Voter Registration
Permanent Legal Custodianship
Pending Legislation

Senate Bill 1360

Voluntary post adoption contact




DPW, AOPC and JCJC to develop procedures
Exchange of medical information
Effective in 180 days
House Bill 2338



The Children in Foster Care Act
Provides basic protections to children in foster care
Effective in 120 days
Safely Reducing Number of
Children in Placement

Where we were




Where we are now


9-30-06
9-30-07
9-30-08
21,500
20,935
19,385
9-30-09
3-31-10
16,740
15,920
Rate per thousand for children and
youth entering care





4-1-05 – 3-31-06
4-1-06 – 3-31-07
4-1-07 – 3-31-08
4-1-08 – 3-31-09
4-1-09 - 3-31-10
5.19
5.18
4.73
4.49
3.49
A closer look at re-entry within
12 months

Children discharged to parent or relative



4-1-07 – 3-31-08
4-1-08 – 3-31-09
4-1-09 – 3-31-10
28.6%
27.8%
27.0%
Safely Reducing Number of
Children in Placement

Looking back over the past 2.5 years (9-30-07
– 3-31-10)


Statewide – 24% fewer children in care
54 counties have seen a decrease


26% fewer children in care
13 counties have seen an increase

7% more children in care
NGA/Casey Family Programs Initiative to Safely Reduce the
Number of Children in Care




County Plans and trends
County specific interventions
Sustainability planning
Effective In-home service Models
OCYF’s Special Grant Initiatives
In State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2010-2011 OCYF
budgeted $43,454,429 for 252 Special Grant
Initiatives (SGI) in 67 counties
SGI Categories
1.
Evidence-Based Programs (EBP)
2.
Pennsylvania Promising Practices (PaPP)
3.
Alternatives to Truancy Programs (ATP)
4.
Housing
EBP Categories
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Multisystemic Therapy (MST)
Functional Family Therapy (FFT)
Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care
(MTFC)
Family Group Decision Making (FGDM)
Family Finding (FF)
Family Development Credentialing (FDC)
High Fidelity Wrap Around (HFWA)
EBP Funding
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
MST - $5,030,751 in 43 counties
FFT - $544,361 in 9 counties
MTFC - $805,599 in 9 counties
FGDM - $13,708,546 in 59 counties
FF - $453,131 in 3 counties
FDC - $909,761 in 11 counties
HFWA was unfunded due to budget cut backs
in SFY 2010-2011
EPISCenter


The Evidence-Based Prevention and
Intervention Support Center (EPISCenter)
supports MST, FFT and MTFC through
technical assistance to the provider sites
delivering these services.
Quarterly standardized performance measure
data is collected from program providers
through the Inspire System.
Youth Served in Pennsylvania
(January 1 – June 30, 2010)

MST – 1,502

FFT – 1,005

MTFC - 35
EBP Funding Continued

Family Group Decision Making



711 conferences were held by county and private
providers in the first six months of Federal Fiscal
Year 2010 (October 1, 2009 – March 31, 2010)
Family Development Credentialing
Family Finding
SGI Categories Continued
Pennsylvania Promising Practices:

PaPP Dependent - $6,267,017 in 44 counties

PaPP Delinquent - $10,459,957 in 28 counties
SGI Categories Continued


ATP – not funded in SFY 2010-2011, begins in
SFY 2011-12 with $954,060 in 11 counties
Housing - $4,321,246 in 35 counties
Frequency and Tracking of
Visitation for Youth in Care

Visitation percentages have risen consistently over
the past three years

2007



2008



Measure 1: 79%
Measure 2: 94%
Measure 1: 81%
Measure 2: 97%
-2009


Measure 1: 92%
Measure 2: 97%
Caseworker Visitation


Tracking spreadsheets do not require input of
qualifying worker distinction
Through discussions:


Private providers appear to be conducting a majority of
visits on behalf of the county agency
More focus should be placed on providing consistent
reporting of monthly visits (i.e. not waiting until the
tracking spreadsheets are due to collect visitation data)
Title IV-E and Act 148
Maximum Allowable
Rates
Budget Projections
2011-2012
General Updates
DPW/OCYF Priorities