1 / 67

Child and family services Review overview

Wisconsin's child and family services review (CFSR) round 3 webinar series Part 1 of 4. Child and family services Review overview. December 1, 2016. Jane Penner -Hoppe Policy Advisor Department of Children and Families. Child welfare Model for PRactice.

mckenney
Télécharger la présentation

Child and family services Review overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Wisconsin's child and family services review (CFSR) round 3 webinar series Part 1 of 4 Child and family services Review overview December 1, 2016 Jane Penner-Hoppe Policy Advisor Department of Children and Families

  2. Child welfare Model for PRactice

  3. What is the CFSR?Statewide Assessment of Child Welfare System • Every 5- 10 years, all states must conduct a comprehensive assessment of their child welfare service delivery system that involves, reviewing: • Performance on national data standards • Case Record review data; and, • Analysis of performance on state system functioning or systemic factors • Based on assessment results, states may need to develop a Program Improvement Plan to address shortcomings identified in any of the 3 major areas of the CFSR.

  4. History • 1994 • Performance on national data standards • Case Record review data; and, • 1997 • Adoption and Safe Families Act Established enacted to ensure state child welfare systems focused on outcomes of safety, permanence and well-being • 2001-2004 • First Round of Child and Family Services Reviews – Wisconsin in August, 2003 • 2007 - 2010 • Second Round of Child and Family Services Reviews – Wisconsin in April, 2010

  5. Overall Federal Plan timing • Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP), 2015-2019 • Every Five Years • Annual Progress and Services Reports (APSR) • Annual update to the CFSP • Child and Family Service Review (CFSR) • Every 5-10 Years • Program Improvement Plan (PIP) • Response to areas needing improvement identified in the CFSR – every 5-10 years

  6. Round 3 Timing • Securing Feedback • Will utilize existing stakeholder outreach sessions as vehicles for receiving feedback. • Information shared will be customized to each stakeholder group. • Opportunities to secure more specific feedback will also be determined • This could include identifying specific questions or data items where more specific tools could be used to identify feedback • Examples include conducting surveys, focus groups or other means to collect more precise and specific information on particular topics.

  7. Stakeholder Opportunities • Secretary’s Child Welfare Council • DCF Out-of-Home Care Committee • Indian Child Welfare Directors • Wisconsin County Human Services Association • Foster Parent Advisory Council • Youth Advisory Council • Wisconsin Judicial Commission on Child Welfare • Wisconsin Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board • Wisconsin Citizen Review Panels

  8. Content of the CFSR • Review of: • State’s performance on federal performance outcomes • State Case Review Data based on 18 practice outcomes of Safety, Permanency and Well-Being • Analysis of Seven Federal Systemic Factors

  9. National performance standards Two national standards for safety: • Maltreatment in out-of-home care (OHC) • Recurrence of Maltreatment Five national standards for permanency: • Permanency in 12 months for children entering OHC • Permanency in 12 months for children in care for 12-23 months • Permanence in 12 months for children in care for 24+ months • Re-entry into OHC • Placement stability

  10. Case Review PROCESS Case Review- Involves reviewing at least 65 child welfare cases using 18 items that measure safety, permanency and well-being indicators. The federal CFSR standard is that in at least 95% of cases, these outcomes are substantially achieved.

  11. Systemic Review factors • Management Information System • Case Review • Quality Assurance System • Training • Service Array • Agency Responsiveness • Foster and Adoptive Parent Recruitment

  12. Wisconsin's child and family services review (CFSR) round 3 webinar series Part 2 Child and family services 3 MEASURES: WISCONSIN’S PERFORMANCE December 1, 2016 HeeJin Kim - Policy and Data Analyst Child Welfare Data Analytics Section Division of Safety and Permanence

  13. Outline • 7 CFSR 3 MEASURES • PERMANENCY IN 12 MONTHS FOR CHILDREN ENTERING OUT-OF-HOME CARE • PERMANENCY IN 12 MONTHS FOR CHILDREN IN CARE FOR 12-23 MONTHS • PERMANENCY IN 12 MONTHS FOR CHILDREN IN CARE FOR 24+ MONTHS • RE-ENTRY INTO OUT-OF-HOME CARE • PLACEMENT STABILITY • MALTREATMENT IN OUT-OF-HOME CARE • RECURRENCE OF MALTREATMENT • COMPARISON STATES • COLORADO • MINNESOTA

  14. PERMANENCY IN 12 MONTHS FOR CHILDREN ENTERING OUT-OF-HOME CARE A B C DEFINITION EXAMPLE L E G E N D Entry to Out-of-Home Care Observation Window Children who discharged to permanency within 12 months of their individual entry Observation Window Individual Outcome Window Outcome Window Exit to Permanency Jan 1, 2010 Dec 31, 2010 X 100% Children who enter out-of-home care in 2010

  15. PERMANENCY IN 12 MONTHS FOR CHILDREN ENTERING OUT-OF-HOME CARE Current National Standard: 40.5%

  16. PERMANENCY IN 12 MONTHS FOR CHILDREN IN CARE 12-23 MONTHS A B C DEFINITION EXAMPLE Children who discharged to permanency within 12 months of the first day L E G E N D Entry to Out-of-Home Care Observation Window Outcome Window Exit to Permanency Jan 2, 2013 Jan 1, 2015 Dec 31, 2015 X 100% Children who have been in out-of-home care for 12-23 months on the first day of a 12-month period Outcome Window Observation Window Jan 1, 2014

  17. PERMANENCY IN 12 MONTHS FOR CHILDREN IN CARE 12-23 MONTHS Current National Standard: 43.6%

  18. PERMANENCY IN 12 MONTHS FOR CHILDREN IN CARE 24+ MONTHS -2012 A B C DEFINITION EXAMPLE L E G E N D Entry to Out-of-Home Care Observation Window Children who discharged to permanency within 12 months of the first day Jan 1, 2013 Jan 1, 2015 Dec 31, 2015 Outcome Window Exit to Permanency X 100% Children who have been in out-of-home care for 24+ months on the first day of a 12-month period Observation Window Outcome Window

  19. PERMANENCY IN 12 MONTHS FOR CHILDREN IN CARE 24+ MONTHS Current National Standard: 30.3%

  20. RE-ENTRY INTO OUT-OF-HOME CARE 2013 A B C D DEFINITION EXAMPLE L E G E N D Entry to Out-of-Home Care Observation Window Children who re-enter care within 12 months of their discharge First Individual Outcome Window Second Individual Outcome Window Outcome Window Exit to Permanency X 100% Dec 31, 2013 Jan 1, 2013 Children who entered out-of-home care in a 12-month period, who discharged within 12 months of their individual entry Observation Window

  21. RE-ENTRY INTO OUT-OF-HOME CARE Current National Standard: 8.3%

  22. Placement Stability 2015 A B C D 2 moves in 300 days 0 moves in 250 days DEFINITION EXAMPLE 3 moves in 300 days L E G E N D Total placement moves Entry to Out-of-Home Care Substantiated Allegation Excluded From Calculation X 1000 Days Total number of days in out-of-home care for children who enter during a 12-month period, as of the end of the 12-month period Exit to Permanency Observation Window Jan 1, 2015 Dec 31, 2015 Change in Placement Outcome Window

  23. PLACEMENT stability Current National Standard: 4.12

  24. MALTREATMENT IN OUT-OF-HOME CARE 2015 A B C D 1 substantiated allegation in 315 days 0 substantiated allegations in 220 days DEFINITION EXAMPLE 1 substantiated allegation in 365 days L E G E N D Excluded From Calculation Number of substantiated maltreatments during the time period Entry to Out-of-Home Care Substantiated Allegation Dec 31, 2015 Jan 1, 2015 Exit to Permanency Observation Window X 100,000 Days Change in Placement Outcome Window Total number of days in OHC for children in care during a 12-month period

  25. MALTREATMENT IN OUT-OF-HOME CARE Current National Standard: 8.50

  26. RECURRENCE OF MALTREATMENT 2014 A B C D DEFINITION EXAMPLE Children with subsequent substantiated allegation within 12 months of initial substantiated allegation L E G E N D Entry to Out-of-Home Care Substantiated Allegation Exit to Permanency Observation Window Dec 31, 2014 Jan 1, 2014 X 100% Change in Placement Outcome Window Children with a substantiated allegation during a 12-month period Observation Window

  27. RECURRENCE OF MALTREATMENT Current National Standard: 9.1%

  28. COMPARISON STATES Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2012). State vs. county administration of child welfare services. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau. 1. WHICH STATE-LEVEL CHILD WELFARE SYSTEMS ARE COUNTY-RUN OR HYBRID (MIX OF COUNTY- AND STATE-RUN)? MINNESOTA WISCONSIN NORTH DAKOTA NEW YORK PENNSYLVANIA OHIO NEVADA VIRGINIA COLORADO CALIFORNIA NORTH CAROLINA

  29. COMPARISON STATES Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2012). State vs. county administration of child welfare services. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau. 2. OF THE 11 STATES, WHICH HAVE SIMILAR DEMOGRAPHIC COMPOSITION TO THAT OF WISCONSIN? MINNESOTA WISCONSIN NORTH DAKOTA NEW YORK PENNSYLVANIA OHIO NEVADA VIRGINIA COLORADO CALIFORNIA NORTH CAROLINA • 2010 US CENSUS DATA: • POPULATION • % LIVING IN URBAN AREAS • % UNDER 18 • % CHILDREN LIVING IN POVERTY • RACE/ETHNICITY COMPOSITION

  30. CAVEATS TO STATE COMPARISON • STATE-BY-STATE PERFORMANCE DATA IS LAGGED BY 2+ YEARS • STATE-BY-STATE PERFORMANCE AVAILABILE ONLY FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS • For measures requiring 1 year of data, FFY 13B&14A (Apr ‘13-Mar ‘14) • For measures requiring 3 years of data, FFY 11B&12A (Apr ‘11-Mar ‘12) • BUSINESS RULES WHEN CALCULATED BY DCF VS BY FEDS • Various business rules contribute to slight discrepancies in calculations (e.g., length of stay restrictions)

  31. Inter-state comparison Color Coding represents Percentile compared to all states (including Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico), where Dark Green = close to 99th percentile, and Dark Red = 1st percentile

  32. Wisconsin's child and family services review (CFSR) round 3 webinar series Part 3 of 4 Child and family services Review- The Onsite Case Review process September 12, 2016 Erin Miess Out of Home Care Regional Supervisor Department of Children and Families

  33. Introduction • 2nd phase of the Child and Family Services Review (see CFSR Webinar 1 of 4 for more detail on a complete CFSR Overview) • Purpose: gather state performance information • 2 Review Paths • States conduct their own case reviews • States participate in a federal review

  34. overview • Team of reviewers • Examine case records • Conduct case-related interviews • Conduct stakeholder interviews • Collect qualitative and quantitative information on outcomes and systemic factors • Data used to determine if a state is in substantial conformity with federal requirements • Children’s Bureau provides instruments and guides for collecting information: • Onsite Review Instrument (OSRI) • Case-Related Interview Guides and Instructions • Quality Assurance Guide • Stakeholder Interview Guide

  35. State Conducted case reviews • Approval from the Children’s Bureau is required • 65 case minimum • Federal staff participate in quality assurance and oversight activities • Federal and state staff may conduct focus groups regarding designated Systemic Factors with specified state and local level stakeholder groups (see CFSR Webinar 4 of 4 for additional detail regarding the Systemic Factors) • States submit data to the Children’s Bureau

  36. Traditional Reviews • 1-week onsite review • Federal-state team • 65 cases reviewed • Onsite Review Instrument is used • Case-specific interviews conducted • 3 locations within the state selected for reviews • Additional stakeholder focus groups will be conducted to asses local performance on systemic factors (see CFSR Webinar 4 of 4 for more detail on the CFSR Systemic Factors)

  37. Wisconsin’s preparation For FFY 2018 CFSR Review • Explore case review types • Ongoing Children’s Bureau and state activities, as needed to consider: • Review type/preference • Status of review process • State’s capacity to meet case review criteria

  38. Preparation • Letter of Intent • Submitted to the Children’s Bureau Regional Office from the state to communicate which type of review the state wants to pursue • For a state choosing to conduct its own case review, the letter should confirm the previous discussions between the state and the Children’s Bureau

  39. Preparation • Children’s Bureau Approval of State Conducted Case Review • States must demonstrate to the Children’s Bureau they are able to or will be able to meet the federal criteria for the onsite review. • The Children’s Bureau must inform the state of the decision to approve or deny the request for a state conducted case review process prior to the scheduled onsite review. • The Children’s Bureau may notify a state of remaining criteria for the state to demonstrate before its case review process can be approved. • The state has no more than 60 days after being notified to make the identified changes to its case review process if it wants to continue to seek approval.

  40. Preparation • Case Sample Selection • Minimum of 65 cases – 40 cases foster care, 25 in-home • Review Site Selection • State Conducted Reviews • At least 3 over a 6-month period • Traditional Reviews • Limited to 3 sites during a 1-week period

  41. onsite review instrument • Tool to guide the case review process • Used in both types of reviews • Used for in-home and foster care cases • Case record review • Participant interviews • Determines areas of strength and areas needing improvement in key practices that affect outcomes • 7 outcomes • 18 specific items rated

  42. onsite review instrument • Performance is rated based on seven outcomes: • Safety Outcome 1: Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect • Safety Outcome 2: Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate • Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations • Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children • Well-Being Outcome 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs • Well-Being Outcome 2: Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs • Well-Being Outcome 3: Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs

  43. onsite review instrument • Safety Outcome 1: Children are first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect • Item 1: Timeliness of CPS Investigations • Safety Outcome 2: Children are safety maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate • Item 2: Services to the family to protect the child(ren) in the home and prevent removal or re-entry into foster care • Item 3: Risk and safety assessment and management

  44. onsite review instrument • Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations • Item 4: Stability of foster care placement • Item 5: Permanency goal for the child • Item 6: Achieving reunification, guardianship, adoption or Other Planned Permanent Living Arrangement • Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children • Item 7: Placement with siblings • Item 8: Visiting with parents and siblings in foster care • Item 9: Preserving connections • Item 10: Relative placement • Item 11: Relationship of child in care with parents

  45. onsite review instrument • Well-Being Outcome 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs • Item 12: Needs and services of child, parents and foster parents • Item 13: Child and family involvement in case planning • Item 14: Caseworker visits with child • Item 15: Caseworker visits with parent • Well-Being Outcome 2: Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs • Item 16: Educational needs of the child • Well-Being Outcome 3: Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs • Item 17: Physical health of the child • Item 18: Mental/behavioral health of the child

  46. onsite review instrument • Required Interviews with Key Participants • The child/children (school-aged) • The child’s parent(s) and/or caregivers • The child’s foster parent(s), pre-adoptive parent(s), or other caregiver(s), such as a relative caregiver or group home staff, if the child is in foster care • The family’s caseworker or supervisor if the caseworker is not available • Quality Assurance and Secondary Oversight on Case Reviews and the Onsite Review Instrument • All cases reviewed for the CFSR, regardless of review type, traditional or state-conducted, must undergo some form of quality assurance.

  47. stakeholder Focus Groups • Occur with identified partners including Tribes, Advocacy and Provider Partners, Court Representatives • Includes agency staff and supervisors, as well as, families and youth being served • The Children’s Bureau provides a Stakeholder Guide to support focus group information collection and subsequent CFSR rating

  48. Wisconsin's child and family services review (CFSR) round 3 webinar series Part 4 of 4 Child and family services Review Systemic Factors overview September 16, 2016 Jane Penner-Hoppe Policy Advisor Department of Children and Families

  49. Systemic Review Factors • Seven areas of state system functioning or systemic factors • Most of the systemic factors have multiple subcomponents • All are measured to determine how well a state’s system is functioning to support local services

  50. Systemic Review Factors • Management Information System • Case Review • 5 Subcomponents • Quality Assurance System • Training • 3 Subcomponents • Service Array • 2 Subcomponents • Agency Responsiveness • 2 Subcomponents • Foster and Adoptive Parent Recruitment • 4 Subcomponents dcf.wisconsin.gov

More Related