Presentation Purpose

1. Family Connection Discretionary GrantsCross-Site FindingsJennifer Dewey, PhDGrace Atukpawu, PhDKate Lyon, MAConnie Vu, MAJames Bell Associates, Inc.2011 Children’s Bureau Combined Discretionary Grantees MeetingApril 18-20, 2011

2. Presentation Purpose • Increase understanding of how grantees have arranged and provided services designed to increase: • Child safety • Permanent and stable living situations • Continued family relationships • Enhanced capacity of families to care for children’s needs

3. Family Connection Cluster Logic Model Goals Promote strengthening of the family unit to prevent the unnecessary separation of children from their families and encourage reunifying families if separation has occurred. As demonstration projects, develop programs as identifiable sites that other States and locales seeking to implement family connection services can look to for guidance, insight, and possible replication; develop and implement an evidence-based model with specific components or strategies based on theory, research, or evaluation data; or replicate/test the transferability of successfully evaluated program models. Research Question How effective are kinship navigator programs; programs utilizing intensive family finding efforts; programs utilizing family group decision-making meetings; and residential family treatment programs in helping children who are in or at-risk of entering into foster care connect with family members? Short-Term Outcomes Intermediate Outcomes Long-Term Outcomes Inputs Activities Outputs Kinship Navigator Increased knowledge of community resources Increased access to support services Program and evaluation staff, advisory groups, partners, clients Overall service model Decreased instances of child abuse and neglect Parents maintain or regain custody Increased guardianship or placement with relatives Reduced rate of foster care reentry, increased stability in foster care placements Increased connections to kin, culture, and community Increased use of positive parenting practices, increased coping and self-care, decreased stress Children maintain positive physical, developmental, and mental health outcomes Children are safely maintained in their homes Children have permanency and stability in their living situations Continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs # parents, children, and families served Parent, child, and family services Kinship Navigator # of families accessing services # of training and education programs # of community resources Fully-functioning program Family Finding Increased # of staff using search tools Increased # of known family members Plans to enhance, expand, or bring services to scale Federal and other funds Family Finding # of staff trained # of completed searches # of cases mined Best practices, evidence-based models, and practice-based evidence RFTP Parents achieve abstinence, improve mental health Child improves development, education, physical and mental health Computers, telephones, and other technical resources RFTP # of treatment plans # days in residential # mental health, AOD assessments and services Established and developing practices Public and private child welfare agencies have integrated elements of the program’s service model Community agencies, organizations, and individuals • FGDM Decreased time to family engagement in decision making Families engaged in case planning & develop permanency case plans Culturally-based practices FGDM # families referred # FGDM meetings # case plans developed Facilities, transportation, etc. Adaptations to fit the community Program sustainability

4. Process Evaluation Process Evaluation Questions • Who are you serving? • What are you doing? • How, and how well, are you doing it? • Who are you working with? How? • What is helping or hindering you? • How are you changing? • Overall improvement?

5. Process Evaluation Process Evaluation Approach • Secondary Data: Grantee applications, evaluation plans, logic models, reports, and other local documents • Primary Data: Conversations with program and evaluation staff to confirm what we think we know, and find out what we don’t know Quantitative and Qualitative Data!

6. Primary Data Collection • Conducted 3 pilot site visits • Revised protocols per pilot feedback • Went to 17 more sites • Talked to program leadership, service providers, evaluators, and program partners, including child welfare agencies What Have We Done? Thank You!

7. Themes • Evaluation • Lessons Learned • Facilitators • Challenges • Political, social and economic context • Program planning and startup • Program implementation • Service delivery model • Collaboration • Sustainability

8. RESIDENTIAL FAMILY TREATMENT

9. Residential Family Treatment Political/Economic/Social Context • RFTPs fill a gap – there are few facilities • Recovery is a long-term process • Private and not-for-profits more flexible, creative, and innovative • Ability to bill for services varies • Younger clients, using opiates • Challenge to move mothers and children through levels of housing

10. Residential Family Treatment Service Delivery Model • Length of stay is 4-6 months to 3-5 years • Children’s services independent of services for mothers • Engaging outside service providers • Crisis management strains time and resources, disrupts scheduled treatment • Attachment/bonding, Dialectical Behavioral Therapy are some key services

11. Residential Family Treatment Program Planning and Startup • Aware of Family Connection funding • Changes ranged from enhancing existing services to adding targeted services to redefining the program • Challenges communicating “new” services • Consumer input key • Program partners have assisted in implementation (e.g., training)

12. Residential Family Treatment Program Implementation • Quality assurance via clinical oversight and supervision, internal meetings and meetings with program partners • New and realigned staffing • Women resistant to treatment early on • Women resistant to having their children participate in services • Younger women = younger children

13. Residential Family Treatment Collaboration • Partners provide services and credibility • Craft a vision that everyone in the system can buy into • Educate partners on the service population • Relationships with public child welfare agencies vary due to agency silo-ing and child focus • Use of steering committees varies from no committee to integral involvement

14. Residential Family Treatment Evaluation • Varying evaluation expertise within program staff • Planning processes ranged from one to multiple planning and refining meetings • Balance between obtaining value-added data and overburdening staff • Point person to collect data and inform evaluator • Accounting for all the moving parts • Quasi-experimental designs the most feasible

15. Residential Family Treatment Sustainability Strategies • Effects of upcoming legislation and policies • Trends in local, state and federal funding opportunities • Don’t wait for potential funding as the stimulus to work with your community • Use evaluation data to create a platform of evidence to partner and secure funding • Examine your own trends in services and internal spending

16. KINSHIP NAVIGATOR

17. Kinship Navigator Political/Economic/Social Context • State fiscal crises significantly reduced staffing capacity and financial assistance programs • Partnerships affected by budget cuts and changes in the available service array • Limited resources and services for kinship caregivers • Programs see caregivers with greater needs and more/different caregivers seeking services (younger and middle class caregivers)

18. Kinship Navigator Service Delivery Model • Referral sources: CW agencies, faith-based groups, private agencies, community-based programs, self-referrals • Majority of caregivers are grandparents, but programs also serve the entire family through formal and informal arrangements • Intensity and duration of navigation varies from I&R to intensive case management • Provide support groups or refer to existing groups • May use former caregivers as navigators • Programs promote partnerships through formal collaboratives and / or informal outreach methods

19. Kinship Navigator Program Planning and Startup • Grant proposal aligned with state legislation and emphasis on reducing the number of children in foster care • Consumer input elicited through caregiver surveys and focus groups • Programs struggled to develop and standardize processes for providing services and collecting data (up to one year+)

20. Kinship Navigator Program Implementation • Caregivers’ primary needs: Basic needs, financial and legal assistance, school advocacy, supportive listening • “Helpers versus baby snatchers” – improving perceptions of the child welfare system • Challenges providing services: Child care, respite, legal assistance, transportation • Navigators’ extensive knowledge of community resources is key ingredient in serving caregivers • Outreach to informal kinship caregivers is a common challenge

21. Kinship Navigator Collaboration • Some programs use pre-existing partnerships, while others established new ones • Partners address different areas of expertise, provide services, facilitate broad exposure • Constant outreach and training important to combat the effects of worker turnover • May also encounter turf issues

22. Kinship Navigator Evaluation • Evaluators play a larger role: Program development, knowledge of child welfare system, developing and standardizing practice, sustainability • Administrative support and understanding of the evaluation • Obtaining buy-in from child welfare and other stakeholders during evaluation planning is key • Challenging to effectively capture service activities

23. Kinship Navigator Sustainability Strategies • Budget concerns have impacted sustainability planning (that took place early on) • Capitalized on separate avenues of funding streams to sustain the program • Leverage funding of other kinship or family support programs • Integrate services into public CW agency service array

24. Intensive Family -Finding

25. Intensive Family-finding Political/Economic/Social Context • Legislative policies inadvertently decrease the need of programs and impact implementation • Budget cuts have reduced and reorganized staff and increased caseloads • Contracting cycle can impact program implementation

26. Intensive Family-finding Service Delivery Model • Services: Extensive relative search, connecting children to kin, facilitating visitation and permanency • Programs target children entering foster care and older youth languishing in care • Several programs use the Kevin Campbell and Catholic Community Services models • Family-finders vary among programs: Internal vs. external, caseworker or specialist • Automatic referral processes bypass typical challenges

27. Intensive Family-finding Program Planning and Startup • Used time to learn from other initiatives and existing partnerships • Pilot phase helps work out kinks • Hiring and retaining qualified staff is a challenge

28. Intensive Family-finding Program Implementation • Operational and structural program features facilitated implementation (i.e., co-location of staff, mirroring CPS operating hours) • Staff ability to engage relatives is key to success • Youth play an integral role in the process • “Apple doesn’t fall too far from the tree” – obtaining caseworker and supervisor buy-in • Background checks, fingerprinting limitations, and ICPC processes often delay placement

29. Intensive Family-finding Collaboration • Programs partner with the legal community, residential treatment centers, social service agencies, universities, group homes, CASAs, GALs, current and former foster youth • Collaborating with the judiciary is critical to project success • Partnering with child welfare agencies increases transparency between both groups • Less duplication of services and opportunities to think outside the box

30. Intensive Family-finding Evaluation • Working closely with evaluators during proposal writing promotes compatible program and evaluation designs • Access to SACWIS strengthens outcome evaluation • Many challenges assessing fidelity across multiple settings • Tracking family finding activities and case progress can be burdensome • Struggles obtaining caseworker buy-in to the evaluation

31. Intensive Family-finding Sustainability Strategies • Programs planning to secure state contracts for search engines • Some systems are already embedding family-finding into their practice • Partners are helpful in funding positions long-term

32. Family Group Decision-Making

33. Family Group Decision-Making Political/Economic/Social Context • Significant budget cuts impact child welfare staff • Public child welfare agency reorganization • Transitioning officials (i.e., governor, child welfare director) • New legislation, policies and procedures

34. Family Group Decision-Making Service Delivery Model • Variety of FGDM models: Permanency Teaming Model, Family Involvement Meetings, ‘Ohana Conferencing, Family Team Conferencing • Service models bring together CW staff, service providers, educators, biological/extended family, support systems • Discuss goals, safety, family strengths and supports, service needs, referrals, visitation, permanency planning • Used at various points throughout a case: Removals, placement changes, permanency changes, transitions • Integrated component of Family-finding

35. Family Group Decision-Making Program Planning and Startup • Research the social and political landscape before the grant award • Prior work in FGDM was a valuable resource • Navigating the structural changes within child welfare systems was challenging • Underestimated administrative capacity needs

36. Family Group Decision-Making Program Implementation • Primary service issues: Substance abuse, mental health challenges, domestic violence • Explore ways to include fathers, incarcerated parents, out-of-state relatives, domestic violence victims and perpetrators • De-escalation skills are imperative as a facilitator • Time constraints caused by competing priorities, responsibilities, and family circumstances impact FGDM meetings

37. Family Group Decision-Making Collaboration • Programs establish relationships with caseworkers, supervisors, and CASAs • Partners/service providers serve as referral sources for families, reduce redundancy in services, and provide new perspectives and expertise • Child welfare agencies facilitate lobbying power through administrative and financial support • Gain consensus and buy-in from key players before implementation • Transparent process necessary to avoid role confusion

38. Family Group Decision-Making Evaluation • Early engagement of program leadership, partners, and project staff in the design and implementation of evaluation is key • Several programs use a democratic process • Effective management information systems (MIS) are essential • Most programs assess FGDM within comparison group designs • Challenging to ensure and measure fidelity of FGDM

39. Family Group Decision-Making Sustainability Strategies • For programs enhancing current practice models, FGDM is already embedded in child welfare practice • Disseminate success stories of staff and clients • Assist other organizations and groups around the country in developing an FGDM model

40. Combination Model Observations • Integrated service delivery system is important in reducing the number of kids in foster care through prevention (FF, FGDM, KN), reduced time in care (FF, FGDM) and reduced reentry (KN) • Implementing a Family-finding program alone is not sufficient without providing meaningful engagement opportunities and intensive support for caregivers • Grant is a bridge to connect key child welfare services being provided in the state • Several programs cross-train staff to facilitate integration • Coordination is challenging and labor intensive • Impact is limited unless services are connected

41. Family connection cluster

42. Cluster Observations Political/Economic/Social Context • State fiscal issues and budget cuts impact grantees and other community resources • Pros and cons of private and not-for-profit agencies – less constrained by the bureaucracy inherent in larger, public agencies, but also less stable • Overall lack of resources among service population

43. Cluster Observations Program Planning and Startup • Family Connection funds are an opportunity to improve existing services or implement new services aligned with program mission and Fostering Connections legislation / funding goals • Programs struggled with the 3-month start up period, especially recruiting and hiring staff • Some programs struggled to define grant-funded services in relation to other existing services

44. Cluster Observations Program Implementation • Continuity of leadership from planning through implementation is key • Program manuals and practice guides assist consistent implementation

45. Cluster Observations Collaboration • Legal community (e.g., judges, lawyers, GALs, CASAs, etc.) contributes to programs • Programs with existing collaborative relationships able to implement services faster than those who had to build relationships • Roles and responsibilities clearly defined when working in partnership • “Maturity” of collaboration helped by long-term relationships with staff in stable organizations

46. Cluster Observations Collaboration • Collaboration with the child welfare agency must occur at all levels (e.g., caseworker, supervisor, middle managers, and leadership) • Connect with the right person • Benefit from consistent, formal, structured collaboration. • Advisory boards that met regularly and included key partners and other stakeholders able to assist start-up and implementation, and address challenges

47. Cluster Observations Evaluation • Struggle to find an appropriate comparison group • Key decisions: 1) Right person / group to conduct evaluation, 2) Available data , 3) Additional data, and 4) Impact on systems and processes • Pros and cons of contracting with external evaluators • New, value-added data collection embedded into service provision without overburdening staff • Continuous data sharing and evaluation feedback increases staff buy-in and informs decisions

48. Cluster Observations Evaluation • Programs benefit when program leadership staff understand and value evaluation. Evaluators that understand the child welfare system and the mechanics of program start-up and implementation are more likely to develop a feasible, yet rigorous evaluation.

49. Cluster Observations Sustainability Strategies • Different funding streams to continue the program • Public CW agency partnership critical to developing sustainability strategies (integrating grant services into CW agency) • Disseminate the story of the Family Connection project, process, and evidence of effectiveness • Programs using evaluation results to determine how the sustained program will operate

50. Next Steps • Visit our remaining 4 grantees (you know who you are . . .) • Review April 2011 reports for updated process and outcome data • Draft a Year 2 report for the Children’s Bureau this summer • Include an Executive Summary-like document for grantee use