DIVISION OF FAMILY

1
DIVISION OF FAMILY CHILDREN SERVICES G-FORCE
MEETING April 23, 2009
2
AGENDA

• Safety
• Permanency
• Well-being
• Family Independence

3
(No Transcript)
4
(No Transcript)
5
RECURRENCE OF MALTREATMENTMarch 2008 March 2009
National Standard 5.4 or less
6
(No Transcript)
7
Lag Measure Increase Safety Response from 65
to 95 by June 2009
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
96
98
100
Apr 97.6
Mar 97
Feb 96
Jan 92
Dec 81
Nov 75
Oct 76
Sep 65
Score for April 23, 2009 97.6
8
Lead Measure 1 Increase Timely Completion of
Investigations from 93 to 100 by June 2009
91
97
100
98
99
96
92
94
99.5
Apr 99.7
March 99
Feb 98
Jan 97
Dec 93
Nov 91
Oct 95
Sept 93
Score on April 23, 2009 99.7 Timely
9
NUMBER OF OVERDUE PENDING CASES
REFLECTS THE NUMBER OF CASES PENDING OVERDUE AT
THE END OF EACH MONTH.
April 23, 2009 3 CASES PENDING OVERDUE
10
Lead Measure 2 Increase Timeliness of Responses
to Reports of Abuse/Neglect from from 46 to 90
by June 2009
95
90
85
70
80
50
60
65
40
75
100
Apr 96
Mar 96
Dec 08 70
Jan 88
Feb 95
Nov 08 59
Oct 08 57
Sep 08 46
Score for April 20, 2009 96 Timely
11
PERCENTAGE OF INVESTIGATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN
PENDING 31 TO 45 DAYS
GOAL
April 20, 2009 15.9 OF INVESTIGATIONS
HAVE BEEN PENDING 31 TO 45 DAYS
12
PERCENTAGE OF INVESTIGATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN
PENDING 35 TO 45 DAYS
GOAL
April 20, 2009 10.9 OF INVESTIGATIONS
HAVE BEEN PENDING 35 TO 45 DAYS
13
(No Transcript)
14
15 of investigations resulted in children coming
into care in February 2009.
15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
SAFETY RESOURCES
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
(No Transcript)
28
(No Transcript)
29
(No Transcript)
30
(No Transcript)
31
(No Transcript)
32
(No Transcript)
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36
(No Transcript)
37
PERCENT CHANGE IN NUMBER OF DAYSOctober 2008 to
March 2009
38
NATIONAL STUDY REGARDING KINSHIP CARE

• Most kinship arrangements are grandparents or
  other close relatives.
• Kinship families are predominately families of
  color.
• Kinship families tend to have limited income.
• Kinship families have less formal contact with
  social workers than traditional foster care
  families.

Source Kinship/Relative Care Katherine Maurer
(2001).
39
RELATIONSHIP OF SAFETY RESOURCE CARETAKER TO
CHILD IN GEORGIA
Data from SHINES
40
ADVANTAGES OF KINSHIP CARE

• Provides a safety net for children who might
  otherwise be in the foster care.
• Provides children with a sense of family support.
• Children have more frequent visits with birth
  parents and siblings.
• More likely to accept sibling groups.
• Maintain cultural continuity and community ties
  such as with school and friends.
• Provides an opportunity for permanence should a
  child enter into legal custody of the state.

• In Georgia, 30 of the children who entered care
  were placed with individuals who served as their
  Safety Resource.

Source National Survey of Americas Families,
Urban Institute (2001).
41
LIMITATIONS OF KINSHIP CARE

• 41 live in families with income less than 100
  of the federal poverty level (FPL).
• 36 live with a caretaker without a high school
  degree.
• 55 live with a single parent.
• 19 live in households with four or more
  children.

Source Children Cared for by Relatives,
Jennifer Ehrle Macomber (2001).
42
LIMITATIONS CONTINUED

• Less likely to receive payments and services such
  as training, assessments, counseling or visits
  from an agency.
• May not meet the health and safety standards of
  the more regulated forms of foster care.
• Many safety resources are grandparents coping
  with reduced income levels and increased health
  problems.
• Un-supervised arrangement.

Source Kinship Care by Pamela Gough (2006).
43
CHILDREN IN SAFETY RESOURCES 90 DAYS OR MORE BY
REGION
44
COMPARISON OF SAFETY RESOURCE CARETAKERS BY
LENGTH OF STAY 90 DAYS OR MORE OVERALL
POPULATION OF CHILDREN IN SAFETY RESOURCES
Children in safety resources for 90 days or more
tend to be placed with grandparents and less
likely to be with nonfamily members.
45
PERMANENCY
46
(No Transcript)
47
REASONS CHILDREN EXITED CARESFY2008 SFY2009
The majority, 85, of children left care for
positive permanency reasons.
48
REASONS CHILDREN EXITED CARENATIONALLY
GEORGIAFFY 2006, SFY2008 SFY2009
49
(No Transcript)
50
FOSTER CARE RE-ENTRY RATEMarch 2008 March 2009
National standard less than or equal to 8.60
Of the children who entered care in March 2009,
only 1.92 had exited care during the past 12
months.
51
Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006
Every Child, Every Month

• Increase the Frequency and Quality of Visits
• Improve Effectiveness of Frontline and
  Supervisory Practice
• Improve Safety, Permanency and Well-Being
  Outcomes
• for Children in our Care

52
Goal by Oct 1, 2011
Federal Target At Least 90 Of Children in Care
Are Visited Every Month Over 50 Of The
Visits Occur In The Home
GAs baseline 2007 51 visited every month 82
seen in the home
53
Annual State Targets
Percent of children in our care who are seen
every month they are in care 2011 90 Sustaini
ng Accomplishment 2010 85 Sustaining the
Effort Combating Target Fatigue 2009
71 15 Increase
Full Engagement

State Capacity to Meet New
Expectations 2008 56 Conservative and
Attainable 5 2007 51 Baseline
54
First Round of Data Collection
Year ECEM Visits ECEM Visits In-Home Target
Actual Visits 2011 90 2010 8
5 2009 71 2008 56
2007 Baseline 51 82
Round 1
55
Green indicates 5 or higher increase from
4/17/09.
56
HOME 80
R7 79
R11 77
ALREADY HOME R8 (81) R10 (80) R13
(89)!
R6 45
R14 76
R2 47
EVERY CHILD EVERY MONTH 80 BY JULY 2009!
FIRST BASE 50
THIRD BASE 70
R12 50
R3 51
R15 69
R17 52
State 64
R1 57
R5 63
SECOND BASE 60
R4 57
R9 58
R16 60
57
NUMBER PERCENT OF CHILDEN AGING OUT OF CARE
July 2008 March 2009
58
TIMELINE TO AGING OUT FOR CHILDREN WITH APPLA
GOAL (N978)
There are a 978 children in care with Another
Planned Permanent Living Arrangement as a goal.
Of those, 21.7 will be 18 years of age in less
than 6 months.
59
TIMELINE TO AGING OUT FOR CHILDREN WITH APPLA
GOAL BY REGION
60
COUNTY DIRECTOR REVIEW RESULTSMarch 2009
61
COMPARISON OF PEAS
COUNTY DIRECTOR REVIEWS
Note PEAS data based on review period January
2008 through December 2008 while Field Operations
Review Guide for March 2009.
62
TARGETING FAMILY ENGAGEMENTOctober 2008 March
2009 Reviews
63
(No Transcript)
64
(No Transcript)
65
(No Transcript)
66
(No Transcript)
67
(No Transcript)
68
(No Transcript)
69
(No Transcript)
70
(No Transcript)
71
(No Transcript)
72
(No Transcript)
73
(No Transcript)