PERMANENCY

1
PERMANENCY FOR CHILDREN
Division of Family Children Services July
G-Force Meeting July 30, 2009
2
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?
3
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

4
SHIFT OF PARADIGM FOR PERMANENCY
INEFFECTIVE LENS - Incident-Based -
Child-Focused - Placement-Driven (Ineffective for
accomplishment of todays outcomes)
EFFECTIVE LENS - Comprehensive Assessment of
Strengths Challenges - Family-Centered -
Permanency-Driven
Permanency Pathways
5
BUSINESS MODEL
Laws
PERMANENCY
PATHWAYS
Family Engagement
Comprehensive Assessment
Individualized Service Planning
State Statutes
Policies Procedures
Concurrent Planning
Youth Involvement
Financial
6
PERMANENCY FOCUS AT EVERY STAGE
Preserve Safe Thriving Forever Families
Children Safe Thriving in Forever Families
Sooner
After Care
Family Support
Family Preservation
Safety Resource
PRTF
CCI
Group Home
Foster Family
Investigation
IN HOME
HYBRID OF BOTH
OUT-OF-HOME
IN - HOME
7
SHIFT OF PARADIGM FOR G-FORCE
EFFECTIVE LENS - Comprehensive View of Practice -
Data Chains Reflecting Practice
INEFFECTIVE LENS Single Data Points (Ineffective
for decision-making)
Permanency Pathways
8
DATA COLLECTION, MEASUREMENT ANALYSIS OF
PERMANENCY PATHWAYS
PERMANENCY
PATHWAYS
How might we measure and analyze Permanency
Pathways?
Family Engagement
Comprehensive Assessment
Individualized Service Planning
Concurrent Planning
Youth Involvement
9
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.
10
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.
11
BEYOND SINGLE-DATA POINTS TO DATA-CHAINS
Data points only provide a small slice of
information and are not able to provide the
context needed to test hypotheses we must use
data chains instead. These data chains should be
a compilation of data points related to a
particular event.
DATA CHAINS
Data Points

• 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?

12
PERCENTAGE OF FAMILY PRESERVATION CASES OPENED
DURING SFY 2009 THAT HAD A PRIOR REPORT OF
ABUSE/NEGLECT
Statewide 86.2
Statewide, 86.2 of the family preservation cases
opened during SFY 2009 had a previous report of
abuse/neglect associated with it.
13
PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN WHO ENTERED FOSTER
CARE IN SFY 2009 FROM FAMILY PRESERVATION SERVICES
Statewide 30
Question How do we know that children in
Regions 12, 15, 16 17 are safe and thriving?
14
PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN WHO ENTERED FOSTER CARE IN
SFY 2009 FROM FAMILY PRESERVATION SERVICES
BY REGION FROM LOWEST TO HIGHEST
State Average 30
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
(No Transcript)
16
TIMELY COMPLETION OF INVESTIGATIONSSFY2004
SFY2009
17
SUBSTANTIATED CLOSED INVESTIGATIONSWITH NO
FURTHER DFCS INVOLVEMENTJuly 2008 May 2009

• Follow-Up Questions
• How many of these families received OFI services?
• How many of these families experience a
  recurrence of maltreatment?
• What maltreatment types are most often presented
  in these cases?

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.
18
(No Transcript)
19
MALTREATMENT TYPES ASSOCIATED WITH FAMILY
PRESERVATION CASES OPENED IN SFY 2009 (N9,195)
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 do not add up to
100 because there was more than one maltreatment
type in many instances.
20
MALTREATMENT TYPES AVERAGE NUMBER OF MONTHS
IN FAMILY PRESERVATION IN SFY 2009
Average time 4.2.
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?
21
PRIOR SUBSTANTIATION AVERAGE NUMBER OF MONTHS
FAMILY PRESERVATION CASES WERE OPEN IN SFY 2009
Note Cases with prior substantiations tended to
be open longer in Family Preservation than those
without.
22
FAMILY PRESERVATION, FOSTER CARE SAFETY
RESOURCES (N9,195)

• 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 childs 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.

23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
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. Childrens Administration,
August 2006.
27
PERMANENCY FOR CHILDREN

• Starts at first contact
• Continues throughout the lifetime of the childs
  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. Childrens Administration,
August 2006.
28
WHAT A DIFFERENCE A
ROUNDTABLE MAKES!!
Permanency roundtables held from January 2009
through July 2009 with approximately 2,179
children.
29
NUMBER OF CHILDREN BY REGION
January 2009 July 2009
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.
30
PLACEMENT TYPE FOR CHILDREN IN
ROUND TABLE (N2,078)

• CPA Foster Home 27.6
• DFCS Foster Home 23.2
• CCI 17.5
• Group Home 10.4

31
PERMANENCY PLAN FOR CHILDREN IN ROUND TABLE
(N2,078)

• Adoption 30.4
• Reunification 28.8
• Emancipation 18.1
• Long Term Foster Care 11.8
• Placement with Relatives 9.4

32
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.
33
POSITIVE PERMANENCY EXITS(N212)
Note 10 of children who were round-tabled have
exited care to Positive Permanency since January
2009.
34
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

35
16 year-old confined to a wheelchair being
adopted by foster parent
Region 1
17 year-old reconnected with Mother after 8
years (divorce)
16 year-old moved from group home to foster home
after 2 years. FP seeking Guardianship
Region 10
Region 9
CHILDREN 16 OVER
17 year-old moved from group home being
adopted by former group home staff member
16 year-old in foster care for 5 years received
permanency through guardianship with foster
parents
Region 12
Region 8
36
11 year-old in care for 9 years in
residential facility foster parent now
identified who will adopt child
Region 1
14 year-old in care for 77 months now in an
adoptive home
17 year-old in care since 2005 obtained
permanency with uncle
Region 3
Region 13
CHILDREN IN CARE FOR 48 MONTHS OR MORE
Child reunited with mother after 4 years in care
permanency goal had been emancipation
17 year-old in care since 1997, being adopted
by Therapeutic Foster Parent
Region 9
Region 9
37
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
Region 3
Region 3
Sibling group of two (13 14) in care for 122
months will obtain permanency through guardianshi
p with foster parent
12 and 13 year-old siblings in care for 7 years
are now with grandmother awaiting guardianship
Region 4
SIBLINGS ACHIEVING PERMANENCY TOGETHER!
Sibling group of two (12 13) in care for 48
months transitioned into an adoptive home in July
Finalized adoption on June 29, 2009 for three
siblings
Region 2
Region 4
38
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
Region 13
Region 4
CHILDREN WITH PHYSICAL BEHAVIORIAL HEALTH NEEDS
14 year-old with an infant, and has been in 16
different placements, now moving toward
adoption by foster parent
16 year-old in care for 22 months after an
adoption disruption was reunited with adoptive
parents after long-term PRTF placement
Region 16
Region 3
39
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).

40
What practice changes did we improve to get
these success stories?
Excluding positive
permanency exits, how can we
measure success?
41
(No Transcript)
42
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

43
What practice chain resulted in rates we see in
Region 17 and Region 6? What resources are
necessary to impact this measure?
44
FOSTER CARE ENTRIES, EXITS RE-ENTRY RATESSFY
2004 SFY 2009
National Standard 8.60 or less
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.
45
FOSTER CARE ENTRIES, EXITS RE-ENTRY RATESJuly
2008 June 2009
National Standard 8.60 or less
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.
46
What is the relationship between length of time
to achieve reunification and foster care re-entry?
47
OFFICE OF FAMILY INDEPENDENCE
48
As of July 9, 2009
49
(No Transcript)
50
(No Transcript)
51
OFI Performance Management Under Construction
52
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?