Braam Panel Meeting

1
Braam Panel Meeting

• March 23-24, 2009

2
Whats Happening at CA

• There are a number of temporary appointments
  in CA leadership.
• Randy Hart is the Acting Assistant Secretary.
• Chris Robinson is the Acting Director of Program
  and Practice Improvement.
• Sharon Gilbert covering for the Acting Director
  of Field Operations.
• There is a hiring freeze for non-case carrying
  positions.

3
The Budget

• Governors budget is very supportive of CA,
  providing for caseload increases
• March 19th forecast
• Timelines for determining the FY2009 supplemental
• Timelines for determining FY2010-2011 budget
• Given the continuing downturn in forecasts, there
  may be adjustments to the FY2010 budget before
  the next legislative session

4
FamLink

• Experience going live
• Challenges
• Report Building

5
CHET

• As of February 2, 2009, CHET screeners began
• Using the definitions of completion in all
  domains
• Administering the new mental health screening
  tool (PSC-17)
• Documenting health, mental health and education
  information in FamLink

6
CHET

• Since the implementation of FamLink there has
  been resolution on many of the issues initially
  reported to the panel.
• There are still a few important challenges we
  are working to correct.

7
CHET

• Continued Challenges/Outstanding Items
• FamLink is working to provide the data extract
  for the CHET database. Until the extract is in
  place, reports are unavailable.
• CHET screeners continue to struggle with their
  ability to identify every child coming into care.
  Most of the issues regarding the placement
  report have been resolved. However, we continue
  to work with CATS on the remaining issues.

8
CHET

• Interim Strategies Utilized until FamLink
  Issues Are Resolved
• The CHET Program Manager, Regional CHET
  Supervisors and Coordinators are meeting
  frequently to problem-solve local issues.
• The CHET Program Manager is providing extensive
  technical support to the field to implement
  requirements.
• Local offices have set up interim protocols to
  fill the gap in identifying children coming into
  care.
• Headquarters and FamLink are working weekly to
  resolve the problems.

9
Siblings Placed Together

• All siblings placed together has declined from
  59.6 in 2005 to 56.7 in 2008.
• Siblings placed with at least one sibling has
  declined from 82.1 in 2005 to 79.0 in 2008.

10
Siblings Placed Together

• Relationships are not available in CAMIS
• Sibling groups are identified as being a member
  of a household at the time of placement
• Siblings may be half-siblings or step-siblings or
  other children residing in the home
• Measure is taken at the beginning of the
  placement episode

11
Analysis of Data All Siblings Placed Together
12
Siblings Placed Together

• Increased Involvement of Fathers
• Even though siblings are much more likely to
  be all placed together when placed with
  relatives, if we are doing a better job of
  including fathers and considering paternal
  relatives, this could contribute to a decrease in
  siblings placed together.

13
Siblings Placed Together
14
Siblings Placed Together

• Possible reason Increase in Infant Placement
• The percent of children first placed as infants
  has grown from 19 to 30 in the last 12 years.
• Infants are less likely to be placed in the home
  of a relative.
• There are some homes that specialize in infant
  care.
• Infants placed in a non-related foster home were
  less likely to be placed with some or all
  siblings

15
Compliance Plans

• Subsequent measures will work to remove children
  placed in more restrictive care (BRS) placements
• Training and case consultation in Solution Based
  Casework to increase family engagement and
  partnership
• Increase use of FTDMS
• Increase kinship care
• Question If siblings are all in kinship
  placements, could these children be considered in
  compliance with the measure?

16
Additional Planning

• We will ask questions about this in the foster
  parent survey to determine if we can get to
  reasons.
• Does this child have a sister or brother?
• How many sisters and brothers does this child
  have?
• Of these, how many are full siblings and how many
  are half siblings?

17
Foster Parent Survey

• In the last half of 2008, were all siblings of
  this child placed in your home?
• If all the siblings, both full and half, were not
  placed in your home, how many were placed in each
  of these settings? (mother, father, relative,
  foster home, group home, some other setting)

18
Foster Parent Survey

• I am going to read a list of reasons that
  siblings may not be placed together, as I read
  each one, please tell me whether or not this is a
  reason that this childs sibling(s) (is/are) not
  placed in your home? Reasons include
• Siblings live a long distance from each other
• Siblings dont get along
• Your home cant handle all siblings
• Siblings are with relatives
• Siblings cant live together because of safety
  issues
• One sibling is over 18

19
Runaways

• Percent of youth running from placement has
  decreased from 4.0 in 2005 to 3.6 in 2008.
• Median length of run events has decreased from 43
  days in 2005 to 33 days in 2008.

20
Runaways

• Small number of youth causes volatile statistics
  which can be seen in the regional statistics.
• The state was found out of compliance on the
  median length of run events because Region 5 was
  more than 10 over the benchmark.
• If measured at the end of the calendar year, the
  state would have met this benchmark.

21
Median Length of Run Events at End of Calendar
Year
22
Analysis of 2005-06 run data showed

• 96 of FY05 placements having at least one
  recorded run event involving youth who were
  placed between 12 and 17 years old.
• 10.4 of all placements involving youth between
  the ages of 12 and 17 years included at least one
  run event.
• At that time, placements in Region 3 and 4 were
  statistically more likely to have a run event.
  Placements in Regions 2 and 5 were statistically
  less likely to have a run event. This shows the
  volatility of the measure with the small
  population.

23
Analysis of 2005-06 run data showed

• Native American (16.3) and African American
  (13.9) were more likely to run away than
  Caucasian youth (9.3)
• Children re-entering care were more likely to run
  away (15.9 compared to 6.1) and to run within
  the first week of placement (64 compared to 36)
• Children re-entering care were not more likely to
  run multiple times
• Running away was more frequent if the child was
  placed due to neglect and the percent of children
  placed for neglect is the largest (as opposed to
  physical abuse or sexual abuse)

24
Analysis of 2005-06 run data showed

• Most children who run only run once
• 25 of first runs occurred within a week of
  placement
• More than 1/3 (39) of first runs occurred within
  a month of placement
• 50 of first runs occurred within two months of
  placement

25
Educational Experiences for Foster Youth

• Findings From an Evaluation of School Stability
  and Educational Attainment for Youth in
  Out-of-Home Care During the 2006-2007 School Year

26
Method

• CAMIS placement records for children and youth
  who were at least 5 years old at the start of the
  2006-2007 school year were matched by OSPI with
  records in their Core Student Record System
  (CSRS) and with WASL records
• The CAMIS person ID, placement ID and placement
  business ID were replaced by an OSPI research ID,
  and all child identifiers were removed
• OSPI returned a record set consisting of person,
  placement episode, placement event, CSRS and WASL
  records linked by a research ID

27
Placement Population by Time in Care
Placement Population By Time in Out-of-Home
CareDuring 2006-2007 School Year
Finding The majority of school age youth in
placement during the 2006-2007 school year were
in out-of-home care for at least 6 months of the
school year. Only 11 were in care for less than
60 days during the school year.
28
Institutional Enrollment by Grade Level
Percent of Enrolled Placement Population in
Institutional Settings2006-2007 School Year
Finding Nearly 10 of all placed youth were
enrolled in non-traditional public school
settings (group home, detention or other
institutional educational school settings) during
the 2006-2007 year. 9th graders were most likely
to be enrolled in these settings.
29
Detained Youth by Grade Level
Percent of Enrolled Placement Population
Detained2006-2007 School Year
Finding 6 of all enrolled youth in placement
were in a detention or Juvenile Rehabilitation
placement setting during the 2006-2007 year. 9th
graders were most likely to be detained in County
detention or State Juvenile Rehabilitation
settings.
30
School Changes for Youth in Placement
Enrolled Placement Population by Number of
Enrolled Schools 2006-2007 School Year
Finding 62 of all youth in placement were
enrolled in only one school during the 2006-2007
year.
31
Braam School Stability Evaluation
If removed during the 0607 school year (9/1
5/30) a change in pre and post placement school
enrollment is always non-compliant if placed into
an unrelated home. If placed before the school
year a change in placement (event) that is
accompanied by a change in school enrollment is
always non-compliant if moved into an unrelated
home.
Youth could have multiple school enrollments with
only one placement and be compliant. Youth could
have multiple placements with only one school
enrollment and still be compliant
32
Braam School Stability All Foster Youth
Number of School Moves Associated with Placement
Change2006-2007 School Year
Finding 20 of the youth in placement and
enrolled in school experienced at least one
school change associated with a move to a
non-family placement
33
Braam School Stability Institutionalized Youth
Number of School Moves Associated With Placement
Change Youth Enrolled in Institutional
Settings2006-2007 School Year
Finding 63.4 of the youth in placement and
enrolled in an institutional school setting
during the 0607 school year experienced at least
one school change associated with a move to a
non-family placement
34
Braam Measure School Continuity When Removed
From Home
Comparison of Pre and Post Removal School
Enrollments2006-2007 School Year
Finding 13 to 15 of the youth placed during
the 0607 school year initially experienced a
school change associated with non-family
placement . No significant differences were found
between youth who were re-entering placement and
those who were in their first ever placement.
35
Braam School Stability for Youth By Placement
Timing
Braam School Stability Measureby Placement
Timing2006-2007 School Year
Finding Timing of placement was associated with
a significant difference in the risk of placement
related school moves, with those removed during
the school year about 16 less likely to have
school continuity than youth already in care when
the school year began.
36
Braam School Stability for Youth During the
School Year by Grade Level
School Stability Measure by Grade Level and
Placement Timing2006-2007 School Year
Finding Removal during the school year
significantly reduced the likelihood of school
continuity by at least 16, regardless of grade
level
37
Braam School Stability Youth with Institutional
Enrollment
School Stability MeasureYouth With
Institutional Enrollments Compared to Those With
None2006-2007 School Year
Finding Youth with at least one institutional
enrollment were about 60 less likely to have
school stability than youth without any
institutional enrollments during the 0607 school
year
38
Braam School Stability Youth with Special
Education Services
School Stability MeasureYouth With Special
Education Services Compared to Those With
None2006-2007 School Year
Finding Youth who received special education
services during the 0607 school year were 8 to
17 less likely to have school continuity than
youth with no special education services
39
(No Transcript)
40
Compliance is only based on those children seen
by their assigned primary social worker during
the month.
41
Strategies to Increase Monthly Visits

• Strategies include reducing workload for
  social workers
• Increase options for transportation
• Increase contracts to provide parent-child visits
• Reduce waiting time in court

42
Note The workers included in this measure vary
month-to-month.
43
Caseload Plan

• Beginning in October 2008, regional offices
  were given permission to hire temporary staff to
  work on four specific strategies to increase
  permanency for children. Regions had hired 38
  temporary staff by November. Those staff
  remained in place for several months but were
  then reduced as part of budget adjustments.

44
Caseload Plan

• Strategy 2 Increase the pace which cases are
  dismissed and closed as a result of completing
  parenting plans. Temporary staff worked on 30
  cases that were identified as needing a completed
  parenting plan. In the compliance plan, CA
  identified 251 cases needing parenting plans for
  the case to be closed. There is legislation
  pending that will address this issue.

45
Caseload Plan

• Strategy 3 Increase the number of dismissed
  child dependency cases through facilitation of
  RCW 26.10 custody arrangements. Temporary staff
  worked on 98 cases involving custody arrangements
  with third parties. CA identified 261 cases that
  might be closed through RCW 26.10 custody
  arrangements.

46
Caseload Plan

• Strategy 4 Increase resources for processing
  termination petitions. Temporary staff worked on
  128 cases that had come to the point that filing
  a termination of parental rights petition was
  identified as the next appropriate step. CA
  identified 402 cases that potentially were to the
  point that a termination of parental rights
  petition was considered necessary.

47
Caseload Plan

• Strategy 5 Increase the availability of Family
  Team Decision Making (FTDM) meetings. FTDM
  facilitators have been added in each CA office.
  Newly hired facilitators were trained. During
  the initial hiring freeze that went into effect
  in September 2008 FTDM facilitators could not be
  replaced as turnover occurred. Once the initial
  hiring freeze was lifted, vacant FTDM facilitator
  positions could be filled. These positions have
  now been added to the list of positions that are
  exempt from the hiring freeze put into place by
  legislation in February 2009.

48
Finalized Adoptions