FIRST PLACEMENT IS THE RIGHT PLACEMENT Recommendations for Discussion July 24, 2002 Governor’s Action Group for Safe Children

Initial charge to group: Inventory existing assessment instruments and methodologies Recommend a comprehensive assessment methodology Apply assessment results to future placement decisions 12/8/2018 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT GUIDING PRINCIPLES Issues of confidentiality should not impede helping children. Placement decisions should be child-focused and family-centered. Assessment instruments should be developmentally appropriate and culturally sensitive. 12/8/2018 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT

PATHWAY TO RECOMMENDATIONS Review of research literature Issue Paper on Assessment Methodologies Phone consultation with national experts Phone consultation with other states Presentations and review of current process by DFCS, DJJ, and GAHSC Survey of Frontline Workers 12/8/2018 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT Safety and need for out-of-home placement Risk assessment: self, family, community Screening for need for futher assessment Level of care for residential placement 12/8/2018 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT

METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS Theoretical basis Validity Reliability Empirical support 12/8/2018 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT ASSESSMENT EXAMPLES Children’s services State-centralized phone center (Kansas) Juvenile justice Community assessment centers (pilots in Florida, Colorado) Case classification and service needs system (Multnomah County/Portland) Collaborative child welfare and juvenile justice Regional assessment units (Tennessee) Children’s placement teams (Connecticut) 12/8/2018 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT

IMPLICATIONS FOR A COMMON ASSESSMENT Who completes assessment? No state has a single point of entry Federal requirements for child welfare and juvenile justice can differ Child welfare services typically include younger children For child welfare system, Federal system counts the first removal/ placement as 1 out of 2 allowed placements 12/8/2018 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT

SURVEY OF CURRENT GEORGIA SYSTEM WORKERS 234 DJJ, DFCS, GAHSC, MH frontline workers and managers Most important information needed: Behavior/mental health needs (26%) Child history/issues (25%) Lacking on current assessments: In-depth child info (particularly mental health) (37%) Placement resources (23%) 12/8/2018 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT SURVEY CONCLUSIONS FPBP and other assessments provide good recommendations but arrive too late to assist in placement decisions. Respondents stress the need for assessment to have more in-depth knowledge about the child, specifically behavioral and mental health needs. 12/8/2018 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT SURVEY CONCLUSIONS Respondents need to know type of available placement resources, admission criteria, and space availability. Overall, more placement resources are needed, especially for children who are sexually acting out, setting fires, and exhibiting other aggressive behaviors. 12/8/2018 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT

COMMON INITIAL ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS Require all state agencies that come into contact with a family or child for out-of-home placement to use and make available to authorized users common components including assessment information, demographics, and family history. Existing data sources will be reviewed prior to authorizing expenditures on collection of new information. 12/8/2018 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT

COMMON INITIAL ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS All common component information should be: Automated Web-based, and Populate appropriate agency-specific assessment records. 12/8/2018 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT

COMMON INITIAL ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS Common data components would include safety, risk factors, resources (strengths) and family dynamics. There will be standard time frames for collection of common components, e.g. immediately, 24 hrs, within one week; within one month. After collection of common components, individual agencies may have a ‘menu’ of assessment instruments to use in specialized situations. 12/8/2018 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT

CROSS-AGENCY COLLABORATION Require agencies (DJJ, DFCS, DOE, Mental Health, Community Health) that deliver services to children to accept one another’s assessment findings once the assessment measures have been found to be culturally sensitive, developmentally appropriate, and methodologically sound. 12/8/2018 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT

CROSS-AGENCY COLLABORATION Provide cross-training to DJJ, DOE, DFCS, Juvenile Court Judges, Community Health, private and non-profit service providers, SAAG’s and MH/DD/AD staff on the benefits and limitations of assessment process, interpretation of information, and knowledge of available resources to serve children and families. 12/8/2018 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT

FIRST STAFF IS THE RIGHT STAFF Involve a sufficient number of experienced staff (24/7 “real time”) as early as possible in the assessment process. 12/8/2018 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT

FIRST STAFF IS THE RIGHT STAFF Community intervention managers will provide coordinated case management cutting across agencies/providers. The manager can be from any agency but will take the lead in coordinating services with other agencies. The system of coordinated case management needs to have a consistent framework, including appropriate ‘release’ points. 12/8/2018 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT

FIRST STAFF IS THE RIGHT STAFF The knowledge and skill set of the intervention managers should be defined and consistent across agencies. Trained and experienced staff should be involved in making critical intake decisions. In order to attract the most qualified staff, an incentive system should be set up including smaller caseloads (15-17 DFCS, 15 DJJ) and job rotation. 12/8/2018 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT

PREVENTING OUT-OF-HOME PLACEMENTS Provide comprehensive assessments (including family conferencing) at initial contact with agencies (i.e. CPS) to prevent out-of-home placements. Track the number of prevented placements and redirect any saved revenue to services to children at risk of out-of-home placements. 12/8/2018 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT

PREVENTING OUT-OF-HOME PLACEMENTS Evaluate current work in Community Partnerships for Protecting Children counties Share outcomes and implications for implementation in other communities. 12/8/2018 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT