1 Quality Counts: Helping Improve Outcomes for Pennsylvania’s Children & Families September 22, 2008

2 Overview of the 2008 CFSR Statewide Assessment Findings Youth Summit Recommendations Onsite Review Findings Program Improvement Plan

3 CFSR Changes in Second Round Data standards are more sophisticated – 6 measures 17 measures Review instrument is also more sophisticated--automated Case review compliance raised from 90% to 95% for conformity Number of case reviews increased from 39 to 65 Stratified foster care cases

4 Statewide Self Assessment – The Statewide Assessment was conducted beginning in April 2007 and was submitted to ACF on May 27, – Large stakeholder group – Process included: Data, policy, practice, programming, quality assurance results, focus groups.

5 Onsite Review Conducted July 28 – August 1, sites – Philadelphia, Allegheny, Northumberland 64 cases 39 foster children 25 intact families State and local level stakeholder interviews

6 Youth Summit March 25-26, 2008 Over 150 youth and stakeholders Day 1: Detailed recommendations based on safety, permanency, and well-being Day 2: recommendations from roundtable discussion groups on each of the systemic factors

7 Pennsylvania Findings Results presented by: 7 federal outcomes 7 systemic factors

8 Safety Outcome 1: Children are first and foremost protected from abuse and neglect 60% of applicable cases in substantial compliance – Item 1: Timeliness of investigations – Item 2: Repeat Maltreatment Performance on National data standards for: – absence of maltreatment recurrence – absence of maltreatment of children in foster care by foster parents or facility staff.

9 Safety Outcome 2: Children are safely maintained in their homes when possible and appropriate 68% of applicable cases in substantial compliance – Item 3: Services to prevent removal – Item 4: Risk of harm

10 Safety Strengths Timely response to reports of abuse and neglect and timely face-to-face contacts Expedited response for younger children at 2 sites Strong array of services to meet families’ needs and prevent placement and facilitate reunification Risk and safety assessments done regularly Repeat maltreatment

11 Safety Concerns Transition from GPS to CPS Number of out-of-home abuse reports and lack of communication between county and region Risk and safety assessments often focus on presenting problem and not underlying issues, resulting in multiple reports In JJ cases, single focus on the identified youth and not the entire family

12 Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations The State does not meet the national standard for: – Composite 1: Timeliness and permanency of reunifications – Composite 2: Timeliness of adoptions The State meets the national standard for: – Composite 3: Permanency for children in foster care for extended time periods – Composite 4: Placement stability

13 Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations 31% of cases in substantial conformity – Item 5: Foster care re-entry – Item 6: Stability of foster care placement – Item 7: Permanency goal for child – Item 8: Reunification, guardianship & placement with relatives – Item 9: Adoption – Item 10: Other planned permanent arrangement

14 Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children. 49% of cases in substantial conformity – Item 11: Proximity of placement – Item 12: Placement with siblings – Item 13: Visiting with parents and siblings in foster care – Item 14: Preserving connections – Item 15: Relative placement – Item 16: Relationship of child in care with parents

15 Permanency Strengths Services and casework to reunify children and prevent re-entry Placement stability Permanency goals established timely Siblings placed together or in close proximity Relative placements Independent living

16 Permanency Concerns Permanency is the biggest challenge for PA Lack of engaging non-custodial parents, typically fathers Visitation between siblings positive at first but dropped off or stopped when TPR/adoption pursued Permanence of reunification

17 Permanency Concerns (cont) Lack of timely achievement of adoption (adoption lowest rated item in entire review) – Concurrent planning is not occurring – Long reunification attempts – Various reasons for not filing TPR

18 Well Being Outcome 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs 35% of cases in substantial conformity – Item 17: Needs/services of child, parents and foster parents – Item 18: Child/family involvement in case planning – Item 19: Worker visits with child – Item 20: Worker visits with parent

19 Well-Being Outcome 2: Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs 80% of cases in substantial conformity – Item 21: Educational needs of child

20 Well-Being Outcome 3: Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs 68% of cases in substantial conformity – Item 22: Physical health of child – Item 23: Mental health of child

21 Well-Being Strengths Initial, comprehensive assessments Frequency of worker contacts Education Examples of good work to meet physical and mental health needs of children

22 Well-Being Concerns Family engagement Engaging non-custodial parents Quality of worker contacts Identifying underlying issues Dental Care 22

23 Outcomes Summary Safety 1 – 60% Safety 2 – 68% Permanency 1 – 31% Permanency 2 – 49% Well-being 1 – 35% Well-being 2 – 80% Well-being 3 – 68%

24 Systemic Factors – Areas of Strength Quality Assurance System Staff and Provider Training Service Array Agency Responsiveness to the Community Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention

25 Systemic Factors Needing Improvement – Statewide Information System  System varies from county to county  State information is point-in-time  Information flow from county to county  GPS history

26 Systemic Factors Needing Improvement – Case Review System Family engagement in case planning Quality of Hearing Filing for Termination of Parental Rights or Compelling Reasons Notice and opportunity to be heard is inconsistent

27 Youth Recommendations Stacy Johnson Sam Waite Shaheed Days

28 Building on Round 1 PIP Defined Standards Enhanced Training Provided Assistance and Support Enhanced Monitoring

29 Pennsylvania’s Program Improvement Plan Ongoing State initiatives Building on the last PIP Using a logic model to identify themes and strategies Discussion and response