The Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) February 2008 Update

CFSR: What is the process? Statewide Assessment On-Site Review – Philadelphia, Northumberland and Allegheny County Final Report Program Improvement Plan

CFSR Round 2 Timeline Currently Statewide assessment draft submitted May 2008 Final statewide assessment due July 28 – August 1, 2008 On-site Review Sept or Oct 2008 Pennsylvania receives final report from federal government Within 90 days of notice of nonconformity Program Improvement Plan due November 2010 Program Improvement Plan implementation period ends

The PIP must include: Measurable goals of improvement, action steps, and a timeframe for addressing each outcome and systemic factor that has been found to be out of substantial conformity Specific percentage of improvement (goal) that will be achieved through the PIP for each statewide data indicator that does not meet the national standards Benchmarks of progress toward achieving the broader goals of the plan Individual(s) responsible for undertaking each action step

The PIP must include: Geographic areas of the State in which the action steps will be undertaken The State’s plan for accessing TA resources to support program improvements A description of how PIP progress will be evaluated by the State and reported to the Federal government The State must incorporate elements of the PIP into the goals and objectives of the CFSP and address progress implementing the PIP in the Annual Progress and Services Report (APSR)

CFSR Data Profile Pennsylvania’s Performance

Overview of the Data Profile Produced and used by ACF for the CFSR Similar information is provided to CCYA in six-month county data packages Determines whether PA meets national standards on data items in the CFSR Consists of:  Safety Data (NCANDS)  Permanency Data (AFCARS)

Safety Data Descriptive Information  Total Reports (Disposed)  Dispositions  Children Served and Children Placed  Fatalities Evaluative Information  Two Safety Indicators  Time to Investigation

Safety Indicators Recurrence of Maltreatment  National standard: 94.6%  Pennsylvania score: 97.0% Maltreatment of Children in Foster Care  National standard: 99.68%  Pennsylvania score: 99.76%

Permanency Data Descriptive Information  Population Flow  Placement Types and Settings  Permanency Goals  Removal Episodes  Lengths of Time Evaluative Information  Four Permanency Composites

About Permanency Indicators National Standards apply to composites only Composite scores range from 50 to 150; higher is better On measures, compare PA score to national medians and 75 th percentiles Measures are generally stated positively On most permanency measures, only children in care 8 days or more are counted Trial home visits are counted differently for reunification measures

Permanency Composite 1 Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification Consists of four measures National standard:122.6 National median: Pennsylvania score: 85.2

Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification Measures Exits to reunification: Of those reunified, percent within 12 months (retrospective) PA: 69.3% Median: 69.9% 75 th : 75.2% Median length of stay: Of those reunified, median months in care PA: 6.9 Median: th : 5.4

Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification Measures (con’d) Entry cohort exits to reunification: Of those entering care for first time, percent reunified within 12 months (prospective) PA: 44.5% Median: 39.4% 75 th : 48.4% Prospective re-entry: Of those exiting care, percent returning within 12 months PA: 28.5% Median: 15.0% 75 th : 9.9%

Permanency Composite 2 Timeliness of Adoption Consists of five measures National standard: National median: 95.3 Pennsylvania score: 106.1

Timeliness of Adoption Measures Exits to adoption: Of those adopted, percent within 24 months PA: 26.4% Median: 26.8% 75 th: 36.6% Median length of stay: Of those adopted, median months in care PA: 31.6 Median: th: months - adopted: Of those in care 17+ months, percent adopted by end of year PA: 20.3% Median: 20.2% 75 th: 22.7%

Timeliness of Adoption Measures (con’d) 17+ months - legally free: Of those in care 17+ months and not free, percent free within 6 months PA: 10.2% Median: 8.8% 75 th: 10.9% Legally free - adopted: Of those legally freed during previous year, percent adopted within 12 months PA: 61.6% Median: 45.8%75 th: 53.7%

Permanency Composite 3 Permanency for children and youth in foster care for long periods of time Consists of three measures National standard: National median: Pennsylvania score: 135.5

Long Term Cases Measures Exits prior to age 18 th : Of those in care 24+ months, percent discharged to permanent home by end of year PA: 30.1% Median: 25.0% 75 th: 29.1% Exits for children with TPR: Of those discharged and legally free, percent discharged to permanency PA: 98.1% Median: 96.8% 75 th: 98.0% Children aging out: Of those discharged to emancipation, percent in care more than 3 years PA: 31.6% Median: 47.8% 75 th : 37.5%

Permanency Composite 4 Placement Stability Consists of three measures National standard: National median: 93.3 Pennsylvania score: 102.4

Placement Stability Measures Two or fewer settings – less than 12 months: Of those in care less than 12 months, percent with two or fewer placements PA: 86.4% Median: 83.3% 75 th: 86.0% Two or fewer settings – months: Of those in care 12 – 24 months, percent with two or fewer placements PA: 66.6% Median: 59.9% 75 th: 65.4% Two or fewer settings – 24 or more months: Of those in care 24+ months, percent with two or fewer placements PA: 42.7% Median: 33.9% 75 th: 41.8%

Composite Summary Reunification and re-entries are below national standard and show little change from last CFSR; re-entry is highest in the nation Timeliness to adoption is improving; just below national standard  Once children are freed, PA has a good record on finalization  Few children in care 17+ months move onto the adoption track Permanency for children in care for long periods should not have to be addressed in the PIP  Children in care 24+ months are more likely than in other states to be discharged to a permanent home  Children aging out are less likely to have been in care over three years Placement stability just meets the national standard

Questions for Providers What is the performance of the counties we provide services to? How does our agency impact those counties’ performance? Are there policies/practices of the provider agency or characteristics of the families/children that contribute to this result? How can we partner with the county to evaluate the outcomes of the children our agency serves? How can our agency improve or sustain our performance?