1. Public Children Services Association of Ohio SAFE CHILDREN, STABLE FAMILIES, SUPPORTIVE COMMUNITIES

2. Mission PCSAO is a membership-driven association of Ohio’s county Public Children Services Agencies that advocates for and promotes child welfare program excellence and sound public policy for safe children, stable families, and supportive communities. 2

3. CONTEXT OF OHIO’S CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM SAFE CHILDREN, STABLE FAMILIES, SUPPORTIVE COMMUNITIES

4. Many Layers of Child Protection 4 Differential Response – In Home Services – Out of Home Services – After Care Services SAFETY WELL-BEING PERMANENCY -Intake -Investigations -Safety Assessment -Family Assessment -Case Plan - Behavioral & Physical Health - Developmental Disabilities -Education -Delinquency/Unruly -Transitional Age Youth -Reunification -Kinship Care -Adoption

5. Who We Serve 5

6. Ohio’s Child Protection Structure 6 61 Combined 22 Separated 2 Hybrid

7. Child Protection Funding 7

8. Breakdown of Ohio’s Child Protection Funding 8  2013 Total Expenditures: $1,006,793,629  State contributes 9% to the total cost 4.7% goes to PCSAs for child welfare expenditures 5.3% for Adoption Subsidies, SACWIS, trainings, other  Federal funding contributes 39% (e.g., Title IV-E, IV-B, TANF, Title XX)  Local funding contributes 52%

9. 46 Levy Counties 9

10. Loss of State Funding 10 Fiscal Year20092014Loss State Child Protection Allocation $57,723,143$43,905,320- $13,817,823 TPP for Children Services Levies $52,139,746$12,374,183- $39,765,563 TOTAL $109,862,889$56,279,503 - $53,583,386

11. Loss of Funding but Increased Caseloads 11  48.7% reduction in state funding (SCPA & TPPT) from 2009 – 2013  BUT Child Protection Custody Cases have INCREASED by 8% and are more difficult (opiates, human trafficking, high multi-system needs like mental health and DD) 1/1/10: 11,721 children in custody 1/1/14: 12,679 children in custody

12. PCSAO Priorities for 2015-2016 SAFE CHILDREN, STABLE FAMILIES, SUPPORTIVE COMMUNITIES

13. Priority Initiatives 1.Multi-System Youth:  Establish a Joint Legislative Committee on Multi-System Youth.  Study the impact of “Multi-System Youth” on child protection, juvenile justice, mental health & developmental disabilities  Identify best practices & services for these youth  Recommend a more sustainable, equitable funding stream to serve these youth 13

14. Who Are Multi-System Youth? 14 Child Protection Juvenile Justice Mental Health Developmental Disabilities

15. Impact on Child Protection 15 While allegations of abuse and neglect account for 82% of screened-in reports, 6 in 10 children in agency custody are there for reasons other than abuse and neglect.

16. Residential & Group Homes 16 Nearly half (49%) have a primary removal reason other than child abuse and neglect: Delinquency:24% Child Behavioral Problem:19% Unruly Status Offender: 6% Note: ODJFS SACWIS data pulled on 9/11/2014; 2,111 children in CRC or Group home on that day

17. Emancipating Youth 62% of youth leaving child protection at age 18 were primarily removed from their parents because of: Dependency:30% Child Behavior Problem:16% Delinquency:16% Note: ODFJS data for Children 18-22 leaving children services custody, calendar years 2010-2014 17

18. Challenges 18 Fragmented, Uncoordinated Care High Cost, Institutional Care Poor Life Outcomes

19. Priority Initiatives 2.Opiate & Other Drugs Epidemic:  Address the impact of the Opiate & Other Drugs Epidemic on Child Protection  Child’s time in care is longer & impacts permanency  Need to address the trauma children experience  Identify other options of treatment & care (such as MAT, FDTC) to keep families together 19

20. Findings 20

21. Findings 21

22. Findings 22

23. Human & Fiscal Cost Findings Placement -$45M/year to Ohio child protection system (assuming children are in foster & kinship care vs. congregate care) Missed Birthdays – 60% of foster children under five, spend at least one birthday in temporary care! Trauma – multiple adverse childhood experiences, likely social/emotional/cognitive issues; possible high risk behaviors and later serious health issues. 23

24. Priority Initiatives:  Increase the Child Protection Workforce  Retention is Challenging - turnover of Caseworkers due to secondary trauma, more challenging cases, more regulations & requirements, personal safety issues  Recruitment is Challenging – low paying, stressful, traumatic situations, personal safety concerns with being the 1 st Responder to family crisis 24

25. Caseload Perceptions 25 Ave. 160 hours available/month - 48 hours non-casework time - 5 hours court time - 20 hours travel time - 40 hours SACWIS time - 20 hours other paperwork time = 27 hours/month direct casework * * Meeting with families, connecting to services

26. PCSAO Caseload Study Findings 26 In any given month, caseworkers spend 75% of their time on 35% of their caseload...... And only 25% of their time on 65% of their caseload.

27. Legislative Briefing: A Day in the Life of a Child Protective Services Caseworker September 30, 2015 12:00 – 1:00 p.m. Riffe Studio Lobby SAFE CHILDREN, STABLE FAMILIES, SUPPORTIVE COMMUNITIES

28. Contact Us Public Children Services of Ohio 37 West Broad Street Suite 1100 Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 224-5802 pcsao.org Facebook.com/pcsao SAFE CHILDREN, STABLE FAMILIES, SUPPORTIVE COMMUNITIES