1. A New Narrative for Child Welfare February 16, 2011 Bryan Samuels, Commissioner Administration on Children, Youth & Families

2. Child Welfare Population, 1998-2009 Data Source: Adoption and Foster Care Reporting and Analysis System, Reports 10-17 (1998-2009). Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families (USDHHS, ACF) 25%

3. More children are moving out of child welfare; fewer children are being brought into the system Data Source: Adoption and Foster Care Reporting and Analysis System, Reports 10-17 (1998-2009). Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families (USDHHS, ACF)

4. Children Adopted from Child Welfare, 1998-2009 Data Source: Adoption and Foster Care Reporting and Analysis System, Reports 10-17 (1998-2009). Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families (USDHHS, ACF)

5. Changes in the racial makeup of the child welfare population over time

6. Decrease 16% to 47% Change less than 15% Increase 16% to 65% Data Source: Adoption and Foster Care Reporting and Analysis System, Reports 10-17 (1998-2009). Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families (USDHHS, ACF) Reductions in child welfare caseloads are not evenly distributed across states

7. Entries into Child Welfare by Age, 1998 & 2009 Data Source: Adoption and Foster Care Reporting and Analysis System, Reports 10-17 (1998-2009). Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families (USDHHS, ACF)

8. Reasons for discharge among all children exiting child welfare, 2002 & 2009 5% 3% 11% 20% 66% 7% 18% 70% Includes children transferred to another agency, children who have run away, and deaths Includes children who exit the child welfare system to independence without a permanent connection to an adult Includes children whose parents’ parental rights have been terminated and are legally adopted Includes children who return home to their families after removal, live with relatives other than their families of origin after removal, or live with a legal guardian Data Source: Adoption and Foster Care Reporting and Analysis System, Reports 10-17 (2002-2009). Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families (USDHHS, ACF)

9. 8% 14% 9% 69% 5% 23% 9% 63% Reasons for discharge among youth over age 10 exiting child welfare, 2002 & 2009 Includes children transferred to another agency, children who have run away, and deaths Includes children who exit the child welfare system to independence without a permanent connection to an adult Includes children whose parents’ parental rights have been terminated and are legally adopted Includes children who return home to their families after removal, live with relatives other than their families of origin after removal, or live with a legal guardian Data Source: Adoption and Foster Care Reporting and Analysis System, Reports 10-17 (2002-2009). Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families (USDHHS, ACF)

10. 61.9% screened in (3.6 million) 23.9% substantiated (763,000) 76.2% not substantiated (2.9 million) 59.9% open for services (457,000) 40.1% not open for services (306,000) 34.8% placed out-of-home (159,000) 65.2% in-home (298,000) 38.1% screened out (2.4 million) Cases of children reported to CPS (6 million) Source: Child Maltreatment 2009, US Department of Health and Human Services, National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, 2010 FY 2009 25.8% open for services (741,000) 74.2% not open for services (2.1 million) 13.9% placed out-of-home (103,000) 86.1% in-home (638,000)

11. How can we maintain the gains that have been made and continue to progress? How can we target the next 25%?

12. Make Better Use of Data and Research Use data to know sub-populations and target interventions Draw on the best science available in selecting and implementing interventions Incorporate evaluation and research into service delivery

13. Physical, Sexual, or Emotional Abuse Neglect or Abandonment Poor or damaging adult-child relationship Lack of Supervision or Proper Care Other Threats American Humane Institute of Applied Research Minnesota Consultants (2009). Ohio Alternative Response Pilot Project Evaluation Final Report, Fig 11.2 (adapted). http://www.americanhumane.org/assets/docs/protecting-children/PC-DR-Ohio-Section2-Final-Evaluation-Report.pdf TYPES OF CHILD SAFETY PROBLEMS IN OHIO’S EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL FAMILIES BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF FIRST CONTACT WITH FAMILIES Strategy: Differential Response

14. Target Social and Emotional Needs of Children Enhance clinical competencies of caseworkers Use interventions that improve social and emotional health for children in child welfare, e.g.: –Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care –Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Support foster parents in understanding and responding to social and emotional needs of children in their care

15. Permanency Innovations Initiative

16. ACYF Initiative to Reduce Long- Term Foster Care $100 Million over 5 years –$77 Million to grantees –$23 Million for TA and Evaluation To develop innovative intervention strategies for children staying in foster care long-term Targeting specific populations, focusing on permanence (exits) AND prevention (entries) 6 grantees

17. Grantees Illinois Department of Children and Family Services –Population: Youth 9-12 –Approach: Strengths-based, trauma-focused assessment and evidence-based intervention to expedite permanence for those in care more than 2 years AND prevent long stays for new entries University of Kansas Center for Research, Inc –Population: Youth with severe emotional disorders –Approach: Evidence-based, intensive family reunification services immediately following removal from the home, and piloting of a new tool for risk assessment California Department of Social Services –Population: African American and Native American Youth –Approach: Locally-relevant implementation of EBPs as part of permanency practice model, nested in model for systemic change to achieve outcomes in permanence, well-being, and reduced disparity Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Community Services Center –Population: LGBTQ youth –Approach: Addressing barriers to permanence and well-being for LGBTQ children and youth in or at-risk of placement in foster care, juvenile justice involvement, or homelessness by working with youth, parents, and families Arizona Department of Economic Security –Population: Youth in out-of-home care for 3+ years, with a special focus on African American and Native American youth –Approach: Delivery of at least one of 3 EBPs as part of systems of care to prepare youth for permanency and recruit, engage, and prepare prospective parents Washoe County Department of Social Services (Nevada) –Population: New families with in-home and out-of-home safety plans at the point of entry –Approach: Implementation of the Safety Intervention Permanency System (SIPS) using comprehensive assessment and intervention and community-based services

18. Custom Report Builder allows you to find and compare State child welfare data http://data.cwo.icfi.com/data/ New Child Welfare Data Tool