1

Quality Counts:Helping Improve

Outcomes for Pennsylvania’sChildren & 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, 2008.

– Large stakeholder group

– Process included: Data, policy, practice, programming, quality assurance results, focus groups.

5

Onsite Review

Conducted July 28 – August 1, 2008 3 sites – Philadelphia, Allegheny,

Northumberland 64 cases

39 foster children25 intact families

State and local level stakeholder interviews

6

Youth SummitMarch 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 countySystem varies from county to county

State information is point-in-timeState information is point-in-time

Information flow from county to countyInformation flow from county to county

GPS historyGPS 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