i
Minnesota Department of Human Services
Child and Family Service Review
Hennepin County
Self Assessment Update
2010
February 2010
Minnesota Child and Family Service Review
Instructions for Conducting the
ii
County Self Assessment Update
Purpose of the County Self Assessment Update
The county self assessment is the first phase of the Minnesota Child and Family Service Review
(MnCFSR). The self assessment process provides the county an opportunity to evaluate strengths
and areas needing improvement across eight systemic factors. These systemic factors provide a
framework for the delivery of child welfare services and achievement of safety, permanency and
well-being outcomes. The county also examines child welfare data to assess the effectiveness of
the child welfare system and evaluates performance on seventeen federal data indicators.
During the first round of MnCFSRs, the self assessment process allowed counties to identify
systemic strengths and areas needing improvement, and provided a method to examine data
related to safety, permanency and well-being performance. Issues raised in the self assessment
were further evaluated through the on-site case reviews or community stakeholder interviews. In
addition, information from the county self assessment was shared with other program areas at
DHS to inform plans for statewide training, technical assistance, practice guidance and policy
development.
In preparation for subsequent reviews, counties will review their most recent Self Assessment
and, update their evaluation of core child welfare systems. Counties are also asked to review
child welfare data and comment on factors or strategies that impacted the agency’s performance.
Process for Conducting the County Self Assessment Update
Department of Human Services (DHS) Quality Assurance regional consultants provide the
county Self Assessment Update document at the first coordination meeting held with the county,
and offer ongoing technical assistance as the county completes the document. The Self
Assessment Update document includes county specific data on national standard performance
along with safety and permanency data. The county Self Assessment Update is completed and
submitted to the Quality Assurance regional consultant approximately two weeks prior to the
onsite review. Completed Self Assessment Updates are classified as public information and are
posted on the child welfare supervisor’s website.
Counties are strongly encouraged to convene a team of representatives of county agency staff
and community stakeholders to complete the Self Assessment Update. Children’s Justice
Initiative Teams, Child Protection Teams or Citizen Review Panels are examples of community
stakeholders who play a role in the county child welfare delivery system. These community
stakeholders bring a broad and meaningful perspective to the evaluation of systemic factors and
performance related to safety, permanency and well-being. Staff members and community
stakeholders who participate in the county Self Assessment Update process also provide a
valuable resource to the development of the county’s Program Improvement Plan.
The agency may also consider options such as focus groups with community stakeholders or
consumer groups, or consumer surveys as ways to gather information for the Self Assessment
iii
Update. Connecting the Self Assessment Update process to other county needs assessment or
planning requirements, such as CCSA, maximizes the use of time and resources to conduct the
Self Assessment Update.
1
PART I: GENERAL INFORMATION
DHS Quality Assurance staff will identify the period under review. The county is requested to
designate a person who will be primarily responsible for completing the self assessment and
provide contact information below.
Name of County Agency
Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Dept.
Period Under Review
For Onsite Review Case Selection Sample: ____
Period for Part IV Data Tables: _2009_
Period Under Review (PUR) for Onsite Case Review: ____
County Agency Contact Person for the County Self Assessment
Name: Deborah Huskins
Title: Area Director, Hennepin County Human Service and Public Health Department
Address: 300 S. 6th
St, Minneapolis, MN 55487
Phone: ( 612 ) 348-0180 Fax: ( )
E-Mail: [email protected]
Key Dates
Month/year of initial MnCFSR: ____
Month/year of on-site review: October 2010
PART II: SYSTEMIC FACTORS
The framework for completing the Self Assessment Update is divided into four sections: updates of systemic factors, review of program
improvement plan activities, detailed responses to questions targeting specific practices, and updated ratings of overall systemic factors. Use
the following guidance when responding to each of the eight Systemic Factors.
Section 1: Updates. Review information the county provided in the most recent self assessment and describe changes in that Systemic
Factor, including strengths, promising practices, and ongoing challenges. It is unnecessary to restate information provided in
the previous self assessment. If the last self assessment continues to accurately reflect a description of a particular Systemic
Factor, note that no significant changes have occurred since the last review.
Section 2: Target Questions. Some systemic factors include a set of targeted questions designed to focus agency attention on specific
practice areas or activities. Target questions represent areas identified as needing improvement in Minnesota’s 2007 federal
CFSR. Provide information regarding agency practice, promising approaches or identified barriers in these specific areas.
Section 3: Ratings. Quality Assurance regional consultants will provide the agency rating for the overall systemic factor from the initial
self assessment. Determine an updated rating for each Systemic Factor according to the following scale:
Area Needing Improvement Strength
1 2 3 4
None of the practices or
requirements are in place.
Some, but not all, of the
practices or requirements
are in place and some
function at a lower than
adequate level.
Most, but not all, of the
practices or requirements
are in place and most
function at an adequate or
higher level.
All of the practices or
requirements are in place
and all are functioning at an
adequate or higher level.
3
A. Information System (SSIS)
A1. Review information included in the agency’s last self assessment. Summarize changes in the agency’s information system.
System Changes
SSIS Conformance reports are reviewed at monthly meetings with the HSPHD Executive Committee. The following report is provided
as an example of this work.
HSPHD Executive Committee Update from August 23, 2010
SSIS Coordination, Mentoring, and Support Status Report
Prepared by Ms. Berg
Key Activities and Issues
• Adoption and Foster Care Analysis & Reporting System (AFCARS) Compliance Report – Hennepin County’s SSIS AFCARS
data submission for the reporting period that ended in March 2010 complied with the ―acceptable‖ Federal data error rate threshold of
10%. However, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is asking the State to achieve a ―target‖ error rate of only 2%. All
Hennepin County AFCARS adoption and foster care data had an error rate less than 2% except for data on court activity (3.06%), Social
Security benefit information (3.48%), placement discharge (7.65%), and 46% of the most recent monthly foster care payments were not
in SSIS by the end of the reporting period.
• Expanded Use of SSIS – To look at the extent to which SSIS Fiscal functionality could be used for payments and claiming for
child and adult services, 15 counties were asked to provide feedback regarding their use of SSIS Fiscal. The Minnesota Department of
Human Services’ (DHS) SSIS Fiscal Project Manager was also contacted for information on statewide use of SSIS Fiscal.
Of the 87 counties in Minnesota, Hennepin is the only county that does not use SSIS for the majority of their adult services (adult
protection, adult mental health, adult disability, etc.). Moreover, Hennepin and Dakota are the only two counties that do not use SSIS for
the majority of their payments and claiming (CW-TCM, MH-TCM, RSC –TCM, VA/DD – TCM, LTCC, Rule 5, Waiver and AC). All
counties use SSIS for IV-E claiming.
Of the 16 counties contacted, the following provided information on their use of SSIS Fiscal: Aitkin County, Anoka County, Blue Earth
County, Carver County, Dakota County, Faribault/Martin Counties, Kandiyohi County, Pope County, Roseau County, St. Louis County,
4
Stearns County, Ramsey County and Washington County. Olmsted County and Scott County have not yet responded to the request for
information.
Of the 13 counties that responded and use SSIS for the majority of payments and claiming, all reported satisfaction with SSIS fiscal
functionality and highly recommended its use except for MCO billing.
• SSIS Notice of Determination (NOD) Letters – DHS SSIS is recommending that HSPHD Child Protection Investigators use the
Notice of Determination (NOD) letters in SSIS by October 1, 2010 with the release of SSIS version 5.4. DHS SSIS also encourages
HSPHD to use one of their county attorneys to train investigators how to complete the NOD summary of the reasons for the
determination of abuse/neglect.
• Hennepin Use of SSIS for TCM Claiming – On August 26, 2010 DHS SSIS Fiscal representatives will meet again with HSPHD
SSIS and Accounts Receivable staff to provide further training and assistance on using SSIS to claim CW-TCM.
• DHS SSIS Partnership Meeting on July 21, 2010 – Region 3 Directors have submitted a MACSSA legislative position requesting
unified billing for MH‐ TCM for all health plans through SSIS to simply county MCO billing.
DHS announced that SSIS must cut 12% of its budget ‐ ‐ approximately $1 million. Counties will be impacted by DHS SSIS’s reduced
ability to support county operations, integrate with COMPASS, and replace servers.
DHS SSIS is also proposing a money‐ saving Enterprise Architecture investment to centralize the SSIS database which goes beyond the
recent pilot of consolidating county servers in a virtual environment at DHS.
• Preparation for October 2010 Release of SSIS Version 5.4 – The SSIS Mentors are piloting the new version and preparing new
release materials that will be presented to Child Protection Screening & Investigations workers and staff who work with
Chafee/SELF/Transition Youth during their unit meetings.
Version 5.4 includes the following new functions:
o Minnesota Youth in Transition Database (MNYTD) replaces the Chafee/SELF screen and includes the ability to enter survey
information for 17-year-olds in out-of-home care and contact information for surveys of 19- and 21-year-olds to be completed by DHS
contracted agencies.
o Changes to the Continuous Placement screen and IV-E Submission screen to accommodate foster care extension for youth ages
18–21.
o Statewide Case Access changes allow immediate access for reasons of Child Protection, Non CP Emergency and Adult
5
Protection.
o DD Screening Claiming Category, including a DD Screening Supplemental Healthcare screen.In addition, in 2008 Hennepin
County began implementation of the Enterprise Communications Framework (ECF) - a single, shared electronic file system for all
clients served by HSPHD. ECF is a workflow management system for the forms, documents, and digital information collected or
produced in the course of service delivery. ECF improves LAN files by making more content available, easier to find, accessible from
multiple workgroup files, and supporting HIPAA and data practices rules. ECF uses software from FileNet to store and manage
documents and workflow, and uses the State Master Index (SMI) and connections to case management systems (SSIS, MAXIS, MMIS,
and PRISM) to get the data it displays and the data it needs to deliver documents and work to case workers.
ECF requires a dual log-on to both ECF and to SMI (DHS' Shared Master Index). The staff SMI logon controls security for the data ECF
receives from SMI, and determines what each user can or cannot see. The SMI connection "times out" after 30 minutes of inactivity in
ECF. Staff are required to sign-in again to reestablish the connection. If the SMI system is down, a message appears in the ECF header
stating the SMI is down, and limited functions are available.
The Forms used in ECF are from the current templates workers use in the course of service delivery. Workers upload the template to
ECF for editing and storage. Eventually all templates will be eforms in ECF and accessbile only through ECF for creation, modification,
edits, and storage.
Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Information System—Current
Area Needing Improvement Strength
1 2 3 4
6
B. Case Review System
B1. Review information included in the agency’s last self assessment. Summarize changes in the agency’s case review system.
System Changes
A variety of approaches have been used in the Federal review in 2007. Beginning in 3rd
Quarter 2008, the review sessions were held
quarterly and a sample of cases were reviewed by 2-person HSPHD teams. This process included participation by a DHS staff member
who served as a resource consultant. The process yeilded 5 to 6 cases per quarter. This process was suspended in 4th
Quarter 2009 with
the introduction of the DHS case review. The internal review process was found to be resource consuming and yeilded limited data. Cost
per completed review was not efficient.
For 2010 an interim process was introduced which involved using one internal case reviewer who completes a sample of 10 cases per
month. To date this has resulted in 80 cases reviewed through 2010. In addition, an additional reviewed has been added to the process in
September 2010. After completion of training and orientation this individual will be reviewing approximately 25 to 30 cases per month.
Preliminary discussions have been held with DHS CFSR personnel to review the development plan detailed in the PIP. Pursuant to the
completion of the October DHC CFSR review discussions will resume on options for HSPHD internal reviews and options to maximize
process improvement activities.
B2. Target Questions
Target Questions
Describe the county’s process for ensuring foster parents receive notice of court hearings and their right to be heard at hearings
regarding children in their care.
We will send a response to this item as an addendum.
Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Case Review System—Current
Area Needing Improvement Strength
1 2 3 4
C. Quality Assurance System
C1. Review information included in the agency’s last self assessment. Summarize changes in the agency’s quality assurance system.
System Changes
HSPHD's Corporate Compliance and Quality Assurance (CC-QU) system covers all service areas of the department (including
Children's Services.) Drawing down from the County's strategic plan, mission, and vision, HSPHD has developed a strategic plan which
includes key CC-QA activitites.
CC-QA's scope includes compliance responsibility for accreditation reviews and readiness; the child mortality review and near death
panel,; participation on the DHS state child mortality review and near death panel,; conduct of child protection appeals and
reconsiderations; conduct of economic assistance appeals; oversight fiscal and progam audits including interface with HC Internal Audit
and approval of all PIPs; and operation of HSPHD Research Review Committee.
CC-QA is also responsible for the development and maintenance of the HSPHD balanced scorecard strategy map, balanced scorecard
data on customer, finance and internal process and learning and growth objectives; maintenance of the performance dashboards; conduct
of participant surveys at both directly operated and contract program sites; and condcut of quarterly employee surveys.
CC-QA took over responsibility for SSIS compliance in the first Quarter of 2010. As a compliance and performance improvement
initiattive, the SSIS coordinator and mentors are fully integrated in to the QA team. Working closely with DHS personnel, this team is
working on smooth implementation of SSIS updates, correction of errors and related problems, and ensuring performance improvement
in AFCARs, Title IVE and CFSR data related areas.
All data is presented on the HSPHD intranet site.
Overall First Round Systemic Factor Rating for Quality Assurance System:
Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Quality Assurance System—Current
Area Needing Improvement Strength
1 2 3 4
D. Staff and Provider Training
D1. Review information included in the agency’s last self assessment. Summarize changes in the agency’s staff and provider training
system.
System Changes
Since the last assessment Child Protection staff have participated in the following training opportunities:
TOPIC / TRAINER:
Cultural Competency Workshop / Dr. BraVada Akinsanya
Trauma Informed Practice / Dr. Dante Cichetti, Dr. Betty Carlson, Dr. Ann Gearity, Dr. Megan Gunnar
Signs of Safety / Connected Family Andrew Turnell International Conference
Allegheny County Child Welfare Presentation / Dr. Marcia Sturdivant
ICWA Ed Days (Regularly scheduled training events for staff and community partners on Indian Child Welfare Act and Native
American Culture.) / Esie Leoso, Sandra Whitehawk, and others
Lessons from the Field Training Series (A collaboration with University of Minnesota and Minnesota County Social Services),
including:
"Historical Trauma / Dr.Karina Walters
"Intersection of Culture and Children's Mental Health in Working with Immigrant and Refugee Families" / Dr. Goh
"Promoting Child Well Being and Early Childhood Intervention within a Cultural Context" / Dr. Brenda Jones Harden
"Child Welfare Supervisor Seminar" / Dr. Brenda Jones Harden
"Claiming Fiscal training" delivered by DHS SSIS Fiscal Business Analyst on 2/3/2010
Child Parent Psychotherapy in a Cultural Context / Dr. Alicia Liberman on 8/26/2010
Managing Difficult Decisions / DHS SSIS Policy Coordinator on 7/15/2010 & 9/14/2010
Hennepin SSIS Primary Mentor training / DHS SSIS Policy Coordinator on 5/4/2010.
Hennepin SSIS Primary Mentor training / DHS SSIS Policy Coordinator on 5/4/2010.
Hennepin SSIS CW-TCM 2009 SSIS training activities:
Hennepin IV-E Claiming and Error Clean up Training / DHS SSIS Fiscal Mentor Coordinator and DHS SSIS Worker Mentor
9
Coordinator on 9/28/2010.
Use of SSIS for Foster Care Licensing training / DHS SSIS Worker Mentor Coordinator on 12/2/2009 & 12/10/2009
"SSIS Entry and Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility" training / DHS SSIS Policy Coordinator, DHS Title IV-E Policy Foster Care
Specialist and DHS SSIS Trainer on 4/30/2009, 5/27/2009, 5/28/2009 & 6/11/2009
SSIS New Worker Trainings - Bjorn Basics and CP Focus
SSIS also communicates related DHS training called Quarterly Supervisory Forums and VPCs related to new version releases, e.g. 18 -
21 Extended Foster Care, and MNYTD
Court Mediation Training / Julie Harris, County Attorney's Office
Minnesota Social Service Association Conference, Staff attend and participate in presentations
National Association of Black Social Workers Conference, Staff attend and participate in presentations
Hennepin County Foster Parent Trainings, Becky Richardson and Guest Speakers for staff and foster parents
Hennepin County Staff Development Program, Numerous speakers and topics presented to staff in relation to direct practice and career
advancement
Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Staff and Provider Training System—Current
Area Needing Improvement Strength
1 2 3 4
E. Service Array and Resource Development
E1. Review information included in the agency’s last self assessment. Summarize changes in the agency’s service array and resource
development system.
System Changes
The following text is taken from a brochure "Shaping HSPHD." This brochure has also been provided as an attachment to the report.
Client-Focused Service Integration: Key HSPHD Initiatives for 2009–2010
Created in 2004, the vision of Hennepin County’s Human Services and Public Health Department is Better Lives, Stronger
Communities. We built HSPHD on the theory that the best way to serve our clients and communities and to achieve this vision is through
sharing information, expertise and resources. Through HSPHD’s service integration efforts and community partnerships, we are working
toward improving access to services, as well as improving results and outcomes.
As we strive to make the most effective, efficient use of resources, we also are looking at how we manage systems from a horizontal
perspective—across the department. Key HSPHD initiatives for 2009–2010 that focus on service integration, community partner¬ships
and horizontal management include:
* Redesigning our Call Center to provide one phone number for all initial HSPHD »»services inquiries. Ongoing.
* Redesigning our services for children and adults. This involves integrating »»child-based services (e.g., Child Protection, Children’s
Mental Health, Early Childhood Intervention and Out of Home Placement) and focusing on a client-centered approach. It also involves
merging adult services (e.g., Aging and Disability Services, Adult Behavioral Health and Eligibility Supports) to provide comprehensive
case assessment and help clients establish and maintain eligibility for financial and health care programs. Implementation underway.
* Redesigning how we provide ―Case Management‖ to serve clients according to level »»of need, utilizing a common core assessment
and case plan. Ongoing.
* Creating a contract management structure that standardizes business practices and »»gives vendors a single contact point per contract.
Implementation beginning in early 2009.
* Creating a Regional Services Plan through which we have identified six geographic »»regions for hub offices where residents can
apply for programs, make appointments and receive information about county and community services. Site in the NW Suburban region
is expected to open at 7051 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center in 2010.
* Establishing an Office of the Ombudsperson to coordinate and manage responses to constituent concerns and address information
requests and complaints. The office tracks contacts to discover trends and systems issues and will use this information to recommend
11
improvements. Office of the Ombudsperson began its work in November, 2008.
E2. Target Question
Target Questions
If applicable, describe how changes in service availability or accessibility have impacted agency efforts to prevent entry or re-
entry and achievement of timely permanency since the last review.
The Hennepin foster care re-entry rate has declined over the last two years. This trend may be attributed to the restructure of the CP field
area, Risk re-assessment and Family Group Decision Making.
Two years ago the Child Protection Case Management area was redesigned. The goal of the redesign was to eliminate the process of
transitioning cases between an initial worker called the upfront worker to a permanency worker. This practice meant that families would
transition from worker to another during the life of their case. This posed many challenges in the areas of family engagement and case
longevity. For instance under the old upfront/permanency framework family engagement and trust were threatened by the hand off
between workers. Workers didn’t have the full picture of the strengths and risks of the families from start to completion of their case
plan goals. However with the one worker framework staff are able to monitor child/parent progress before reunification. This is
particularly helpful in re-assessing risk and determining improvements in this area.
In addition to the case management redesign and risk re-assessment staff use our family group conferencing resources. Family group
conferencing facilitates the families in developing safety plans that are congruent with their natural support systems. Trusted friends and
family who are a part of the client’s network can provide a foundation of support and accountability for them post discharge from Child
Protection.
There is no empirical data to support the correlation between the above strategies and foster care re-entry. However we believe that the
practice enhancements of the one worker model, Family Group Conferencing, and risk re-assessment are on going strategies that
promote best practices.
Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Service Array and Resource Development System—Current
12
Area Needing Improvement Strength
1 2 3 4
F. Agency Responsiveness to the Community
F1. Review information included in the agency’s last self assessment. Summarize changes in the agency’s responsiveness to the
community.
System Changes
Two important initiatives that are part of HSPHD's responsiveness to Hennepin County's needs include the Family Health and
Restoration Network project and the Omniciye project, as described below.
Family Healing and Restoration Network: In 2005, HSPHD initiated a community-based effort to address the disproportionate
representation of African American children in the Child Protection system. As a key component of this effort, the county established
partnerships with African Americand faith communities from the Minneapolis area. Over the next several years, representativesfrom the
county and community began working together to discuss ways to help families in need and prevent child maltreatment within the
African American community. In 2007, as a result of these efforts, county and community partners founded the Family Healing and
Restoration Network (FHRN) project.
The mission of the Family Healing and Restoration Network is ―to provide families with a viable network to heal through the
collaboration between community, church and government.‖ The primary target population for the FHRN project is African American
residents of north and south Minneapolis. This population was selected because of high rates of poverty and distress, and the
disproportionate number of families involved in the county Child Protection and Corrections systems. The project adopted the following
four components as central to its work:
g, shelter; public benefits)
families; community forums that educate residents about community resources)
resources)
Omniciye: Through an exciting new partnership with Hennepin County, Little Earth has a one-stop case management empowerment
program for Little Earth households. The goal is to help Little Earth families move off of federal assistance and into secure employment.
Rather than juggling multiple case workers, Little Earth adults now work with just one case manager who advocates for the entire family.
Just half way through the first year of the program, Omniciye, 50 households, or almost 25% of all Little Earth households are now
actively involved in this new self-sufficiency project-exceeding the required households for the first year in our Hennepin County
contract.
14
Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Agency Responsiveness to the Community—Current
Area Needing Improvement Strength
1 2 3 4
G. Foster and Adoptive Home Licensing, Approval and Recruitment
G1. Review information included in the agency’s last self assessment. Summarize changes in the agency’s foster and adoptive home
licensing system.
System Changes
At any given time, Hennepin County has about 446 licensed foster families. About one-third of these home are relative/kin homes.
Hennepin County is dedicated to placing children with family members or kin. There are identified staff whose function is to explore
relative/kin resources for children.
Hennepin County has 1.8 FTE s dedicated to foster and adoption recruitment. In addition there are three intake social workers, 2 FTEs
for training, and 13 Licensing Social Workers carrying an average full-time provider-load of around 40 foster homes. They visit their
families at least once a quarter.
Staff have developed hand fans featuring African American Children that we distribute to churches that have a large African American
membership. The County has contracted with American Indian artists to create artwork for use in advertising targeted at the American
Indian population. This artwork had been used in ad brochures, posters, bus benches and a hand fan, which are distributed at Powwows
and other community functions. Various brochures feature a variety of ethnic groups and are distributed to libraries and community
centers throughout Hennepin County. Diverse images of children needing foster and adoptive home are features on billboards and bus
benches.
Hennepin County works closely with the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption Foundation, Wendy's Wonderful Kids, Child Specific
Recruiters who work with our difficult-to-place children. We partner on recruitment events and children who need specialized
recruitment. We also partner with the state's private agencies on recruitment and placement efforts. We are in process of assessing our
recruitment program as it suports kin/relative searches and placement with relatives to ensure placement with relatives and sibliings is a
priority.
Recruitment for concurrent planning program, the foster care adoption option program, has been especially promoted in communities of
color. A barrier we encounter is that daycare is not subsidized for foster parents. In addition, Adoption Assistance administered by DHS
does not allow for financial assistance to adoptive parents unless the child has special needs. Many of the younger children do not qualify
for the financial aspects of adoption assistance and daycare because their special needs manifest themselves later in the child's
development as they get older.
A searchable database of licensed non-related foster care resources is maintained in the placement request system.
16
Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Foster and Adoptive Home Licensing System—Current
Area Needing Improvement Strength
1 2 3 4
H. Supervisor and Social Worker Resources
H1. Review information included in the agency’s last self assessment. Summarize changes in the agency’s supervisor and social
worker resources.
System Changes
The past 2 years have been a continued challenge for Hennepin County as we try to meet the ever-growing needs of families facing harsh
economic conditions and dwindling financial resources and supports. We have been required to make reductions in both staff and
services while Federal and State service funding diminishes. The entire county has been under a ―hiring freeze‖ for more than 2 years,
and all employees have been asked to take a minimum of 32 hours per year in ―Special Leave Without Pay.‖ There are scarce training
funds available to support on-going skill and professional development, and staff frequently supplement available training money out of
their own pockets.
Supervisory and staff positions have been "drawn-down" in certain ―non-critical‖ functions in order to maintain our core service
responsibilities and mandates. An example of this can be seen in the elimination of overnight Child Protection staff working in our
Community-Based First Response program, which has been replaced by a contracted service provider offering ―call center‖ functions
only from the hours of 11pm – 8am.
Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Supervisor and Social Worker Resources—Current
Area Needing Improvement Strength
1 2 3 4
Community Issues
Review the information the agency provided in the initial Self Assessment. Discuss changes or community issues that have emerged
that could impact planning and delivery of services to children and families and achievement of safety, permanency and well-being
outcomes.
In 2009, HSPHD conducted the Child Protection Continuum Study to 1) gather baseline service data, 2) identify patterns in service data,
and 3) inform child protection practice. The Study follows a cohort of 7, 026 children that seen by Child Protection Services intake in 2006
and reports on the demographics, intake determinations, service track, allegation types, placement reasons and lengths of stay, and cost of
placement. Data from this report has been presented to HSPHD managers and is used in managing our service improvements to our clients.
A copy of the Study is provided as an attachment to this report.
In September 2010, a study was commissioned to prepare demographic projections for children in Hennepin County. The study will be done
by Dr. Ross of the University of Minnesota, through the Hennepin-University of Minnesota Partnership. It is due for completion in
December 2010.
19
PART III: ASSESSMENT OF SAFETY, PERMANENCY
AND WELL-BEING PERFORMANCE
Use the data tables provided in Section IV, SSIS reports DHS data releases or other data sources
to examine the agency’s performance and respond to the following safety, permanency and well-
being questions.
A. Safety
Outcome S1: Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect.
Outcome S2: Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and
appropriate.
1. Safety Indicator 1: Absence of Maltreatment Recurrence (Table1). If the county met the
national standard, identify factors that contribute to strong performance. If the county did
not meet the national standard, identify and discuss barriers.
The national standard is 94.6%, HC achieved 94.4% in 2009 This item is tracked
monthly using SSIS report data. During the period January thru September 2010, the
Federal Standard was exceeded 1 month and exceeded 94% in 3 months. Reported
monthly results ranged from 92.4% to 94.7%
2. Safety Indicator 2: Absence of Child Abuse/Neglect in Foster Care (Table 1). If the
county met the national standard, identify factors that contribute to strong performance. If
the county did not meet the national standard, identify and discuss barriers.
The national standard is 99.68%, HC Achieved 99.3% in 2009. This item is tracked using
SSIS report data. During the period January thru September 2010, the Federal Standard
was exceeded during 2 months, and the 2009 results were exceeded in 8 months.
Reported monthly results ranged from 99.2% to 99.8%
3. Trends in Child Maltreatment (Tables 2-3). Examine the data on reports of child
maltreatment. Identify trends and factors that may have contributed to an increase or
decrease in the number of maltreatment reports.
Reports to child protection have dropped since CY 2005. An independent analysis was
commissioned in early 2010 under the U of MN/Hennepin COunty agreement (HUP) and
is currently under study attempting to idenity reasons for this shift.
4. Family Assessment (Table 3). Describe protocols or criteria that guide the assignment of
child maltreatment reports for a Family Assessment or investigation. Describe the process
the agency uses to determine when track changes may be necessary.
The use of Family Assissment has increased from 42.6% in 2005 to 62.7% in 2009.
Hennepin County appears unique among other counties in the CP reports that are
screened and assigned to one or the other tracks are reviewed again by Intake supervisors
who review the report a second time to ensure the right track has been selected. Due to
this additional step, HC typically has more "switches", a situation that we see as "a good
thing".
There was a short-term drop in utilization of FA in 2008 due to funding restrictions and
the county's decision to reduce property tax funding of this resource. However,
20
utilization picked-up again in 2009 as program managers and supervisors were provided
monthly statistics to help them better manage within the current allocation.
5. Timeliness of Initial Contact in Assessments or Investigations (Tables 4-5). Examine the
data on timeliness of initial contacts. Identify factors that contribute to timely face-to-face
contacts with children, and factors that contribute to delays.
The overall Statewide rate on timely 5 day contact cases was 65.9% in 2008 and 69.5%
in the period Jan-Jun 2009 was 69.5%. Hennepin has shown improvement from 55.0%
in 2008 to 65% in the period Jan - Jun 2009.
For substantialed child endangerment cases (24 standard) the statewide rate was 51.4%
in 2008 and 57.3% in the period Jan-Jun 2009. Henepin has shown some improvement
from 38.1% to 44.6% for the same reporting period.
Work continues and is noted in the PIP for improvements on both of these items.
6. Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Issues (Tables 6-7). Describe agency practices for
addressing the needs of children and families experiencing difficulties with alcohol or other
drugs. Examine worker competencies and training needs related to addiction, treatment, and
relapse planning. Identify promising approaches or current barriers to addressing substance
use issues.
Last year Hennepin developed a new policy for monitoring drug use by parents during
the life of their child protection case. Workers are given clear guidelines regarding when
to refer individuals for CD monitoring and treatment. The referrals are to be tied to the
safety concerns of the case plan. The monitoring should also be tied to the safety plans
for the family. In addition staff have received training on the policy and
psychopharmocology.
Hennepin County continues to be funded through a SAMSHA grant to operate a small,
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Program that screens and provides assessment and
service brokering for youth who are adjudicated in our Juvenile Court system. For those
youth that were assessed to have difficulty with alcohol or drugs, a promising practice
was initiated in working with HIS New Generationts, one of our providers experienced in
treating youth with FASD. HC worked collaboratively with New Generations to develop
a provider network of FASD clinicians and programs that continues to be used as a
referral source for youth with FASD.
7. Short-term Placements. (Table 5). Examine the agency’s use of short-term placements.
Identify factors that contribute to short-term placements. Discuss efforts to prevent entry or
re-entry into foster care.
The use of short tern placement (1-7 days) for Hennepin County Cases for the period
ending in 2009 was 20% which is lower than the State % of 21.8%. This is an area
Hennepin continnues to work on and is include in the PIP. A focus on the review of all
cases in placement less than 8 days has been initaitied and includes review of reasons for
placement and source of placement activity.
8. Other Safety Issues. Discuss any other concerns, not covered above, that affect safety
outcomes for children and families served by the agency.
21
B. Permanency
Outcome P1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations.
Outcome P2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for
children.
1. Permanency Composite 1: Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification (Table1).
Identify and comment on overall strengths and barriers to the county’s performance on the
four measures included in Permanency Composite 1.
On the four measures Hennepin exceeded the national standards for measures c1.1 and
c1.3. Work continnues on measure c1.2 Median stay in foster case to reunification
below 5.4 months. Hennepin was at 5.8 months at the end of 2009. jan thru sep 2010
data whos the national standard was met 6 of 9 months. On measure c.1.4 children who
exit and re-enter foster care in less than 12 months, Hennepin is at 18.5% which is lower
than the state number at 24.0% but above the national standard which is 9.9%. During
2010 improvements are being to appear, all 9 months were below the 2009 Hennepin
performance. Continued work will focus on moving the percent toward the naitonal
standard. This work continues in the PIP
2. Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of Adoptions (Table 1). Identify and comment on
overall strengths and barriers to the county’s performance on the five measures included in
Permanency Composite 2.
On these five measures Hennepin exceedsthe Natinal Standrad for measures c2.1, c2.2, and
c.2.3.
Hennepin PIP contniues work on measure c2.4: Children in foster care 17+ months
achieving leagal freedom within 6 month (HC at 2.8% which is above the state number
of 1.7%, but below the national standard of 10.7%). In addition work on measure c2.5:
children, legally free, adoption in less than 12 months is at 35.3%, which is below the
state number of 36.5% and the national standard of 53.7%. This item also is included in
the current PIP.
3. Permanency Composite 3: Permanency for Children and Youth in Foster Care for
Long Periods of Time (Table 1). Identify and comment on overall strengths and barriers
to the county’s performance on the three measures included in Permanency Composite 3.
Of the three measures Hennepin met the standard for c3.3. Work continues in the PIP on
measure c.3.1: exitis to permanency prior to their 18th birthday for childen in care for
24+ months where Hennepin is at 18% which is below the state number of 19.8% and
national standard of 29.1%. Similarly for measure c3.2: exits to permanency for children
with TPR Hennepin is below the state number of 91.7% and national standard of 98.0%.
This item is also included in the PIP.
4. Permanency Composite 4: Placement Stability (Table 1). Identify and comment on
overall strengths and barriers to the county’s performance on the three measures included in
Permanency Composite 4.
On the three measures related to placement stability Hennepin is below both the state
numbers and national standards. This is an area of concern and addressed in the PIP
22
5. Relative foster care (Table 9). Describe agency efforts to promote timely relative searches,
emergency licenses and relative foster care placements. Include a description of agency
efforts to consider both maternal and paternal family members, and outline strategies for
supporting stable relative placements.
Table 10 (not 9) shows Hennepin at 13.8% of cases in foster family relative placements
as compared with the state number of 18%.
6. Long-term foster care. Describe the agency’s current practices related to the use of long-
term foster care as a permanency option for children. Include information regarding the
process for identifying and ruling out other, more permanent options, and the process for
reassessing the ongoing appropriateness of the long-term foster care goal.
We have worked to minimize the use of LTFC as a permanency option. Our goal is to
place children with relatives or other foster care arrangements that will support
reunification or adoption.
7. Other Permanency Issues. Discuss any other issues of concern, not covered above, that
affect permanency outcomes for children and families served by the agency.
23
C. Well-being
Outcome WB1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs.
Outcome WB2: Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs.
Outcome WB3: Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental
health needs.
1. Parent involvement. Discuss strategies the agency has implemented since the last
MnCFSR to improve performance in the following areas:
Engaging fathers/non-resident parents in needs assessment, service delivery and
case planning. Identify promising approaches or current barriers to involving
fathers/non-resident parents.
Child Protection Field staff work with families through out the life of their case to
identify fathers, paternal and out of state relatives. Inquiry regarding possible relative
options is an expectation of all CP staff at all points of the the Hennepin continuum from
investigation to adoption. All staff in Child Protection are expected to include new
information on the kinship template when it becomes available. All families are offered
the option of having a family team conference or a family group conference meeting. At
these meetings facilitated by trained, families are encouraged to share information
regardign potential relative options for placement.
A significant barrier to engaging fathers in particular has to do with their legal status
with the child. Unless the father is the legal custodian, or has joint legal custody of the
child, the mother or other legal custodian determines wether or not the father is party to
the case plan or court proceeding. We typically have difficulty convincing the mother or
other legal custodian to permit the father's engagement.
2. Caseworker visits with children (Table 11 and SSIS General Report ―Caseworker
Visits with Children in Foster Care‖. Describe the agency’s process for determining the
frequency of face-to-face worker visits with children. Identify promising approaches or
current barriers to frequent worker contact. Describe caseworker practices that contribute to
quality visits with children.
Table 11 data for Hennepin exceeded the monthly visit requirement over the state
number for all four of the reporting periods. The October 2008- September 2009 rate
was 57.1% This being noted work continues on increasing the number foster children in
foster care placements who are visited monthly.
3. Other Well-being Issues. Discuss any other issues of concern, not covered above, that
affect well-being outcomes for children and families served by the agency.
24
Part IV: Safety and Permanency Data
A. Federal Data Indicators
Beginning with the first round of the CFSR, single data measures were used for establishing
national standards. This provided information to states and counties about their performance;
however, did not always reflect the broader, more complex factors that contribute to
performance.
In 2007 the Administration of Children and Families revised the national standard indicators.
Safety data indicators continue to be single data elements. Permanency data was expanded to
allow for a closer examination of what particular practices drive the outcomes for children in
foster care. Permanency data is now reflected in components, composites and measures as
defined below:
Composites: Refers to a data indicator that incorporates county performance on multiple
permanency-related individual measures. There are four permanency composites.
Component: Refers to the primary parts of a composite. Components may incorporate
only one individual measure or may have two or more individual measures that are
closely related to one another. There are seven permanency related components.
Measures: Refers to the specific measures that are included in each composite. There are
15 individual permanency measures.
Table 1 includes county performance on the two safety data indicators and 15 permanency
measures.
B. Safety Data Tables
Tables 2-7 include child welfare data related to the agency’s practices in addressing safety.
These tables contain information about the agency’s use of track assignments, report
dispositions, timeliness of initial face-to-face contacts with children who are the subject of a
maltreatment report, length of placement episodes and reasons for out-of-home placements.
C. Permanency Data Tables
Tables 8-10 provide demographic information about the children in out-of-home placement
(gender and age) and the type of settings in which children are placed.
D. Child Well-being Data Tables
Table 11 provides information regarding the frequency of caseworkers’ monthly face-to-face
contact with children in foster care.
25
PART III: ASSESSMENT OF SAFETY, PERMANENCY
AND WELL-BEING PERFORMANCE
Use the data tables provided in Section IV, SSIS reports DHS data releases or other data sources
to examine the agency’s performance and respond to the following safety, permanency and well-
being questions.
A. Safety
Outcome S1: Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect.
Outcome S2: Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and
appropriate.
1. Safety Indicator 1: Absence of Maltreatment Recurrence (Table1). If the county met the
national standard, identify factors that contribute to strong performance. If the county did
not meet the national standard, identify and discuss barriers.
2. Safety Indicator 2: Absence of Child Abuse/Neglect in Foster Care (Table 1). If the
county met the national standard, identify factors that contribute to strong performance. If
the county did not meet the national standard, identify and discuss barriers.
3. Trends in Child Maltreatment (Tables 2-3). Examine the data on reports of child
maltreatment. Identify trends and factors that may have contributed to an increase or
decrease in the number of maltreatment reports.
4. Family Assessment (Table 3). Describe protocols or criteria that guide the assignment of
child maltreatment reports for a Family Assessment or investigation. Describe the process
the agency uses to determine when track changes may be necessary.
5. Timeliness of Initial Contact in Assessments or Investigations (Tables 4-5). Examine the
data on timeliness of initial contacts. Identify factors that contribute to timely face-to-face
contacts with children, and factors that contribute to delays.
6. Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Issues (Tables 6-7). Describe agency practices for
addressing the needs of children and families experiencing difficulties with alcohol or other
drugs. Examine worker competencies and training needs related to addiction, treatment, and
relapse planning. Identify promising approaches or current barriers to addressing substance
use issues.
26
7. Short-term Placements. (Table 5). Examine the agency’s use of short-term placements.
Identify factors that contribute to short-term placements. Discuss efforts to prevent entry or
re-entry into foster care.
8. Other Safety Issues. Discuss any other concerns, not covered above, that affect safety
outcomes for children and families served by the agency.
27
B. Permanency
Outcome P1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations.
Outcome P2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for
children.
1. Permanency Composite 1: Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification (Table1).
Identify and comment on overall strengths and barriers to the county’s performance on the
four measures included in Permanency Composite 1.
2. Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of Adoptions (Table 1). Identify and comment on
overall strengths and barriers to the county’s performance on the five measures included in
Permanency Composite 2.
3. Permanency Composite 3: Permanency for Children and Youth in Foster Care for
Long Periods of Time (Table 1). Identify and comment on overall strengths and barriers
to the county’s performance on the three measures included in Permanency Composite 3.
4. Permanency Composite 4: Placement Stability (Table 1). Identify and comment on
overall strengths and barriers to the county’s performance on the three measures included in
Permanency Composite 4.
5. Relative foster care (Table 9). Describe agency efforts to promote timely relative searches,
emergency licenses and relative foster care placements. Include a description of agency
efforts to consider both maternal and paternal family members, and outline strategies for
supporting stable relative placements.
6. Long-term foster care. Describe the agency’s current practices related to the use of long-
term foster care as a permanency option for children. Include information regarding the
process for identifying and ruling out other, more permanent options, and the process for
reassessing the ongoing appropriateness of the long-term foster care goal.
7. Other Permanency Issues. Discuss any other issues of concern, not covered above, that
affect permanency outcomes for children and families served by the agency.
28
C. Well-being
Outcome WB1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs.
Outcome WB2: Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs.
Outcome WB3: Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental
health needs.
1. Parent involvement. Discuss strategies the agency has implemented since the last
MnCFSR to improve performance in the following areas:
Engaging fathers/non-resident parents in needs assessment, service delivery and
case planning. Identify promising approaches or current barriers to involving
fathers/non-resident parents.
2. Caseworker visits with children (Table 11 and SSIS General Report ―Caseworker
Visits with Children in Foster Care‖. Describe the agency’s process for determining the
frequency of face-to-face worker visits with children. Identify promising approaches or
current barriers to frequent worker contact. Describe caseworker practices that contribute to
quality visits with children.
3. Other Well-being Issues. Discuss any other issues of concern, not covered above, that
affect well-being outcomes for children and families served by the agency.
29
Part IV: Safety and Permanency Data
A. Federal Data Indicators
Beginning with the first round of the CFSR, single data measures were used for establishing
national standards. This provided information to states and counties about their performance;
however, did not always reflect the broader, more complex factors that contribute to
performance.
In 2007 the Administration of Children and Families revised the national standard indicators.
Safety data indicators continue to be single data elements. Permanency data was expanded to
allow for a closer examination of what particular practices drive the outcomes for children in
foster care. Permanency data is now reflected in components, composites and measures as
defined below:
Composites: Refers to a data indicator that incorporates county performance on multiple
permanency-related individual measures. There are four permanency composites.
Component: Refers to the primary parts of a composite. Components may incorporate
only one individual measure or may have two or more individual measures that are
closely related to one another. There are seven permanency related components.
Measures: Refers to the specific measures that are included in each composite. There are
15 individual permanency measures.
Table 1 includes county performance on the two safety data indicators and 15 permanency
measures.
E. Safety Data Tables
Tables 2-7 include child welfare data related to the agency’s practices in addressing safety.
These tables contain information about the agency’s use of track assignments, report
dispositions, timeliness of initial face-to-face contacts with children who are the subject of a
maltreatment report, length of placement episodes and reasons for out-of-home placements.
F. Permanency Data Tables
Tables 8-10 provide demographic information about the children in out-of-home placement
(gender and age) and the type of settings in which children are placed.
G. Child Well-being Data Tables
Table 11 provides information regarding the frequency of caseworkers’ monthly face-to-face
contact with children in foster care.
30
A. Federal Data Indicators Table 1
Data Indicator National
Standard
Minnesota
2009
Hennepin
County
2009
Safety Indicator 1: Absence of Maltreatment
Recurrence. Of all children who were victims of
determined maltreatment during the first six months of the
reporting period, what percent were not victims of another
determined maltreatment allegation within a 6-month
period.
94.6% 95.3% 93.4%
(803/386)
Safety Indicator 2: Absence of Child Abuse/Neglect in
Foster Care. Of all children in foster care during the
reporting period, what percent were not victims of
determined maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff
member.
99.68% 99.56% 99.3%
(2573/2592)
Measure C1.1: Exits to reunification in less than 12
months. Of all children discharged from foster care to
reunification in the year shown, who had been in foster
care for 8 days or longer, what percent was reunified in
less than 12 months from the date of the latest removal
from the home?
75.2% 83.7% 78.8%*
(576/731)
Measure C1.2: Median stay in foster care to
reunification. Of all children discharged from foster
care to reunification in the year shown, who had been
in foster care for 8 days or longer, what was the median
length of stay (in months) from the date of the latest
removal from home until the date of discharge to
reunification?
5.4 4.1 5.8
Measure C1.3: Entry cohort of children who
reunify in less than 12 months. Of all children
entering foster care for the first time in the 6 month
period just prior to the year shown, and who remained
in foster care for 8 days or longer, what percent was
discharged from foster care to reunification in less than
12 months from the date of the latest removal from
home?
48.4% 61.8% 56.0%*
(211/377)
Measure C1.4: Children who exit and re-enter
foster care in less than 12 months. Of all children
discharged from foster care to reunification in the 12-
month period prior the year shown, what percent re-
entered foster care in less than 12 months from the date
of discharge?
9.9% 24.0% 18.5%
(206/1115)
31
Data Indicator National
Standard
Minnesota
2009
Hennepin
County
2009
Measure C2.1: Adoption in less than 24 months for
children exiting to adoption. Of all children who were
discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in
the year shown, what percent was discharged in less
than 24 months from the date of the latest removal
from home?
36.6% 47.0% 43.2%*
(73/169)
Measure C2.2: Median length of stay to adoption.
Of all children who were discharged from foster care
to a finalized adoption in the year shown, what was the
median length of stay in foster care (in months) from
the date of latest removal from home to the date of
discharge to adoption?
27.3 24.8 25.3*
Measure C2.3: Children in foster care 17+ months,
adopted by the end of the year. Of all children in
foster care on the first day of the year shown who were
in foster care for 17 continuous months or longer (and
who, by the last day of the year shown, were not
discharged from foster care with a discharge reason of
live with relative, reunify, or guardianship), what
percent was discharged from foster care to a finalized
adoption by the last day of the year shown?
22.7% 20.5% 23.0%*
(104/453)
Measure C2.4: Children in foster care 17+ months
achieving legal freedom within 6 months. Of all
children in foster care on the fist day of the year shown
who were in foster care for 17 continuous months or
longer, and were not legally free for adoption prior to
that day, what percent became legally free for adoption
during the first 6 months of the year shown?
10.9% 1.7% 2.8%
(8/282)
Measure C2.5: Children, legally free, adoption in
less than 12 months. Of all children who became
legally free for adoption in the 12 month period prior to
the year shown, what percent was discharged from
foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12
months of becoming legally free?
53.7% 36.5% 35.3%
(45/128)
32
Data Indicator National
Standard
Minnesota
2009
Hennepin
County
2009
Measure C3.1: Exits to permanency prior to 18th
birthday for children in care for 24+ months. Of all
children in foster care for 24 months or longer on the
first day of the year shown, what percent was
discharged to a permanency home prior to their 18th
birthday and by the end of the fiscal year? A permanent
home is defined as having a discharge reason of
adoption, guardianship, or reunification (including
living with a relative).
29.1% 19.8% 18.0%
(76/423)
Measure C3.2: Exits to permanency for children
with TPR. Of all children who were discharged from
foster care in the year shown, and who were legally
free for adoption at the time of discharge, what percent
was discharged to a permanent home prior to their 18th
birthday? A permanent home is defined as having a
discharge reason of adoption, guardianship, or
reunification (including living with a relative).
98.0% 91.7% 79.1%
(140/177)
Measure C3.3: Children emancipated who were in
foster care for 3 years or more. Of all children who,
during the year shown, either (1) were discharged from
foster care prior to age 18 with a discharge reason of
emancipation, or (2) reached their 18th
birthday while
in foster care, what percent were in foster care for 3
years or longer?
37.5% 43.0% 37.5%*
(3/8)
Measure C4.1: Two or fewer placement settings for
children in care for less than 12 months.. Of all
children served in foster care during the 12 month
target period who were in foster care for at least 8 days
but less than 12 months, what percent had two or fewer
placement settings?
86.0% 86.0% 78.7%
(888/1128)
Measure C4.2: Two or fewer placement settings for
children in care for 12 to 24 months. Of all children
served in foster care during the 12 months target period
who were in foster care for at least 12 months but less
than 24 months, what percent had two or fewer
placement settings?
65.4% 57.9% 52.3%
(241/461)
Measure C4.3: Two or fewer placement settings for
children in care for 24+ months. Of all children
served in foster care during the 12 months target period
who were in foster care for at least 24 months, what
percent had two or fewer placement settings?
41.8% 29.4% 14.5%
(87/598)
*The county met the performance standard.
33
B. Safety Data
Child Maltreatment Reports (Investigation): Alleged, Determined and Need for Service, 5 Year History
Table 2
Year
Reports
Investigated
Reports with Maltreatment
Determined
(Number of cases determined/
as % of reports assessed)
Reports with Child Protection
Services Needed Determined
(Number of cases determined/
as % of FI reports assessed)
2005 2985 1661 / 55.6% 1224 / 41.0%
2006 2350 1427 / 60.7% 1136 / 48.3%
2007 2145 1351 1121 / 52.3%
2008
1809 1227 976 / 54.9%
2009 Family Inv: 1474
Facility Inv: 80
Total: 1554
1005 / 64.7% 802 / 54.4%
DHS Research, Planning and Evaluation
Statewide rate of reports with maltreatment determined in 2009: 50.7%
Statewide rate of reports with child protection services needed determined in 2009: 49.7%
Child Maltreatment Reports (Family Assessment): History as Available/Applicable Table 3
Year Number of Family Assessments / as percent
of total maltreatment assessments
Number of Family Assessments with Subsequent
CPS Needed / as a percent of total FA
Assessments
2005 2219 / 42.6% 1 / 0.0%
2006 2775 / 54.1% 26 / 0.9%
2007 2991 / 58.2% 23 / 0.8%
2008 2756 / 60.4% 9 / 0.3%
2009 2616 / 62.7% 3 / 0.1%
DHS Research, Planning and Evaluation
Statewide rate of reports assessed with Family Assessments in 2009: 66.4%
Statewide rate of Family Assessments with Case Management Openings in 2009: 16.6%
34
Completed Face-to-Face Contact with Alleged Child Victims Table 4
Reporting
Period
Total all
Child
Subjects
Percent With
Timely
Contact*
Percent With
No Contact
Statewide
Rate of Timely
Contact
FA and Non-
Substantial Child
Endangerment
Reports (5 days) 2008 5388 55.0%
2.9%
65.9%
Jan – June
2009 2720
65.0%
2.9% 69.5%
Substantial Child
Endangerment
Reports (24 hours) 2008 810 38.1% 4.2% 51.4%
Jan -June
2009 428 44.6% 2.6% 57.3%
DHS Child Welfare Data Release Report
*Timely contact is defined as:
Family Assessments: Within 5 calendar days of receipt of report
Investigation – Not Substantial Child Endangerment: Within 5 calendar days of receipt of report
Investigation – Alleged Substantial Child Endangerment: Immediately/within 24 hours of receipt of report
Length of Placement Episodes Ending in 2009 Table 5
Length of Placement Episodes State % County # County %
1 – 7 days 21.8% 311 20.0%
8 – 30 days 9.9% 129 8.3%
31 – 90 days 12.7% 147 9.5%
91 – 180 days 11.5% 183 11.8%
181 – 365 days 16.9% 304 19.6%
366+ days 27.2% 478 30.8%
Total Episodes 6935 1552 --
DHS Research, Planning and Evaluation
35
Reasons for Entering Out-of-Home-Care, Related to Protection-2009 Table 6
Reason
State %
County # County %
Alleged Physical Abuse
7.6% 391 10.8%
Alleged Sexual Abuse
3.2% 153 4.2%
Alleged Neglect
18.5% 855 23.6%
Parent Alcohol Abuse
5.7% 238 6.6%
Parent Drug Abuse
9.6% 489 13.5%
Abandonment
3.1% 144 4.0%
TPR
0.8% 14 0.4%
Parent Incarceration
3.8% 145 4.0%
Total Reasons Reported for All Placements
19061 3628 --
Total Placements
--
Total Reasons Related to Protection
10043 / 52.7% 2429 67.0%
Reasons for Entering Out-of-Home-Care, Other than Protection-2009 Table 7
Reason
State %
County #
County %
Child Alcohol Abuse
1.9% 10 0.3%
Child Drug Abuse
2.5% 17 0.5%
Child Behavior
24.4% 771 21.3%
Child Disability
4.8% 134 3.7%
Parent Death
0.4% 16 0.4%
Caretaker Inability to Cope
10.5% 193 5.3%
Inadequate Housing
3.1% 58 1.6%
Total Reasons Reported for All Placements
19061 3628 --
Total Placements
--
Total Reasons Other than Protection
9018 / 47.3% 1199 33.0%
2009 Child Welfare Report
36
C. Permanency Data
Age Group of Children in Care – 2009 Table 9
Age Group
State %
County #
County %
0-7 Years
NA 921 35.9%
8-12 Years
NA 378 14.8%
13+ Years
NA 1263 49.3%
Total Children in Care
NA 2562 100%
Children in Out-of-Home Care by Placement Setting-2009 Table 10
(Children may be counted in more than one placement setting)
Placement Setting
State %
County #
County %
Foster Family Non-Relative 50.5% 1642 35.6%
Foster Family Relative 18.0% 635 13.8%
Foster Home – Corporate/Shift Staff 2.4% 57 1.2%
Group Home 18.6% 457 9.8%
Juvenile Correctional Facility (locked) 4.4% 161 3.5%
Juvenile Correctional Facility (non-secure) 6.5% 15 0.3%
Pre-Adoptive Non-Relative 7.8% 197 4.3%
Pre-Adoptive Relative 3.8% 108 2.3%
Residential Treatment Center 19.2% 1327 28.7%
Other* 0.5% 18 0.5%
Total Placement Settings 11699 4617 --
*‖Other‖ includes ICF-MR and Supervised Independent Living settings
2009 Child Welfare Report
37
D. Child Well-being Data
Caseworker Visits with Children in Foster Care
State %
County #
County %
Oct 1, 2008 –
Sept 30, 2009
Total Number of Children in Foster Care 8,069 1840 --
Monthly Visits 46.9% 1050 57.1%
Of children who had visits, number /percent of
residential visits 99.2% 1044 99.4%
No Visits 7.6% 257 14.0%
July 1, 2008 –
June 30, 2009
Total Number of Children in Foster Care 8007 1816 --
Monthly Visits 46.1% 1087 59.9%
Of children who had visits, number /percent of
residential visits 97.2% 1081 99.4%
No Visits 2.6% 46 2.5%
April 1, 2008 –
March 31, 2009
Total Number of Children in Foster Care 8,320 1910 --
Monthly Visits 42.7% 1116 58.4%
Of children who had visits, number /percent of
residential visits 96.9% 1102 98.7%
No Visits 2.7% 50 2.6%
Jan. 1, 2008 –
Dec. 31, 2008
Total Number of Children in Foster Care 8,535 1921 --
Monthly Visits 40.4% 1089 56.7%
Of children who had visits, number /percent of
residential visits 96.4% 1071 98.3%
No Visits 3.0% 59 3.1%
Oct. 1, 2007 –
Sept. 30, 2008
Total Number of Children in Foster Care 8,169 1900 --
Monthly Visits 38.7% 1285 67.6%
Of children who had visits, number /percent of
residential visits 95.3% 1277 99.4%
No Visits 3.2% 66 3.5%
DHS Child Welfare Data Release Report
38
PART V: SUMMARY OF STRENGTHS AND NEEDS
Based on examination of data and narrative responses provided in early sections of this
report, summarize the information in response to the following questions.
1. What specific strengths of the agency’s programs have been identified?
Provided in earlier section of this report.
2. What specific needs have been identified that warrant further examination in the onsite
review? Note which of these needs are the most critical to the outcomes under safety,
permanency and well-being for children and families in the county.
Provided in earlier section of this report.
3. Please describe additional practices/needs related to achievement of safety, permanency and
well-being outcomes that the agency is interested in examining during the onsite review.
Provided in earlier section of this report.
4. Please complete the following evaluation of the county self assessment process in terms of its
usefulness to the county and recommendations for revision.
a) Were you allowed adequate time to complete the county self assessment process?
Yes No
Comments:
b) Did you find the data provided helpful to your evaluation of safety, permanency and
well-being performance? Yes No
Comments: However, theare are routine reports that we routinely receive or have access
to, not new data.
c) Did you engage county child welfare staff and/or community stakeholders in the county
self- assessment process? Yes No
Comments: Child welfare staff are engaged in responding to this report, but given the
time frame for completion, stakeholders are not. If the same system is in place for next
39
year and we could anticipate it in time to engage stakeholders, this would be more
meaningful.
d) Did you find the county self assessment an effective process for evaluating your county’s
child welfare system? Yes No
Comments:
e) Will you use findings from the county self assessment to plan for systemic and/or
organizational improvements in your county’s child welfare system? Yes No
Comments:
f) Any additional comments or recommendations for improving the self assessment process:
The format was cumbersome. It is difficult to share a document and edit it between more
than one user. Also, text enhancements such as bold, underline and italic are not
functional. Please improve the template.