WELCOME

WELCOME

• David Judkins

• August 19, 2011

• Indianapolis, Indiana

Mission and Vision

• Mission: The Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) protects children from abuse and neglect. DCS does this by partnering with families and communities to provide safe, nurturing, and stable homes

• Vision: Children thrive in safe, caring, supportive communities and families

Values

DCS Values:• We believe every child has the right to be free

from abuse and neglect. • We believe every child has the right to

appropriate care and a permanent home. • We believe parents have the primary

responsibility for the care and safety of their children.

• We believe the most desirable place for children to grow up is with their own families, when these families are able to provide safe, nurturing and stable homes.

Where are we now?

• In 2010 DCS hit record highs in each of our 10 Practice Indicators

• Visit 97% + of our children monthly/ 17,000 children monthly

• Indiana leads nation in exits to permanency (up 34%, when most

states are down 15%)

• 2nd in nation for reaching permanency in 24 months

Federal CFSR Outcomes

• Permanency Composite 1: Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification

• Indiana ranks 10th out of 50 States

• Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of Adoptions

• Indiana ranks 2nd out of 50 States

• Permanency Composite 3: Permanency for Children and Youth in Foster Care for Long Periods of Time

• Indiana ranks 3rd out of 50 States

• Permanency Composite 4: Placement Stability

• Indiana ranks 11th out of 50 States

Indiana’s Foster Care System

• Still…we remove too many (Top 10 in nation)

• Indiana removals up 21%

• Removals down 18% nationally

• National Trends show…

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% placedout-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, 2010Bryan Samuels, Commissioner for ACF ‘A New Narrative for Child Welfare’ February 16, 2011

FY 2009

25.8%open for services

(741,000)

74.2% notopen for services

(2.1 million)

13.9% placedout-of-home

(103,000)

86.1%in-home

(638,000)

More children are moving out of child welfare; fewer children are being brought into the system

150,000

180,000

210,000

240,000

270,000

300,000

330,000

360,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Entries

Exits

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)Bryan Samuels, Commissioner for ACF ‘A New Narrative for Child Welfare’ February 16, 2011

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)Bryan Samuels, Commissioner for ACF ‘A New Narrative for Child Welfare’ February 16, 2011

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

600,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

25%

Mai

neH

awai

iO

hio

Mar

ylan

dFl

orid

aG

eorg

iaD

ist.

of C

ol.

Puer

to R

ico

Cal

ifor

nia

Min

neso

taN

ew J

erse

yN

ew Y

ork

Ver

mon

tIl

linoi

sT

enne

ssee

New

Ham

pshi

reM

isso

uri

Mas

sach

uset

tsW

isco

nsin

Penn

sylv

ania

Con

nect

icut

Vir

gini

aM

ichi

cgan

Mon

tana

Col

orad

oR

hode

Isl

and

Del

awar

eK

ansa

sN

ebra

ska

Ore

gon

Okl

ahom

aL

ouis

iana

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Ken

tuck

yN

orth

Dak

ota

Sout

h C

arol

ina

Was

hing

ton

Ala

ska

Sout

h D

akot

aN

ew M

exic

oId

aho

Ala

bam

aA

rkan

sas

Mis

siss

ippi

Tex

asIo

wa

Wyo

min

gW

est V

irgi

nia

Uta

hIn

dian

a Nev

ada

Ari

zona

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

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)Bryan Samuels, Commissioner for ACF ‘A New Narrative for Child Welfare’ February 16, 2011

Reductions in child welfare caseloads are not evenly distributed across states

Indiana’s Removal and Placement Numbers are Rising, Placing Additional Pressure on the System

Foster Care

Currently we run a very large foster care system

We do it very well- Nationally recognized for our outcomes

13,575 CHINS

9,384 Out of Home

We can achieve even better outcomes by keeping children with their families

WHERE DO WE PLACE

NOW?

TRENDS

Then and now…

More Children are Being Served in Their Own Homes

17

18Source:

More Children are Served at Home Safely

Indiana’s out-of-home placement population is getting younger

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Less than 1 yr 1-5 yrs 6-10 years 11-17 years

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Under 6 11-17 years

IN Age of children, 2010

Patterns of Exit from OOH Placement within first 3 months of Case Opening

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

%o

f al

l OO

H p

lac

eme

nts

%exiting 30 days %exiting 31-60 days %exiting 61-90 days

Short Stays in Out-of-Home Placement Indicate That Some Placements May Have Been Preventable

Average Number of Placements

Month/Year

Average # of Placements per child

Mar-08 2.85

Mar-09 2.79

Mar-10 2.50

Mar-11 2.50

Each placement move disrupts the child’s environment. The fewer times we must move a child the more likely the child can remain in the same school and keep the same routine

Siblings Placed Together

Month/Year

#of Sibling Cases (Cases with more than 1 child in the family)

#of Cases with all Children Placed Together

% Placed Together of All Sibling Cases

Mar-07 2441 1519 62.23%

Mar-08 2434 1599 65.69%

Mar-09 2556 1756 68.70%

Mar-10 2739 1963 71.70%

Mar-11 2448 1760 71.90%

DCS believes siblings should always be together. Any time children must be removed from home we want to preserve their connections with their siblings

Placements with Relatives Have Risen Substantially

Congregate Care Placements are Steadily Declining

For Older Children, a Sizeable Percentage of First Placements Are in Group Care Settings

Percentage of Children in Age Group Initially Placed in Congregate Care

2% 2%4%

11%

29%

%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Less than 1 yr 1-5 yrs 6-10 years 11-12 years 13-17 yrs

Age Range

Perc

enta

ge

25Source:

Teens and Tweens are

being initially

placed in Congregate

Care at high rates

A Magellan White Paper concerning residential treatment research indicated the following:

• Youth in residential treatment often make gains between admission and discharge, but many do not maintain improvement post-discharge.

• Gains made during a stay in residential treatment may not transfer to the youth’s natural environment, creating a cycle where children are often readmitted.

• One large, longitudinal six-state study of adolescents discharged from residential treatment found at a seven-year follow-up that 75 percent had either been readmitted or incarcerated (Burns et al., 1999).

• The rate of returning to placement was 32 percent after one year, 53 percent after two and 59 percent by the end of the third year post-discharge (Asarnow, Aoki & Elson, 1996).

Department of Child ServicesCHINS Children in Own Home, Relative Home, or Residential

PlacementFrom Feb 2007 to May 2011

Casey 2020 Project

ONE PRIORITY FOR

2011-2012

Safely Home – Families First

Safely Home, Families First

What is Safely Home, Families First?

Our Goal:1.Children are safely home with resources

available and in place to support the family; or

2.They are with appropriate relatives who can lessen the effects of removal

and increase their likelihood of achieving the permanency they deserve.


What is Safely Home – Families First?

• Renewed and heightened effort to keep kids safely at home or with appropriate relatives

• Natural evolution of the DCS Practice Model:– Provide for the well-being of our children; – Identify those protective factors that will help

keep a child at home safely; – Help family members find resources and their

own informal supports; and – Quickly locate relatives in the event a child is

not able to remain in the home.

Utilizing Protective Factors to Make Safety Decisions

Weighing Potential Outcomes

Certain harm resulting from child

removal

Risk of harm resulting from

failure to remove


• FCMs draw on the DCS Practice Model skills to help families develop

Protective Factors:–Nurturing and Attachment Conditions–Knowledge of Parenting Skills and

Youth Development–Family Resilience–Social Connections –Concrete Supports


• Fostering Connections Act• Adoption and Safe Families Act• The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978• Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare

Act of 1980• 1989 Revision of Federal for Services Act

392• Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Act of 1996• Kinship Caregiver Support Act- “Kinship

Navigator”

Recommendations from the Commission on

Disproportionality • Encourage the use of relative placement when

appropriate and possible. When relative placement is not recommended, the family case manager shall provide to the court the rationale in a written format.

• Make every reasonable effort to avoid placement outside of the home, while ensuring that the health and safety of children remain paramount when appropriate.


• Better for children

Challenges Exist

• Relatives need supportive services

• 70% of relative caregivers do not access TANF or any other

public financial assistance

• When caregivers access TANF child- only grants, this amounts less than 2,000 per year

The Biggest Challenge:The Urban Myth

“The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree”??

Advantage to Relative Care

• Nationwide, studies comparing relative placement versus foster care show:– More children were with the same placement

for one year (82% vs. 65%)– Fewer children changed schools (63% vs. 80%,

with that number increasing to 93% for group care)

– More children liked those with whom they lived (93% vs. 79%)

– More children wanted their current placement to be their permanent home (61% vs.

27%)– More children felt they “were always loved”

(94% vs. 82%)


• Children placed in relative foster homes more likely to be placed in their neighborhoods & remain in their schools of origin

• Because schools are typically community- based, relative foster care promotes the maintenance of children’s ties to a network of friends, teachers, coaches & other potentially significant supports


• One analysis showed that half of the children placed with

relatives never changed homes during their stay in foster care whereas 80% of children placed with non-relatives had one or more placement moves while in foster care


• Children in foster care express desire to be with siblings

• Research has shown that children in foster care are more likely to live with siblings if placed with relatives


• Children placed into relative care had fewer behavioral problems 3 years after placement than children who were placed into foster care

• This finding supports efforts to maximize the placement of children with

willing/available relative when they enter out-of-home care

• Even children who moved to relative care after sustained periods of foster

care showed some benefit


• Because relatives are more likely to take in larger sibling groups than non-relative caregivers, siblings placed in relative care are more likely to achieve

permanency together

• When permanency is not achieved for all siblings together, relatives are more likely to maintain siblings’ relationships with one another

• Children with relatives were more likely to visit with their siblings (62%) than

children living with non-relatives (30%)


• In a number of cultures, the family and home are understood to include the extended family and in some cases the community

Safely Home, Families First• Research sponsored by the Illinois Department

of Children and Family Services, found the large majority of relatives (80%) viewed the children in their care as “already home” and made clear their commitment to raising the children to adulthood

• The perception that relative foster care was a barrier to adoption appears to have been largely a self-fulfilling prophecy:

caseworkers acted on the belief that relatives were not willing to adopt

• Illinois found that children in relative care are at a lower risk for maltreatment than are children in either specialized or non-

relative foster care

Relative Placements

• Average length of stay for children in relative care is 403

Foster Home Placement

• State average• 5,218 children

• 3,530,124 days

• Average length of stay for children in foster care- 686 days

To Sum it up

• Average Days in Care: • Relative------ 403• Foster--------- 686 • What is best for kids?

Safely Home – Families First

Why Safely Home – Families First? • Research shows children do better when they

remain in their home or have connection with relatives

• Younger children who enter care experience more physical, mental and educational challenges than children remaining in their own home

• Studies demonstrate that children thrive in the least- restrictive, most home like setting

• Community-based interventions provide a more appropriate alternative to placing children in restrictive settings

Current DCS Initiatives in Place to Support Staff

• Child and Adolescent Strength and Needs (CANS)

• DDRS/DCS MOU

• Permanency Teams/Roundtables

• Clinicians

• Safety and Risk Assessment Tools

• Placement Review Teams

Current DCS Initiatives in Place to Support Staff

• Protective Factor Training• Foster Care Reorganization/Specialists• Services RFP• Referral Wizard• Foster Parent Training• Licensing Rule Changes• Institutional Unit• MaGIK• PIP

• One hour crisis response

Home-based casework

Homemaker

Home-based therapy

• Homebuilders

• Flexibility in serving families

• Working with fathers and relatives

• Support children in resource homes

• Medicaid and MRO

• CMHC Initiatives

• Cross System Care Coordination

• Community Alternatives to PRTF

• Integrated Services Pilot (ISP)

• Northern Indiana Team Choices (NITCH)

Coming Soon…

Coming Soon

• Regional Nurses

83% of cases involve neglect

• Private Detectives

Find fathers and extended families for long-term connections and placement connections

• Education Specialists

21st Century, IEPs, etc.

Permanency Teams and Roundtables

Permanency

• In 2008, Indiana began increasing efforts in the quest for permanency for children by developing and implementing Permanency Teams recognizing that the primary goal of DCS is the safety of children and to help children involved with the agency to attain permanency in a timely manner

• Indiana began utilizing Permanency Roundtables in certain regions beginning in May of 2011. With the support of Casey Family Programs, seven of the 18 regions have successfully implemented a first phase of Permanency Roundtables.

Permanency Roundtables

• Roundtables focus more on teaching and learning moments for staff which in turn provides for extensive constructive changes within a Family Case Manager’s caseload, a Supervisor’s unit, a Local Office, and even region-wide.

Permanency Teams

• Permanency Teams utilize input from all available parties such as the child’s parents, appropriate relatives, foster parents, CASA/GAL, courts, and anyone else a child or family desires to be involved. In short, the Permanency teams identify children where permanency efforts have stalled and bring together a group of the above-mentioned individuals to brainstorm and develop a plan to achieve permanency

Some differences between Permanency Teams and Permanency Roundtables

• Differ in number of cases presented, length of staffing time, and scale of the final action plan

• Permanency Teams can be held more frequently and typically can staff several cases in a day

• Roundtables require more organization and planning, staffing each case for two hours, and developing a written and specific action plan

• Permanency Teams are held within a region utilizing regional staff and partners

• Roundtables are held within a region using specialized DCS staff from around the state and no external partners

Permanency Teams

• Permanency Teams utilize input from all available parties such as the child’s parents, appropriate relatives, foster parents, CASA/GAL, courts, and anyone else a child or family desires to be involved. In short, the Permanency teams identify children where permanency efforts have stalled and bring together a group of the above-mentioned individuals to brainstorm and develop a plan to achieve permanency

CASA/DCS

• Expect more IN-Home CHINS

May be visiting wards in their homes more frequently

• Help with transition during FCM turnover – get new workers up to speed on case.

• Open communication both ways

• Disagreement is healthy

• Keep an open mind to SHFF

CASA/DCS

Cases are unique and fact sensitive

• Keep an open mind

• “The exact right thing to do in one case is the exact wrong thing in another”

Kimberly Howe

Safely Home-Families First

Kimberly Howe

A different perspective…

WELCOME

Documents

Transcript of WELCOME