Skip to: Main content | Subnavigation |
Department of Human Services Department of Human Services CountyLink: Take a Tour
  County Reports/Results     DHS Program Resources     DHS Systems & IT Updates     Fiscal Reporting & Accounting      Manuals     Policy Inquiries     TrainLink       Performance Management    

Evaluating Minnesota’s Child Welfare System: A Review of Safety, Permanency and Well-being Outcomes for Children and Families in Todd County
Summary

Safety Findings

Permanency Findings

Well-being Findings

Systemic Factors

Appendix

Table 1: Federal Data Indicators Performance Chart

Table 2: Completed Face-to-face Contacts with Alleged Child Victims

Table 3: Length of Placement Episodes Ending in 2009

Table 4: Children in Out-of-home Care by Placement Setting

Table 5: Caseworker Visits with Children in Foster Care

Table 6: MnCFSR Outcomes and Items Performance Ratings


Summary
The Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) conducted a Minnesota Child and Family Service Review (MnCFSR) in Todd County in August 2010. The county participated in an initial MnCFSR in July 2006. Following the initial review, the agency implemented a Program Improvement Plan to address areas identified as needing improvement. The August 2010 MnCFSR re-examined the agency’s child welfare performance, and assessed the effectiveness of the agency’s efforts to achieve improved outcomes for children and families. Modifications were made to the MnCFSR process between the 2006 and 2010 reviews. These changes factor into ratings, and make it difficult to compare findings between the two reviews.

DHS will partner with Todd County Social Services to conduct MnCFSRs every four years. This cycle of reviews provides a framework for continuous quality improvement for child welfare practice.


MnCFSR Process
To prepare for the review, the agency completed a self assessment, providing an updated evaluation of its strengths or needs on eight systemic factors that form the infrastructure of the child welfare system. The self assessment provided an opportunity to examine agency performance on key child welfare outcome measures, a context for case reviews and focus for stakeholder interviews.

The onsite case review included an intensive examination of eight cases, selected at random. Three in-home and five placement cases from the child protection and adoption/guardianship program areas were examined. Reviewers examined case records and conducted interviews with key case participants, e.g., children, parents, foster parents, service providers and caseworkers.

Community stakeholders were an additional source of information regarding the strengths and needs of the county’s child welfare system. DHS Quality Assurance staff conducted interviews with agency administration and caseworkers, as well as representatives from the Child Abuse Team and Children’s Justice Initiative (CJI) Team. Licensed foster parents also provided input through a written survey.


Key Findings/Program Improvement Planning
Findings for the review were derived from the self assessment prepared by the county agency, performance on federal and state child welfare indicators, ratings on outcomes and performance items from the onsite case review, input from community stakeholders and interviews with key case participants.

Based on case review findings, the agency’s overall performance on achieving safety, permanency and well-being outcomes was equivalent to or higher in six of seven outcome areas when compared to findings from the 2006 review. Key strengths included:


Timely assessments and collaboration.
The agency conducted timely assessments of reports of child maltreatment, and developed strong collaborative efforts with community partners to avoid unnecessary out-of-home placement of children.


Timely permanency.
Timely permanency was achieved for children in most of the cases reviewed, and the agency met national standards measuring timely reunification and adoption (2009), except for those measuring outcomes for children in care for extended periods.


Engaging fathers/non-resident parents.
In 2006, practices related to engaging fathers were less consistent when compared to practices with mothers. The 2010 review reflected more equitable, balanced casework practice. Improving casework practice with fathers positively impacted performance across multiple areas, including assessing needs, providing services, visitation, case planning and caseworker visits.


Achieved outcomes.
Sustained leadership, experienced staff, and continuity in key stakeholder positions supported improvements in achieving safety, permanency and well-being outcomes for children and families.

The success of the Minnesota Child and Family Service Review is ultimately demonstrated by changes in practice that support improved outcomes for children and families. Todd County will prepare a Program Improvement Plan to address areas identified as needing improvement in this review including:

• Implementing more timely initial contacts with children in response to maltreatment reports
• Improving relative search and placement practices
• Improving case plan development
• Engaging families to improve timely achievement of permanency and stability for older youth and children in care for extended period of time.
• Improving frequency and quality of caseworker visits with children
• Ensuring timely court notices to foster parents
• Addressing the need for staff and supervisory resources.
Findings related to areas needing improvement, as well as observations of practice and systemic strengths, are further detailed in the remainder of this report to provide the agency with information necessary to develop program improvement strategies that target specific barriers or challenges identified in the review. Capitalizing on systemic strengths and effective child welfare practices will provide a strong foundation for program improvement to promote positive outcomes for children and families in Todd County.


Safety findings
The following table outlines the county’s performance on safety outcomes and performance items in the eight cases reviewed. When evaluating Safety, all children in the family were considered, and ratings were made in both placement and in-home cases.

Outcome or Performance Item

Performance Item Ratings

Outcome Ratings

Strength

Area Needing Improve-ment

NA

Substan-tially Achieved

Partially Achieved

Not Achieved

NA

Outcome S1: Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect.

     
5

1

0

2

Item 1: Timeliness of initiating assessments/ investigations of reports of child maltreatment

5

1

2

       
Item 2: Repeat maltreatment

6

0

2

       
Outcome S2: Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate

     
4

3

1

0

Item 3: Services to family to protect child(ren) in home and prevent removal or re-entry into foster care

7

1

0

       
Item 4: Risk assessment and safety management

4

4

0

       

Safety Finding #1:

The Timeliness of Child Contact report indicates a need for improvement in making face-to-face contact with children in response to reports of child maltreatment.

In five of six applicable cases, face-to-face contact with children occurred within required timelines. There were no systemic barriers to timely contacts; rather, a single example of delayed efforts was insufficient to locate children who were not immediately available.

The agency’s performance is higher than statewide performance for non-substantial child endangerment cases. However, the agency’s broader performance data indicates the need for continued improvement in the timeliness of response to maltreatment reports (Data Dashboard, (Appendix, Table 2). Program Improvement Plans are recommended when completed face-to-face contacts with children occur in less than 90 percent of all the completed assessments and investigations.


Safety strengths.
In the majority of cases, initial maltreatment reports were received, screened and assigned, and face-to-face contact with children occurred within required timelines. The agency’s screening decisions were all appropriate and investigations/assessments were thorough. Practices that contributed to thorough assessments included review of past child protection history, and effective coordination between law enforcement and other agency staff working with families. Structured Decision Making (SDM) tools were consistently used to document initial safety and risk decisions. There were no examples of repeat maltreatment in the cases reviewed. Stakeholders report that team screenings, timely assignment of cases, and skilled assessment workers supported timely responses to child maltreatment reports.


Program Improvement Plan Recommendations
Identify and address barriers to timely contacts with children in response to maltreatment reports (MnCFSR Item 1).

Safety Finding #2:

Ensure that all safety and risk factors are adequately addressed through case planning; monthly caseworker visits with children in foster care and appropriate interventions.

Agency staff assessed and addressed risk and safety concerns at case initiation, but ongoing risk and safety practices were inconsistent. Findings from the case review indicate similar performance when compared to findings from the 2006 review. Cases were rated as an Area Needing Improvement due to a gap in caseworker contacts with the assigned family, determined insufficient to assess ongoing safety and risk concerns. When frequent caseworker visits did not occur, agency staffs’ capacity to conduct ongoing risk and safety assessments was limited. This was particularly evident in the in-home child protection cases.


Safety strengths.
In the cases reviewed, practices that contributed to effective safety and risk management included caseworkers completing initial and some ongoing formal Structured Decision Making (SDM) risk and safety assessment tools; and frequency of caseworker visits determined sufficient to assess ongoing safety and risk concerns. In some cases, specific, comprehensive, written safety plans developed with family input promoted mutual working relationships between families and the identified protection network. Stakeholders indicate they are familiar with, and support, agency safety-focused strategies to ensure child safety through traditional investigations but have less confidence in the rigor of a FA response. Thorough maltreatment assessments/investigations; frequent caseworker visits, when they occurred; and effective teamwork supported achievement of safety outcomes.


Program Improvement Plan Recommendations
Identify and address safety and risk needs for all children in the family including improving the frequency and quality of face-to-face contacts with children living in foster care or their family home. (MnCFSR Item 4)

Request technical assistance from the DHS Safety Unit to address stakeholders’ concerns with FA response.


Permanency findings
The following table outlines the county’s performance on permanency outcomes and performance items in the five placement cases reviewed. When reviewing these cases, one child in the family was randomly selected as the “identified child,” and ratings on items and outcomes were based on that child’s experience.

Outcome or Performance Item

Performance Item Ratings

Outcome Ratings

Strength

Area Needing Improve-ment

NA

Substan-tially Achieved

Partially Achieved

Not Achieved

NA

Outcome P1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations

     
4

1

0

0

Item 5: Foster care re-entries

3

0

2

       
Item 6: Stability of foster care placement

4

1

0

       
Item 7: Permanency goal for child

5

0

0

       
Item 8: Reunification or permanent transfer of legal and physical custody to

a relative

2

0

3

       
Item 9: Adoption

2

1

2

       
Item 10: Long-term foster care

0

0

5

       
Outcome P2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children.

     
5

0

0

0

Item 11: Proximity of foster care placement

4

0

1

       
Item 12: Placement with siblings

2

0

3

       
Item 13: Visiting with parents and siblings in foster care

3

1

1

       
Item 14: Preserving connections

5

0

0

       
Item 15: Relative placement

3

2

0

       
Item 16: Relationship of child in care with parents

4

0

1

       

Permanency Finding #1:

The agency’s performance on national standards indicates improvement is needed to prevent re-entry, and improve permanency and stability outcomes for children in placement for an extended period.

The 2009 Child Welfare Report indicates that the agency met the national standard for timely reunification, but did not meet the standard for foster care re-entry. The agency met the standard for adoption within 24 months; however, it did not meet the standard for progress toward adoption for children meeting Adoption and Safe Families Act (AFSA) time-in-care requirements. The agency met the national standard for placement stability for children who were in foster care for less than 12 months, but did not meet the standard for children in foster care for longer periods (Appendix, Table 1). The agency self-assessment update also identified lack of permanency and placement disruptions, for older youth living in foster care for an extended period of time, many with exceptional behavioral needs, as an area needing improvement.


Permanency strengths.
Stakeholders and case review findings indicated this was a strong area of performance in both the 2006 and 2010 MnCFSRs. In the cases reviewed, appropriate permanency goals were matched to children’s individual permanency needs, and permanency goals were achieved, or on track to be achieved, in a timely manner. A number of effective team decision-making processes were used to establish permanency goals and re-evaluate progress, including weekly unit meetings, Child Protection Team consultations and frequent consultation with the assistant county attorney. Concurrent permanency goals were established in some cases, and goal achievement was supported through frequent review hearings, expedited services, effective collaboration between the permanency worker and caseworkers, and effective use of trial home visits.


Program Improvement Plan Recommendations
Address factors contributing to delays in timely achievement of permanency, and prevention of re-entry for older youth in foster care in conjunction with key partners (Federal Performance Measures C1.4, C2.4, C2.5 and C3.1)

Identify and address barriers to placement stability for children in care for more than 12 months (Federal Performance Measures C4.2 and C4.3).

Permanency Finding #2:

Improvement strategies that focus on engaging families and always completing initial and ongoing comprehensive maternal and paternal relative searches would further strengthen performance in this area.

Findings from the case review and information from stakeholders indicate that the agency made initial inquiries about relatives prior to placing children in foster care. Additional efforts were needed to engage and assess the appropriateness of relatives in the lives of children, and address barriers to their involvement initially, and on an ongoing basis. The 2009 Child Welfare Report indicated the state average for relative placements was 12.1 percent; Todd County’s performance was 7.1 percent (Appendix, Table 4).


Permanency strengths.
Practices that supported maintaining family relationships and preserving connections included placing children in close proximity to their parents; placing sibling groups together in the same foster home; developing flexible visitation plans; and maintaining frequent (at least monthly) substantive visitation between both parents and their children. Caseworkers creatively eliminated barriers to parent/child visits (e.g., transportation), including some cases in which extraordinary efforts were made to ensure visits occurred and parent/child relationships were maintained. Fathers and mothers had equal opportunities and supports regarding visitation with their children.

Stakeholders indicated the agency considers relatives from the beginning of a court case, with the court ordering parents to provide agency staff with the names and addresses of potential relatives. This practice has improved since the 2006 review. Stakeholders also report the court recognizes and supports frequent, substantive visitation between parents and their children, based on children’s needs.


Program Improvement Plan Recommendations
Identify and address barriers to timely comprehensive relative searches (MnCFSR Item 15, Appendix, Table 5.)


Well-Being findings
The following table outlines the county’s performance on well-being outcomes and performance items in the eight cases reviewed. Ratings were made in both placement and in-home cases. When reviewing in-home cases, all children in the family were considered; when reviewing placement cases, only the “identified child” was considered in the rating decision.

Outcome or Performance Item

Performance Item Ratings

Outcome Ratings

Strength

Area Needing Improve-ment

NA

Substan-tially Achieved

Partially Achieved

Not Achieved

NA

Outcome WB1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs

     
4

3

1

0

Item 17: Needs and services of child, parents and foster parents

5

3

0

       
Item 18: Child and family involvement in case planning

4

4

0

       
Item 19: Worker visits with child

4

4

0

       
Item 20: Worker visits with parent(s)

7

1

0

       
Outcome WB2: Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs

     
5

0

0

3

Item 21: Educational needs of the child

5

0

3

       
Outcome WB3: Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs

     
6

2

0

0

Item 22: Physical health of the child

5

0

3

       
Item 23: Mental/behavioral health of the child

6

2

0

       

Well-being Finding #1:

Efforts to engage parents was a factor in all Area Needing Improvement ratings on performance items related to assessing needs and providing services (Item 17), and family engagement in case planning (Item 18).

Findings from the case review indicated inconsistencies in assessing needs and providing services to parents, with some parents receiving comprehensive assessments and services while others did not. In several cases, agency staff was not working with and addressing the needs of the entire family. There were no disparities noted regarding involvement of non-custodial/non-resident parents. Overall, assessment and engagement practices were stronger in placement cases compared to non-placement cases. In some cases rated as an Area Needing Improvement, there was active engagement of case participants; however, there were no signed, current, written case plans in the case file.

Overall, the use of standardized assessment tools (including Structured Decision Making, Family Needs and Strengths Assessments, Risk Re-assessment Tools, Children’s Mental Health Screening Tools and Child Well-being Tools) varied between workers. Stakeholders identified training issues, and lack of clear agency expectations related to using the tools, as a barrier to more consistent use. Stakeholders also identified a lack of locally available services and absence of a public transportation system as barriers to comprehensive assessments and service provision.


Well-being strengths.
Performance in all of the Well-being Outcomes has improved since the 2006 review. In a majority of cases, caseworkers skillfully involved family members in identifying needs and selecting services and providers. Stakeholders described caseworkers as being very experienced and highly skilled at engaging families in planning and services. They linked the likelihood of families achieving case plan goals to the workers’ engagement skills and knowledge on how to help families in need. In a majority of cases, the frequency and quality of caseworker visits with parents was rated a Strength.


Program Improvement Plan Recommendations
Engage families in case planning and address barriers to consistent, comprehensive needs assessments and services for parents in child welfare cases (MnCFSR Item 17)

Ensure families have current case plans that reflect specific steps to safely prevent placement or achieve permanency. Strategies that target improvement on in-home cases are warranted (MnCFSR Item 18).

Well-being Finding #2:

The agency did not meet state and federal requirements for caseworker visits with children in foster care each and every month (Item #19). In addition, children living in the family home were not seen at a frequency necessary to ensure their safety and needs were being met.

Regarding in-home cases, caseworker visits with children occurred less than monthly; this frequency was not sufficient to monitor risk, safety or changing needs. One placement case needed improvement because additional efforts were needed to meet with the child each and every month. Stakeholders reported distance, large caseload sizes, and focus on the identified child in need had some negative impact on the frequency and quality of caseworker visits with all children.

According to the Monthly Caseworker Visits with Children in Foster Care Report, January 2010, the agency did not meet state and federal requirements for visits with children in foster care. Stakeholders noted some concern about the accuracy of data entry; errors were noted in the case review. Further efforts to identify and address barriers to monthly caseworker visits are necessary.


Well-being strengths.
In the cases reviewed, most children in placement had at least monthly visits with their caseworkers. The agency’s performance has shown a gradual, upward progression with each reporting period since 2006 (Appendix, Table 5). In the cases rated as a Strength, caseworkers visited with children monthly, taking time to discuss safety and supervision in the foster or family home, as well as children’s school/behavioral needs and case plan goal attainment.


Program Improvement Plan Recommendations
Conduct face-to-face visits with children at a frequency sufficient for conducting ongoing assessments of risk, safety and overall needs, ensuring caseworker visits with children in foster care each and every month they are in placement (MnCFSR 4, 19).


SYSTEMIC FACTORS
The initial Todd County self assessment completed in July 2006 provided descriptions and ratings on eight systemic factors that form the child welfare infrastructure. Each system was further examined during the onsite review. As counties developed Program Improvement Plans (PIP), they considered how strong systems supported their PIP activities and included strategies to improve systemic factors that were determined to be needing improvement.

In preparation for this review, Todd County Social Services provided updated descriptions and compared ratings of each systemic factor. Although information about systems is included throughout this report, summary observations of key findings are listed below.


The following systemic factor(s) contributed to positive case findings:

Case review system.
Multi-disciplinary teams, including the Children’s Justice Initiative (CJI) Team and the Child Protection Team, support safety, permanency and well-being outcomes for children and families.


Service array.
An array of services is available to children and families in the surrounding communities. Stakeholders reported some local service gaps, but no service gaps were identified in the cases reviewed.


Agency responsiveness to the community.
Todd County has a number of collaborative working relationships with a variety of community stakeholders, and is interested in community input and feedback regarding agency policies and child welfare practices. Stakeholders reported that they do not fully understand the practices involved in a Family Assessment (FA) response to child protection reports, and as a result, have not developed confidence in FA as an effective safety response to child maltreatment reports.


The following systemic factor(s) should be addressed in development of the Todd County Program Improvement Plan:

Case review system.
Foster parent surveys indicated that they are not consistently notified of court hearings. Improvement efforts focused on the following will help improve outcomes for children:

• Provide written notice of court hearings to foster parents for children in their care
• Ensure that foster parents are informed of their right to be heard in court.

Quality assurance system.
Following the 2006 review, the agency instituted a qualitative case review process for evaluating achievement of safety, permanency and well-being outcomes for children and families. DHS Quality Assurance staff will provide tools and technical assistance in developing and maintaining this process. Results from the review, coupled with data generated through ongoing case reviews and DHS data reports, will support strategic planning and provide a mechanism for staff and administration to monitor the quality of services delivered to children and families.


Staff and supervisor resources.
Supervisor to staff ratio is 24 to one, which is more than three times the ratio recommended by the Child Welfare League of America. This creates a significant barrier to scheduling individually structured meetings with caseworkers and evaluating outcomes for children and families. The information from all sources was consistent regarding this issue. Agency staff resources directly affect all outcomes, especially performance measures 4, 17, 18, 19 and 20.


APPENDIX

Federal Data Indicators
The following table summarizes the agency’s performance on federal data indicators and provides a comparison to state performance rates.

SUMMARY OF MN PERFORMANCE ON

FEDERAL MEASURES

National Standard

 
MN Performance 2009

Todd Co Performance 2009

Safety Indicator 1: Absence of Maltreatment Recurrence

94.6%


95.3%*

100%*

(7/7)

Safety Indicator 2: Absence of CA/N in Foster Care

99.68%


99.56%

98.41%

(62 /63 )


Permanency Composite 1: Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification
Component A: Timeliness of Reunification

C1.1 Of all children discharged from foster care to reunification in the year shown, and who had been in foster care for eight days or longer, what percent were reunified in less than 12 months from the time of the latest removal from home?

75.2%


83.7%*

90%*

( 9/10 )

C1.2 Median length of stay in foster care to reunification (months)

5.4


4.1*

4.4*

C1.3 Of all children entering foster care for the first time in the six-month period just prior to the year shown, and who remained in foster care for eight days or longer, what percentage were reunified in less than 12 months?

48.4%


61.8%*

57.1%*

( 4/7 )

Component B: Permanency of Reunification

C1.4 Of all children discharged from care to reunification in the 12-month period prior to the year shown, what percentage re-entered foster care in less than 12 months from the date of discharge?

9.9%


26.1%

12.5%

( 3/24 )


Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of Adoptions
Component A: Timeliness of Adoptions of Children Discharged From Foster Care
C2.1 Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in the year shown, what percent were discharged in less than 24 months from the date of latest removal from home?

36.6%


47%*

66.7%*

(2 /3 )

C2.2 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 removed from home to the date of adoption?

27.3


24.8*

17.4*

Component B: Adoption for Children Meeting ASFA Time-In-Care Requirements

C2.3 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 were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption by the last day of the year shown?

22.7%


20.5%

8.3%

(1 /12 )

C2.4 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 were not legally free for adoption prior to that day, what percent become legally free for adoption during the first 6 months of the year shown?

10.9%


1.7%

0%

( 0/10 )

Component C: Adoption of Children Who Are Legally Free for Adoption

C2.5 Of all children who became legally free for adoption in the 12-month period prior to the year shown, what percent were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12 months of becoming legally free?

53.7%


36.5%

100%*

(1 /1 )


Permanency Composite 3: Achieving Permanency for Children in Foster Care
Component A: Achieving permanency for Children in Care for Extended Periods of Time

C3.1 Of all children in foster care for 24 months or longer on the first day of the year shown, what percent were discharged to a permanency home prior to their 18th birthday and by the end of the year (including adoption, guardianship, reunification or transfer of custody to a relative)?

29.1%


19.8%

18.2%

(2 /11 )

C3.2 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 (including adoption, guardianship, reunification or transfer of custody to a relative)?

98.0%


91.7%

100%*

(2 /2)

Component B: Children Emancipated Who Were in Foster Care for Extended Periods Of Time

C3.3 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 three years or longer?

37.5%


43.%

28.6%*

( 2/7 )


Permanency Composite 4: Placement Stability (no components)
C4.1 Of all children served in foster care during the year shown who were in foster care for at least eight days but less than 12 months, what percent had two or fewer placement settings?

86.0%


86.%*

100%*

(27 /27 )

C4.2 Of all children served in foster care during the year shown 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%

40%

(2/5 )

C4.3 Of all children served in foster care during the year shown who were in foster care for at least 24 months, what percent had two or fewer placement settings?

41.8%


29.4%

35.3%

(6 /17 )

*The county met the national standard.


Completed Face-to-face Contact with Alleged Child Victims
Table 2

 
Reporting Period

Statewide Rate of Timely Contact

Percent and Number With Timely Contact*

Investigations – Alleged Substantial Child Endangerment

Apr-June 2010

56.1%

100%

(2/2)

Jul-Sept 2010

64.1%

33%

(1/3)

Investigations – Not Substantial Child Endangerment

Apr-June 2010

77.2%

Not Applicable/No cases

Jul-Sept 2010

82.6%

Not Applicable/No cases

Family Assessments

Apr-June 2010

71.2%

76.5%

(13/17)

Jul-Sept 2010

76.1%

76.5%

(13/17)

Child Welfare Data Dashboard

*Timely contact is defined as:

• Family Assessments and Investigation – Not Substantial Child Endangerment: Within five 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 3

Length of Placement Episodes

2009

State %

Todd County’s %

1 – 7 days

21.8%

30 %

(9/30)

8 – 30 days

9.9%

No children

31 – 90 days

12.7%

13.3%

(4 /30 )

91 – 180 days

11.5%

6.6%

( 2/30 )

181 – 365 days

16.9%

13.3%

( 4/ 30)

366+ days

27.2%

36.6%

(11 / 30)

DHS Children’s Research and Evaluation


Children in Out-of-home Care by Placement Setting
Table 4

(Children may be counted in more than one placement setting)

Placement Setting

2009

State %

Todd County %

Foster Family Non-relative

40.1%

48.2 % (41)

Foster Family Relative

12.1%

7.1% (6)

Foster Home – Corporate/Shift Staff

1.6%

3.5% (3)

Group Home

14.5%

8.2% (7)

Juvenile Correctional Facility (locked)

3.6%

1.2% (1)

Juvenile Correctional Facility (non-secure)

4.6%

9.4% (8)

Pre-adoptive Non-relative

4.9%

8.2% (7)

Pre-adoptive Relative

2.4%

1.2% (1)

Residential Treatment Center

15.8%

12.9% (11)

Other*

0.3%

0%

Total Placement Settings

19,255

85

*“Other” includes ICF-MR and Supervised Independent Living settings

Minnesota’s Child Welfare Report 2009


Caseworker Visits with Children in Foster Care
Table 5

 
State %

County %

Oct 1, 2009 – Sept 30, 2010

53.3%

36.4%

(14/39)

July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2010

46.9%

43.6%

(17/39)

Oct 1, 2008 – Sept 30, 2009

46.9%

48.6%

(18/37)

July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2009

46.1%

17.4%

(8/46)

Apr. 1, 2008 – Mar. 31, 2009

42.7%

15.5%

(7/45)

Jan. 1, 2008 – Dec. 31, 2008

40.4%

16.3%

(8/49)

Oct. 1, 2007 – Sept. 30, 2008

38.7%

20.8%

(11/53)

DHS Caseworker Visits with Children in Out-of-home Placement Report.
DHS Child Welfare Data Release Reports and Child Welfare Data Dashboard

MnCFSR Outcomes and Items Performance Ratings
The following table summarizes the review findings for Todd County outcomes and performance items.

OUTCOME AND PERFORMANCE ITEMS

% Substantially Achieved

% Strength

SAFETY OUTCOME 1

Children are first and foremost protected from abuse and neglect

80%

( 4/5)

 
ITEM 1

Timeliness of initiating investigations of reports of child maltreatment

 
83.3%

(5 / 6)

       
ITEM 2

Repeat maltreatment

 
100.%

(6 / 6)

SAFETY OUTCOME 2

Children are safely maintained in

their homes whenever possible

and appropriate

50%

(4 / 4)

 
ITEM 3

Services to family to protect child(ren) in home and prevent removal or re-entry into foster care

 
87.5%

(7 / 8)

ITEM 4

Risk assessment and safety management

 
50%

(4 / 4)

PERMANENCY OUTCOME 1

Children have permanency and stability in their living situations

100.0%

(5 /5 )

 
ITEM 5

Foster care re-entries

 
100.0%

(3 / 3)

ITEM 6

Stability of foster care placement

 
80%

(4 /5 )

ITEM 7

Permanency goal for child

 
100.0%

( 5/ 5)

ITEM 8

Reunification or transfer of permanent legal and physical custody to a relative

 
100.0%

(2 / 2)

ITEM 9

Adoption

 
66.7%

(2 / 3)

ITEM 10

Permanency goal of long-term foster care

 
NA

PERMANENCY OUTCOME 2

The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children

100.0%

( 5/ 5)

 
ITEM 11

Proximity of foster care placement

 
100.0%

(4 /4 )

ITEM 12

Placement with siblings

 
100.0%

(2 / 2)

ITEM 13

Visits with parents and siblings in

foster care

 
75.0%

(3 / 4)

ITEM 14

Preservation of connections

 
100.0%

( 5/ 5)

ITEM 15

Relative placement

 
60.0%

(3 / 5)

ITEM 16

Relationship of child in care with parents

 
100.0%

(4 /4 )

WELL-BEING OUTCOME 1

Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs

50%

( 4/ 4)

 
ITEM 17

Needs and services of child, parents and foster parents

 
55.6%

(5 / 8)

ITEM 18

Child and family involvement in

case planning

 
50%

(4 / 4)

ITEM 19

Worker visits with child

 
50%%

(4 /4)

ITEM 20

Worker visits with parent(s)

 
87.5%

(7 / 8)

WELL-BEING OUTCOME 2

Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs

100%

( 6/ 6)

 
ITEM 21

Educational needs of the child

 
100%

(6 /6 )

WELL-BEING OUTCOME 3

Children receive adequate services

to meet their physical and mental

health needs

75%

(6 / 8)

 
ITEM 22

Physical health of the child

 
100%

(5 / 5)

ITEM 23

Mental/behavioral health of the child

 
75%

(6 / 8)



  Rate/Report this page   Report/Rate this page

© 2014 Minnesota Department of Human Services Online
Minnesota.gov is led by MN.IT Services
Updated: 4/29/14 10:11 AM | Text-Only Link | Accessibility | Terms/Policy | Contact DHS | Top of Page |