Skip To: Main Content | Subnavigation |
 
DHS Program Resources Child Protection/Welfare Sup

Minnesota Department of Human Services Child and Family Service Review

Hennepin County

Self Assessment Update2010

February 2010

Minnesota Child and Family Service Review Instructions for Conducting the 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 tatewide 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 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.

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: Deborah.Huskins@co.hennepin.mn.us

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.

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, 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 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 �

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

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

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

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:

n Healing (e.g., basic needs such as food, clothing, shelter; public benefits)

n Family preservation (e.g., parenting supports and Doula services)

n Education (e.g., training for paraprofessionals and system professionals working with

families; community forums that educate residents about community resources)

n Restoration (e.g., intervention and reunification supports for families; domestic abuse

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Child Well-being Data Tables

Table 11 provides information regarding the frequency of caseworkers’ monthly face-to-face contact with children in foster care.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Child Well-being Data Tables

Table 11 provides information regarding the frequency of caseworkers’ monthly face-to-face contact with children in foster care.

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% h

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% h

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% h

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 i

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% h

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% i

24.0%

18.5%

(206/1115)

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% h

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 i

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% h

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% h

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% h

36.5%

35.3%

(45/128)

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% h

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% h

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% i

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% h

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% h

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% h

29.4%

14.5%

(87/598)

*The county met the performance standard.

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%

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 2009Table 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 EvaluationReasons 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

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

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

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.

What specific strengths of the agency’s programs have been identified?

Provided in earlier section of this report.

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.

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.

Please complete the following evaluation of the county self assessment process in terms of its usefulness to the county and recommendations for revision.

Were you allowed adequate time to complete the county self assessment process?
Yes �    No �

Comments:

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.

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 year and we could anticipate it in time to engage stakeholders, this would be more meaningful.

Did you find the county self assessment an effective process for evaluating your county’s child welfare system? Yes �    No �

Comments:

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.imageimageimage

Report this page