36
Minnesota Department of Human Services Child and Family Service Review Benton County Self Assessment Update (February 2014) September 2013
Minnesota Department of Human Services
Child and Family Service Review
Benton County Self Assessment Update
(February 2014)
September 2013
i
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 statewide training, technical assistance, practice guidance and policy development. In preparation for subsequent reviews, counties will review their most recent Self Assessment and, update their evaluation of core child welfare systems. Counties are also asked to review child welfare data and comment on factors or strategies that impacted the agency’s performance. Process for Conducting the County Self Assessment Update Department of Human Services (DHS) Quality Assurance regional consultants provide the county Self Assessment Update document at the first coordination meeting held with the county, and offer ongoing technical assistance as the county completes the document. The Self Assessment Update document includes county specific data on national standard performance along with safety and permanency data. The county Self Assessment Update is completed and submitted to the Quality Assurance regional consultant approximately two weeks prior to the onsite review. Completed Self Assessment Updates are classified as public information and are posted on the child welfare supervisor’s website. Counties are strongly encouraged to convene a team of representatives of county agency staff and community stakeholders to complete the Self Assessment Update. Children’s Justice Initiative Teams, Child Protection Teams or Citizen Review Panels are examples of community stakeholders who play a role in the county child welfare delivery system. These community stakeholders bring a broad and meaningful perspective to the evaluation of systemic factors and performance related to safety, permanency and well-being. Staff members and community stakeholders who participate in the county Self Assessment Update process also provide a valuable resource to the development of the county’s Program Improvement Plan.
ii
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.
1
PART I: GENERAL INFORMATION DHS Quality Assurance staff will identify the period under review. The county is requested to designate a person who will be primarily responsible for completing the self assessment and provide contact information below.
Name of County Agency
Benton County
Period Under Review
Period Under Review (PUR) For Onsite Case Review: December 1, 2012 through February 14, 2014 Period for Part IV Data Tables: 2012_
County Agency Contact Person for the County Self Assessment
Name: Bruce DeGrote Title: Supervisor Address: PO Box 740, Foley, MN Phone: ( 320-968-5097 Fax: ( 320 ) 968-5330 E-Mail: [email protected]
Key Dates
Month/year of prior MnCFSR(s): November 2006 and November 2010
Month/year of on-site review: February 10 – 14, 2014
2
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 since the last MnCFSR, including strengths, promising practices, and ongoing challenges. It is unnecessary to restate information provided in the previous self assessment. If the last self assessment continues to accurately reflect a description of a particular Systemic Factor, note that no significant changes have occurred since the last review.
Section 2: Target Questions. Some systemic factors include a set of targeted questions designed to focus agency attention on specific
practice areas or activities. Target questions represent areas identified as needing improvement in Minnesota’s 2007 federal CFSR. Provide information regarding agency practice, promising approaches or identified barriers in these specific areas.
Section 3: Ratings. Quality Assurance regional consultants will provide the agency rating for the overall systemic factor from the initial
self assessment. Determine an updated rating for each Systemic Factor according to the following scale:
Area Needing Improvement Strength 1 2 3 4
None of the practices or requirements are in place.
Some, but not all, of the practices or requirements are in place and some function at a lower than adequate level.
Most, but not all, of the practices or requirements are in place and most function at an adequate or higher level.
All of the practices or requirements are in place and all are functioning at an adequate or higher level.
3
A. Information System (SSIS) A1. Review information included in the agency’s last self assessment. Summarize changes in the agency’s information system since the last MnCFSR. Consider the following when responding to this question:
• County developed/modifications to policies or protocols related to the use of SSIS • Resources to support use of SSIS (training for workers, mentors, equipment upgrades, etc.) • Supervisor staff use of SSIS for individual case oversight and/or monitoring overall performance.
System Changes
Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Information System—Current
Area Needing Improvement Strength
1 2 3 4
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 since the last MnCFSR. Consider the following when responding to this question:
• Timing and effectiveness of permanency hearings • How court processes support and/or present barriers to timely achievement of permanency • Functions of the CJI Team.
System Changes
The Agency continues to use policies set forth by SSIS and policies unique to Benton County. In addition, the Agencies current utilization of SSIS reports have been beneficial in developing best practices for our staff. Our Agency does have adequate resources to support our SSIS system. We have experienced skilled SSIS coordinators/mentors. The coordinators/mentors have provided necessary training to staff. Equipment upgrades have occurred to adequately support staff use of the SSIS system. The Agency may need to address the need for Child Protection workers to have better access to SSIS in the field. Key SSIS reports continue to be reviewed by the supervisor on a quarterly basis, including placement, time to initial contact, contact aging report, service plan reports, workgroups that need contact, and child maltreatment assessment aging report. The supervisor also reviews SSIS “charting reports” to review progress in meeting federal standards and assessing best practice. The charting reports have been especially helpful in identifying specific case situations that need to be reviewed more closely. Charting reports may also be used when giving reports to the Director or Commissioners. In addition, our administrative service aide reviews CMH screenings and time entry reports. The supervisor and social worker review the reports as needed at monthly supervision meetings to discuss best practice. SSIS reports may also be used as part of performance reviews.
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.
Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Case Review System—Current
Area Needing Improvement Strength
5
1 2 3 4
Timing and effectiveness of permanency hearings continues to be a priority for our Benton County courts. Judges, courts attorney’s, public defenders, GAL’s and Social Workers are very aware of timelines and the permanency timeline is reviewed at all review hearings. Barriers to timely achievement of permanency are addressed in court. The county supports the use of Family Group Decision Making as one means to address services. The court also supports the use of Parent Capacity Assessments and relies on these evaluations to address barriers. Our Benton CJI team meets quarterly to address system issues as they arise.
6
C. Quality Assurance System C1. Review information included in the agency’s last self assessment. Summarize changes in the agency’s quality assurance system since the last MnCFSR. Consider the following when responding to this question:
• Standardized processes for reviewing case records • Processes for reviewing screening decisions, track assignments and maltreatment investigations/assessments • Structure for supervisory consultation with staff • Existence of pre-placement and/or treatment screening team(s).
System Changes
Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Quality Assurance System—Current
Area Needing Improvement Strength
1 2 3 4
7
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 since the last MnCFSR. Consider the following when responding to this question:
• Providing training for CP workers, development of training plans • Coordination with MN Child Welfare Training System • Pre-service and in-service training for foster and adoptive parents and providers.
System Changes
The QA tool continues to be used with 6 cases per quarter. The utilization of SSIS reports has been beneficial in monitoring case compliance and as a tool in discussing best practice. Checklists have been developed and/or updated to be used as a tool for social workers. The policy and procedure manual has also been updated periodically. The supervisor continues to review all family investigations and family assessment final summary reports. The supervisor has monthly consultation with all social workers where cases are reviewed. The community case consultation team also meets monthly and continues to be valuable. The weekly child protection unit meeting also continues to be valuable and is our mechanism for pre-placement screening and/or treatment screening. Benton County Human Services has a shortage of foster homes. Due to that shortage we do individual orientation/training for all new foster homes. We also invite foster care providers to in-house staff trainings. The most recent training was on suicide prevention.
Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Staff and Provider Training System—Current
Area Needing Improvement Strength
1 2 3 4
Benton has been very fortunate to have stable and experienced team of child protection social workers. We had not had anyone attend Child Welfare Foundation Training for five years. However, just in the last two months of 2013, two experienced social workers left the unit (one moving to another unit and one accepted a position at DHS). This has resulted in a period of transition and a need for new workers to attend Foundations Training. Our workers have attended Child Welfare Direct Practice Trainings. Staff have had mixed reviews of the Direct Practice Trainings, depending upon the skill and knowledge of the presenter. For our more experienced staff, we continue to look outside of the MCWTS to meet their training needs. Training plans for each social worker are discussed at their annual review. All of our staff have attended CORE Foundation Training. Three of our staff have attended Corner House on First Witness. Staff have also attended MSSA or the
8
St. Louis County Conference. We are also a part of the Ambit grant and currently planning several trainings on trauma for our providers. This group is looking at how we can improve our system of services to be more trauma focused.
9
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 since the last MnCFSR. Consider the following when responding to this question:
• Availability and accessibility of services to prevent placement, achieve safe and timely reunification or achieve other permanency plans
• Use of SDM tools to support decision-making.
System Changes
Benton County has continued to focus on fundamental services and resources. Emphasis is placed on structured decision making, safety planning, and the concepts of safety, permanency, and well-being. We have strong partnerships with our community providers. We have partnerships with First Witness and Midwest Children’s Resource Center in assisting with specialized sexual abuse interviews. We partner with our Sauk Rapids-Rice and Foley Early Childhood programs and our Help Me Grow program for early childhood assessments and services. We have established partnerships with our professional foster home agencies (Kindred, LSS, North Homes). We partner with Catholic Charities for the completion of parenting capacity assessments. The St. Cloud Area Family YMCA, F.I.T.S, and Central Minnesota Kindred provide supervised visits. Anna Marie’s Alliance provides shelter for domestic abuse victims and domestic violence programs. Attachment and sibling separation assessments are purchased from McMahan Counseling and Consultation, LLC. The YMCA coordinates the Circle of Parents group. We have partnerships with Family Based Service providers (The Village Family Services Center, Lutheran Social Services, Greater Minnesota Family Services, and Community and Family Services, LLC). We continue our partnership with Community and Family Services for Family Group Decision Making Conferences. SDM tools are utilized in both a formal and informal manner. Tools are discussed at unit meetings and during consultations. Staff considers strengths and needs and risk assessments and reassessments when completing service plans and the reunification assessment tool prior to children returning home or going on a trial home visit. The unit might benefit by completing the reassessment tools on a more structured basis. The agency also has an active LAC, Children’s Mental Health Collaborative, and Four County Mental Health Group. Through these three meetings we coordinate services with about 20 service providers in the area.
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.
10
Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Service Array and Resource Development System—Current
Area Needing Improvement Strength
1 2 3 4
11
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 since the last MnCFSR. Consider the following when responding to this question:
• Consulting with external partners/stakeholders to achieve organizational or systemic improvements • Procedures for seeking consumer input • Child Protection Team, Child Abuse Prevention Council, and/or Citizen Review Panels functions • Compliance with ICWA.
System Changes
Agency staff have continued to have frequent contact with our community partners. Our Benton County child protection case consultation team has very good attendance and participation from community members at our monthly meetings. Our Stearns and Benton child protection team meets ten times per year, focusing on hosting an annual training for community professionals and annually distributing legislative updates to community mandated reporters. Our CJI team meets quarterly and addresses system issues as they arise. Our children’s mental health collaborative remains active. Our child protection workers provide trainings upon request to mandate reporters as needed. In addition, we continue to have staff participation on the following community committees: C.A.N. (Child Abuse and Neglect) Prevention Council and Benton Violence Prevention Council. We have periodically requested feedback and discussion from the CJI team and community case consultation team. We welcome suggestions from our community partners and try to implement them whenever possible. All social workers are aware and recognize the importance of ICWA and we make active efforts to comply. Our LAC and LCC meet quarterly and are well attended by community and consumer representatives.
Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Agency Responsiveness to the Community—Current
Area Needing Improvement Strength
1 2 3 4
12
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 since the last MnCFSR. Consider the following when responding to this question:
• Adequacy of foster and adoptive home resources • Whether foster and adoptive home resources reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of children in care.
System Changes
Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Foster and Adoptive Home Licensing System—Current
Area Needing Improvement Strength
1 2 3 4
Benton County currently has 14 licensed child foster homes. This is not a very large number of homes when attempting to find the best fit for our children. Because of the low number of homes, we often have very little choice in selecting a home for our placements. In the past we have had two grants to assist us with recruitment but those resulted in very limited success. At the time of our last CFSR we were in the middle of a grant cycle. We put up billboards, had radio ads, etc. We had a nice budget with a three county effort yet were able to recruit very few homes. We have found that the most successful recruits are those who come to us because they know someone else who is already a foster parent. Benton County has a difficult time recruiting foster homes, though once they are licensed they tend to stay in foster care for quite a few years. Ideally we would like to recruit more homes, specifically homes with a stay at home parent in order to reduce the need for foster children to go to daycare and to assist with transportation, medical appointments, etc. Several of our foster homes also licensed daycare providers which makes it difficult for them to be flexible in meeting the child’s needs outside the foster home. As an agency we have found that foster homes appear to be more difficult to recruit as we are finding a lack of openings even in professional foster homes, more so than in the past.
13
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 since the last MnCFSR. Consider the following when responding to this question:
• Organizational structure • Supervisor to staff ratios • Caseload/workload sizes • Agency’s experience with staff turnover.
System Changes
The child protection unit continues to have 10 members: 1 traditional investigator, 2 Family Assessment/FA case management workers, 3 traditional case managers, 1 concurrent planning/adoption worker, 1 (27 hours a week) truancy prevention/minor parent worker, 1 intake worker and 1 administrative aide. This is a slight reduction in social worker resources as at the time of our last CFSR our truancy/minor parent social worker was full time. The children’s mental health unit has 4 children’s mental health case managers and one case manager who specializes in the transition ages, with a mixed caseload of adults and children. The average number of families serviced by the agency has increased only slightly. However, the cases are more complex and time intensive. Also, SSIS requirements and emphasis on best practice issues (Engaging Fathers, Relative Searches, and Concurrent Planning) has resulted in the child protection case management tasks being more time intensive. All social workers periodically assume the after-hours on-call responsibilities. The agency is fortunate to have a team of experienced social workers.
Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Supervisor and Social Worker Resources—Current
Area Needing Improvement Strength
1 2 3 4
14
Community Issues Review the information the agency provided in the initial Self Assessment. Discuss changes or community issues that have emerged since the last MnCFSR that could impact planning and delivery of services to children and families and achievement of safety, permanency and well-being outcomes.
Although the economy seems to have improved, our Agency continues to serve families that experience the stress of bankruptcy, foreclosure or homelessness. These factors at times have resulted in parents making poor parenting choices resulting in the need for child protection to intervene. Our Agency continues to have a high number of families where parents are experiencing chemical abuse/addiction, which has led to child protection intervention. The Salvation Army Shelter is located in Benton County, which brings a number of families to our area needing services. In addition, Journey Home (chemical dependency program for women and children) is located in Benton County, which results in a number of families staying in Benton County and needing services following the completion of the program.
15
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 standard was not met. Benton County was at 89.6%, 4% lower than the national standard. Although not meeting the National Standard in 2012, we believe we have the highest priority in keeping children safe and preventing recurring maltreatment. Also, please note that Benton does not believe there are any particular barriers in meeting this standard.
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 standard was not met. Benton County was at 95.3%, 5% lower than the national standard. Although not meeting the national standard in 2012, we believe we have the highest priority in keeping children safe in their foster home. Also, please note that Benton did meet the national standard in both 2010 and 2011. In examining the data, we see that 4 children were maltreated while in relative foster care (two siblings with their grandmother and two siblings with their grandfather). We will continue to have a high priority in screening and completing background checks on relative homes to prevent children from being mistreated while in foster care. In addition, support services such as PCA’s and in-home counseling will be provided as needed. Foster parent training and support will be provided to all foster parents.
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.
Although there has been some fluctuation the number of investigations from 2008 to 2012 remained somewhat consistent, between 37 and 46. The percentage of cases in which maltreatment determined has increased (57.5% in 2008 to 87.8% in 2012). We are not aware of any factors that have led to this increase. However, it is a trend that our team will monitor on an ongoing basis.
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 screening team reviews reports and determines whether or not they will be screened
16
in, and if screened in, what track. Family assessment is the preferred track. In 2012, 65% of accepted child maltreatment reports were screened in as Family Assessments. This is a slightly lower percentage than the state average of 71%.
5. Timeliness of Initial Contact in Assessments or Investigations (Tables 4). 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.
Timelines in initial contacts is a priority and strength for Benton County. Our screenings/assessment team goes to great measures to ensure that we are prepared to respond within timelines to any assessment or investigation. Benton exceeded in the statewide rate of timely contract in all categories relating to completing face to face contact with alleged child victims.
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.
Our screening team considers alcohol or other chemical use concerns when screening all reports. Assessment workers are careful to ask the family questions relating to chemical use. Case managers utilize this assessment information when discussing strengths and needs with the family and developing case plans with the family. We contract for urinalyses with Effective Living Center in St. Cloud. The agency pays for the cost of the urinalyses and help with transportation as needed in an effort to reduce all barriers. We are fortunate to have a variety of chemical dependency treatment programs in the St. Cloud area, including the St. Cloud Hospital CentraCare programs.
7. Short-term Placements (Tables 5 and 5a). 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.
Benton County’s use of short term placements is well below the state average in length of placement from 1-7 days and 8-30 days. However, Benton is above the state average in length of placement from 31-90 days. We are unsure of the factors contributing to this high percentage. We will continue to monitor and examine this use of placement from 31-90 days. Benton has made efforts to prevent re-entry in 2012; our re-entry rate was 17.2%, well below the state average of 25.8%. Benton has not yet met the national standard of 9.9% or lower. Of the 5 children who re-entered care in within 12 months of discharge in 2012, 3 children were child protection placements and 2 were children’s mental health placements. There does not appear to be any one trend leading to re-entry.
8. Other Safety Issues. Discuss any other concerns, not covered above, that affect safety outcomes for children and families served by the agency.
NA
17
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.
Benton County meets the standard of this composite with the exception of Permanency of Reunification. Strengths in this area include use of intensive services, family group decision making conferences, frequent case reviews at unit meetings, community case consultation reviews, frequent and clear case planning with the family, safety planning, and our concurrent planning approach. Benton County continues to use the concurrent planning approach with placement cases involving children under age 8 with a poor prognosis for reunification, which includes two social workers jointly managing the case. The primary case manager will review the case plan with the family regularly, sometimes weekly, with the reunification goals being amended as needed. The concurrent planning worker will review full-disclosure and discuss permanency placement options with the family every month and make revisions to the concurrent permanency plan as needed. Benton County needs to decrease the number of children re-entering foster care. In 2012, Benton County’s re-entry rate was 17.2% child (3 child protection placements, 2 children’s mental health placements. In 2012 there did not appear to be any one trend which led to the re-entry. Strategies to address these issues will consist of continuing to utilize unit meetings to make team decisions, SDM reunification tools, trial home visits, extended protective supervision, and developing reunification plans based on SDM risk assessment and safety tools.
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.
Benton County met component A and C of this standard, but not component B. We continue to discuss how we can best meet these timelines for our special needs children free for adoption. Benton County has strength in ensuring that time is allowed for high special needs children to be properly assessed and for services to be in place before adoptions are finalized. We believe it is in the best interest of the child and the adoptive parents that we are thorough and thoughtful in our case planning before finalization. However, this also creates a barrier to finalizing adoptions within 24 months. In terms of our strengths, our adoption worker has actively participated in our Central Minnesota Adoption Workers group. This participation and partnership has increased our knowledge of adoption resources in the area. In reviewing our data for C2.3 and C2.4, Benton did have four youth in care for 17 continuous months or longer. Two of these youth were developmentally disabled youth in corporate foster care. One of the youth was receiving mental health services and in need of specialized corporate foster home to meet his needs. The fourth youth was struggling with sexual boundary issues and needed a specialized treatment foster home to
18
address those issues. In all four cases, parents and/or biological family continues to support the youth in placement. In review, Benton believes there was sound professional judgment used in continuing these youth in placement past 17 months without moving to termination of parental rights and adoption.
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.
Benton County has met one of the three components. Benton continues to regularly review permanency options for children in care for long periods of time. At times, adoption, guardianship or reunification is not possible. We then strategize with the youth to develop the best transitional plan possible, which they will agree to. In reviewing the data, please note that two of the children in this category were developmentally disabled and when discharged, simply moved to the adult developmental disabilities program area.
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.
Benton County met one of the three measures. The agency frequently discusses placement stability at unit meetings. We focus on timely and complete relative searches for all placement cases. We regularly utilize informal family network meetings or family group decision making conferences to explore and identify relative options. Often times, relative placement can provide this stability. Most the children having multiple placement settings are receiving children’s mental health or developmental disability services. These children have very high special needs, and at times, facilities have accepted them into their programs only to later request that the agency move them to another facility. Unfortunately, Minnesota does not have very many treatment facilities able/willing to work with young children, assaultive children with mental health needs, or children with Reactive Attachment Disorder. The agency will continue to look at ways to improve our assessment and placement screening process to strive for placement stability.
5. Race/ethnicity of children in out-of-home placement (Table 9). Identify and discuss issues raised by data regarding the composition of the county’s foster care population.
The majority of children in out of home care were white. African American/Black, two or more races, and Hispanic Ethnicity were slightly over represented in out of home placement relative to their proportions in the child population. The majority of children in out of home care were white. African American (Black, two or more races, and Hispanic Ethnicity) were slightly over represented in out of home placement relative to their proportions in the child population.
6. Relative foster care (Tables 10 and 10a). 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.
In 2012, 15.4% of children in out of home care were placed with relatives (State % - 13.5%). Benton County promotes relative placement whenever possible. Agency policy and procedure is to explore relative placement options, both maternal and paternal, at the time of placement and continuing until a relative placement is made or until all options
19
have been exhausted. The agency’s use of informal family network meetings and family group decision making conferences promotes relative placements. Also, our concurrent planning process allows for the concurrent worker to emphasize the permanent transfer to custody to a relative placement option and to assist with the relative search process. At times, it is still difficult to access information regarding the noncustodial parent and extended family. The custodial parent is, at times, unwilling to cooperate in offering a complete list of relative options. In addition, sometimes relatives want to care for a child but are not able to meet the child’s special needs or need for safety. At other times, relatives are unwilling to accept the possible loss of family support if they cooperate with the agency in being a relative provider. Benton has been utilizing the Lexis-Nexis Accurint System in an effort to improve relative search efforts.
7. Permanent custody to the agency. (Formerly long-term foster care.) Describe the agency’s current practices related to the use of permanent custody to the agency 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 goal.
Permanent custody to the agency is only considered after all other permanency options have been exhausted. However, Benton County has utilized long-term foster care for several cases in the last few years. In these cases, we make all efforts to ensure that this is a stable home for the youth, help the youth maintain contact with relatives through visits, and focus on preparing the youth for independent living. We routinely review relative placement options (administrative review or court review) to see if circumstances have changed and if so, to again review whether or not the relative could be a permanent placement option. Please note that our most recent permanent custody to the agency cases have been children having a disability and in need of a corporate treatment foster home to meet their needs.
8. Other Permanency Issues. Discuss any other issues of concern, not covered above, that affect permanency outcomes for children and families served by the agency.
20
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. Staff have continued to attend trainings on engaging fathers. When staffing cases at unit meetings, we review the father’s histories an current family involvement. Having two social workers with our concurrent planning cases allows time for our concurrent planning worker to devote more time to engaging fathers and paternal relatives. In addition, our use of family group decision making conferences and informal family networking meetings have helped engage fathers. The Lexis-Nexis relative search system has been utilized to locate fathers/non-resident parents. Benton has also developed a working relationship with the St. Cloud Father Project (Goodwill – Easter Seals) and have made referrals to their program.
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.
The supervisor and administrative aide monitor a monthly report from SSIS. Social Worker visits with children are a priority. Table 11 indicates that Benton County’s percentage of monthly visits is consistently higher than the state average. Supervisor reviews frequency of face to face visits with children during monthly supervisions meetings with social workers. Emphasis is placed on preparation before visits with children to ensure key topics are discussed with the child and foster care provider.
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.
21
Part IV: Safety and Permanency Data
A. Federal Data Indicators Beginning with the first round of the CFSR, single data measures were used for establishing national standards. This provided information to states and counties about their performance; however, did not always reflect the broader, more complex factors that contribute to performance. In 2007 the Administration of Children and Families revised the national standard indicators. Safety data indicators continue to be single data elements. Permanency data was expanded to allow for a closer examination of what particular practices drive the outcomes for children in foster care. Permanency data is now reflected in components, composites and measures as defined below:
• Composites: Refers to a data indicator that incorporates county performance on multiple permanency-related individual measures. There are four permanency composites.
• Component: Refers to the primary parts of a composite. Components may incorporate only one individual measure or may have two or more individual measures that are closely related to one another. There are seven permanency related components.
• Measures: Refers to the specific measures that are included in each composite. There are 15 individual permanency measures.
Table 1 includes county performance on the two safety data indicators and 15 permanency measures. B. Safety Data Tables Tables 2-7 include child welfare data related to the agency’s practices in addressing safety. These tables contain information about the agency’s use of track assignments, report dispositions, timeliness of initial face-to-face contacts with children who are the subject of a maltreatment report, length of placement episodes and reasons for out-of-home placements. C. Permanency Data Tables Tables 8-10 provide demographic information about the children in out-of-home placement (gender and age) and the type of settings in which children are placed. D. Child Well-being Data Tables Table 11 provides information regarding the frequency of caseworkers’ monthly face-to-face contact with children in foster care.
22
A. Federal Data Indicators Table 1
Data Indictor National Standard
Benton County Performance** MN 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 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% 96.9%* 31/32
90% 27/30
95.1%* 39/41
94.6%* 53/56
89.6% 43/48 97.5%*
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% 100%* 86/86
100%* 80/80
100%* 80/80
100%* 67/67
95.3% 81/85 99.51%
Permanency Composite 1: Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification. Component A: Timeliness of Reunification
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% 88.5%* 23/26
86.1%* 31/36
88.5%*
96.2%* 25/26
88.6%* 31/35 85.9%*
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 3.7* 3.4* 3.1* 3.3* 4.8* 4.5*
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% 50%* 6/12 58.8%* 90%*
9/10 47.4% 9/19
76.5%* 13/17 59.1%*
Component B: Permanency of Reunification Measure C1.4: Children who exit and re-enter foster care in less than 12 months. Of all children discharged from foster care to reunification in the 12-month period prior the year shown, what percent re-entered foster care in less than 12 months from the date of discharge?
9.9% 24.1 7/29
46.4% 13/28
39.5% 15/38
21.1% 8/38
17.2% 5/29 25.8%
23
Data Indictor National Standard
Benton County Performance** MN 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of Adoptions Component A: Timeliness of Adoptions of children Discharged From Foster Care
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% 60%* 6/10
0% 0/8
33.3% 1/3
100%* 3/3
100%* 2/2 49.4%*
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 22.5* 27.1 32.2 6.4* 15* 24.5*
Component B: Adoption for Children Meeting ASFA Time-In-Care Requirements 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% 75%* 6/8
66.7%* 2/3
28.6%* 2/7
0% 0/4
0% 0/3 19.9%
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% 0% 0/9
0% 0/10
0% 0/11
0% 0/9
0% 0/4 2.5%
Component C: Progress Toward Adoption of Children who are Legally Free for Adoption 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% 83.3%* 5/6
62.5%* 5/8
50% 1/2 NA 100%*
5/5 45.2%
24
Data Indictor National Standard
Benton County Performance** MN 20112 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Permanency Composite 3: Achieving Permanency for Children in Foster Care Component A: Achieving Permanency for Children in Care for Extended Periods of Time
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% 37.5* 3/8
0% 0/8
8.3% 1/12
0% 0/7
0% 0/4 20.4%
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% 100%* 9/9
100%* 3/3
100%* 3/3
100%* 3/3
100%* 2/2 98.1%*
Component B: Children Emancipated Who Were in Foster Care for Extended Period of Time 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% 50% 1/2
12.5%* 1/8
60% 3/5
57.1% 4/7
42.9% 3/7 36.4%*
25
Data Indictor National Standard
Benton County Performance** MN 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Permanency Composite 4: Placement Stability
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% 80% 32/40
92.2%* 47/51 91.1%* 90%*
45/50 77.6% 45/58 84.0%
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% 52.2% 12/23
58.3% 7/12
37.5% 3/8
12.5% 1/8
66.7%* 6/9 55.5%
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% 23.1% 3/13
31.2% 5/16
21.4% 3/14
11.1% 1/9
14.3% 1/7 34.1%
*The county met the performance standard. **Data on county performance on Federal Data Indicators was pulled from Charting and Analysis on 12/2/13.
26
B. Safety Data Child Maltreatment Reports (Investigation): Alleged, Determined and Need for Service, 5 Year History Table 2
Year Reports Investigated
Reports with Maltreatment Determined
(Number of cases determined/ as % of reports assessed)
Reports with Child Protection Services Needed Determined
(Number of cases determined/ as % of reports assessed)
2008 40 23/57.5% 28/70%
2009 37 23/62.2% 26/74.3%
2010 40 27/67.5% 24/66.7%
2011 46 35/76% 38/82.6%
2012 41 36/87.8% 35/85.4%
DHS Research, Planning and Evaluation Statewide rate of reports with maltreatment determined in 2012: 58.5% Statewide rate of reports with child protection services needed determined in 2012: 51% 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 need for Child Protective Services / as a percent
of total Family Assessments
2008 85/68% 17/20%
2009 79/68.1% 15/19%
2010 65/61.9% 17/26.2%
2011 66/58.9% 17/25.8%
2012 76/64.9% 15/19.7%
DHS Research, Planning and Evaluation
Statewide rate of reports assessed with Family Assessments in 2012: 71% Statewide rate of Family Assessments with need for Child Protection Services in 2012: 16% Statewide rate of Family Assessments with supportive services offered in 2012: 13.7%
27
Completed Face-to-Face Contact with Alleged Child Victims Table 4
Reporting Period Statewide Rate of Timely Contact
Benton County % and # With Timely
Contact*
Investigations – Alleged Substantial Child Endangerment
Q2 2013 75.2% 100% 6/6
Q1 2013 65.3% 628/962
70% 7/10
Investigations – Not Substantial Child Endangerment
Q2 2013 85.9% 100% 5/5
Q1 2013 81.5% 442/542
100% 4/4
Family Assessments Q2 2013 71.6% 72.7%
24/33
Q1 2013 70.2% 3453/4919
80% 16/20
DHS Child Welfare Data Dashboard
*Timely contact is defined as: • Family Assessments and Investigations – 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 2012 Table 5
Length of Placement Episodes State % Benton County # Benton County %
1 – 7 days (5 year history below) 21.9% 3 6.1%
8 – 30 days 10.3% 2 4%
31 – 90 days 13% 10 20.4%
91 – 180 days 11.7% 5 10.2%
181 – 365 days 18.2% 19 38.8%
366+ days 24.9% 10 20.4%
Total Episodes 6481 49 -- DHS Research, Planning and Evaluation
Length of Placement Episodes – 5 year history Table 5a
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
1-7 days 14.3% 7/49
13.3% 8/60
20.4% 10/49
5.5% 2/36
6.1% 3/49
28
Reasons for Entering Out-of-Home-Care, Related to Protection-2012 Table 6
Reason State % Benton County #
Benton County %
Alleged Physical Abuse 11.6% 6 4.6%
Alleged Sexual Abuse 5% 2 1.5%
Alleged Neglect 33% 23 17.5%
Parent Alcohol Abuse 8.1% 5 3.8%
Parent Drug Abuse 19.1% 12 9.1%
Abandonment 3.9% 5 3.8%
Other (parent death, TPR, safe place for newborns)
1.7% 3 2.3%
Parent Incarceration 5.1% 3 2.3%
Total Reasons Reported for All Placements 17,961 131 --
Total Placements 11,453 149 --
Total Reasons Related to Protection 9965 / 55.5% 59/45% 2012 Child Welfare Report
Reasons for Entering Out-of-Home-Care, Other than Protection-2012 Table 7
Reason
State %
Benton County #
Benton
County %
Child Alcohol Abuse 2.6% NA NA.
Child Drug Abuse 3.7% 1 .76%
Child Behavior 32.3% 44 33.6%
Child Disability 7.5% 6 4.6%
Caretaker Inability to Cope 13.7% 17 13%
Inadequate Housing 4.7% 4 3%
Total Reasons Reported for All Placements 17,961 131 --
Total Placements 11,453 149 --
Total Reasons Other than Protection 7996 / 44.5% 72 /55% 2012 Child Welfare Report
29
C. Permanency Data Age Group of Children in Care – 2012 Table 8
Age Group
State %
Benton County #
Benton
County %
0-3 Years 19.8% 19 23.5%
4-5 Years 8.3% 5 6.2%
6-11 Years 20.1% 11 13.6%
12-14 Years 13.4% 12 14.8%
15-17 Years 25.3% 22 27.2%
18-21 Years 13.1% 12 14.8%
Total Children in Care 11,453 81 2012 Child Welfare Report
Race of Children in Care - 2012 Table 9
Race State % of Placements
Benton County # of Children in
Placement**
Benton County % of Placements
% of Racial Group in Benton County’s Child Population***
African American/Black 21.5% 12 14.8% 2.3% American Indian or Alaska Native 15.5% NA NA .4%
Asian/Pacific Islander/Other 2.6% NA NA 1.1%
White 48.2% 60 74% 94.7%
Two or More Races 11.5% 7 8.7% 1.5%
Unable to Determine 0.7% NA
Total Children in Care 11,453 81
Hispanic Ethnicity* 9.4% 10 12.3% 1.8% *Hispanic may be of any race 2012 Child Welfare Report ** The number of children is less than seven and is not shown to prevent identification of individuals ***Source: U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts
30
Children in Out-of-Home Care by Placement Setting-2012 Table 10 (Children may be counted in more than one placement setting)
Placement Setting
State %
Benton County #
Benton
County %
Foster Family Non-Relative 38.9% 58 38.9%
Foster Family Relative (5 year history below) 13.5% 23 15.4%
Foster Home – Corporate/Shift Staff 1.5% 5 3.3%
Group Home 11.7% 20 13.4%
Juvenile Correctional Facility (locked) 4.1% 5 3.3%
Juvenile Correctional Facility (non-secure) 4.6% 12 8%
Pre-Adoptive Non-Relative 4.3% 2 1.3%
Pre-Adoptive Relative (5 year history below) 1.7% NA NA
Residential Treatment Center 17.9% 23 15.4%
Other* 2.0% 1 .67%
Total Placement Settings 19,441 149
*”Other” includes ICF/DD and Supervised Independent Living settings 2012 Child Welfare Report Relative Placement – 5 year history Table 10a 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Foster Family Relative 15% 21/140
9.3% 13/139
4% 8/125
5.8% 6/102
15.4% 23/149
Pre-adopt Relative 2.8% 4/140
.7% 1/139
.8% 1/125
.98% 1/102
1.3% 2/149
31
D. Child Well-being Data Monthly Caseworker Visits with Children in Foster Care Table 11
State % Benton County % and #
Q4, 2013 (1/1/13 – 12/31/13) Pending
Q3, 2013 (10/1/12 – 9/30/13) Pending
Q2, 2013 (7/1/12 – 6/30/13) 84.5% 98.8% 424/429
Q1, 2013 (4/1/12 – 3/31/13) 84.3% 98.3% 396/403
Q3, 2012 (10/1/11 – 9/30/12) 80.1% 97.7% 390/399
Q3, 2011 (10/1/10 – 9/30/11) (FFY) 55.8% 96.2% 50/52
Q3, 2010 (10/1/09 – 9/30/10) (FFY) 55.2% 86.3% 44/51
Q3, 2009 (10/1/08 – 9/30/09) (FFY) 46.9% 76.7% 46/60
DHS Child Welfare Data Release Reports & Child Welfare Data Dashboard
Note: The method for calculating monthly caseworker visits with children in out-of-home placement changed effective 1/1/12.
• Prior to 1/1/12: Of all children in out-of-home place during the reporting period, what percent of children had visits each and every month they were in care for the full calendar month.
• 1/1/12 and after: Of the total number of visits that would have occurred if each child were visited once per month while in out-of-home placement, what percent of visits actually occurred.
32
PART V: SUMMARY OF STRENGTHS AND NEEDS Based on examination of data and narrative responses provided in early sections of this report, summarize the information in response to the following questions.
1. What specific strengths of the agency’s programs have been identified?
2. What specific needs have been identified that warrant further examination in the onsite
review? Note which of these needs are the most critical to the outcomes under safety, permanency and well-being for children and families in the county.
3. Please describe additional practices/needs related to achievement of safety, permanency and
well-being outcomes that the agency is interested in examining during the onsite review.
4. Please complete the following evaluation of the county self assessment process in terms of its
usefulness to the county and recommendations for revision. a) Were you allowed adequate time to complete the county self assessment process?
Yes No Comments:
b) Did you find the data provided helpful to your evaluation of safety, permanency and well-being performance? Yes No
Comments:
c) Did you engage county child welfare staff and/or community stakeholders in the county self- assessment process? Yes No
Comments:
d) Did you find the county self assessment an effective process for evaluating your county’s child welfare system? Yes No
Comments:
e) Will you use findings from the county self assessment to plan for systemic and/or
organizational improvements in your county’s child welfare system? Yes No
Comments:
33
f) Any additional comments or recommendations for improving the self assessment process:
