1 OKLAHOMA Department of Human Services Child and Family Services Review Program Improvement Plan May 22, 2008 Revised October 22, 2009
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
OKLAHOMA
Department of Human Services
Child and Family Services Review
Program Improvement Plan
May 22, 2008
Revised
October 22, 2009
2
90 Attachment A
Children’s Bureau Child and Family Services Reviews
Program Improvement Plan Suggested Standard Format
States are encouraged to use this PIP standard format to submit their PIP to the Children’s Bureau Regional Office. The standard format includes the following sections: I. PIP General Information II. PIP Strategy Summary and TA Plan, Matrix Instructions, and Quality Assurance Checklist III. PIP Agreement Form (authorizing signatures) IV. PIP Matrix
I. PIP General Information
CB Region: I II III IV V VI VII VII IX X
State: Lead Children’s Bureau Regional Office Contact Person: Dana Huckabee, Child and Family Program Specialist
Telephone Number 214-767-4542
E-mail Address: [email protected]
State Agency Name: Oklahoma Department of Human Services
Address: 2400 North Lincoln Blvd PO Box 25352 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125
E-mail Address:
Lead State Agency Contact Person for the CFSR: H C Franklin, Programs Administrator CQI
Telephone Number: : 405-521-4355
E-mail Address: [email protected]
Lead State Agency PIP Contact Person (if different): Telephone Number: E-mail Address:
Lead State Agency Data Contact Person: Mary Grissom, Division IS Administrator
Telephone Number:405-522-1965
E-mail Address:[email protected]
State PIP Team Members* (name, title, organization)
1. Amy Barnett, Instructor, Southwest Oklahoma State University 2. Aneta Wilkinson, OKDHS Commission 3. Ann Roberts, Executive Director, Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy
3
State PIP Team Members* (name, title, organization) (continued) 4. Troy Aebi, Area I Child Welfare Field Liaison, OKDHS 5. Sherrie Brown, Mayes County Director, OKDHS 6. Tricia Howell, Programs Manager II, Permanency Planning, OKDHS 7. Anna Naukam, State Director, Oklahoma Court Appointed Special Advocate Association 5. Annette Jacobi, Oklahoma Health Department 9. Barbara Findeiss, Executive Director, Child Abuse Network 10. Lisa Cary, Washington County CWSIV, OKDHS 11. Cheryl Castillo, Area III Child Welfare Field Liaison, OKDHS 12. Debra Clour, Area III Director, OKDHS 13. Billye Leitka, Seminole Nation Indian Child Welfare 14. Martha Buchanan, Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services 15. Dr. Carol Bridges, Director Social Work Department, East Central State University 16. Cathy Connelly, Programs Manager II, Independent Living, OKDHS 17. Dianna Davis, Rogers County Director, OKDHS 15. Sue Durrett, Cleveland County Director, OKDHS 19. Clark Grothe, North Care 20. Cyd Roberts, Child Study Center 21. Judge Danita Williams, Leflore County 22. HC Franklin, Programs Administrator, CQI, OKDHS 23. Donna Girdner, Programs Field Representative, Training Section, OKDHS 24. Deborah Goodman, Programs Manager II, Adoptions, OKDHS 25. Dr. Deb Shropshire, OU Health Science Center 26. Brad Montgomery, Pittsburg County CWSIV, OKDHS 27. Jacki Shipp, Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services 25. Zane Gray, Area IV Child Welfare Field Liaison, OKDHS 29. Cindy Halpern, Retired OKDHS 30. Jennifer Hardin, Payne County CWSIV, OKDHS 31. Judge Doris Fransein, Tulsa County 32. Kelli Hart, North Care 33. Lana Freeman, Foster and Adoptive Parent 34. Rita Hart, Bryan County Director, OKDHS 35. Brenda Hawkins, Area I Director, OKDHS
36. Bill Hindman, Retired, OKDHS 37. Linda Woodward, Programs Director, Cherokee Nation Child Welfare 35. Mark James, Oklahoma Commission on Children and Youth 39. Martha Scales, Former Coordinator, CW Professional Enhancement Program, OU School of Social Work 40. Carmen Hutchins, Pottawatomie County Director, OKDHS 41. Sandra James, Comanche County Director, OKDHS 42. Susan Kee, Area VI CWFL, OKDHS 43. Melissa Chapman, Former Youth, College Student 44. Judge Mike Warren, Harmon County 45. Daryl Ingram, CQI Practice Model Implementation, OKDHS
4
46. Carlan Kindred, Kay County Director, OKDHS 47. Margaret Linnemann, Programs Manager II, Foster Care, OKDHS 45. Debbie Luna, Area V CWFL, OKDHS 49. Rose Perry, Managing Director Child Abuse Network 50. Renee McMahan, Area V Child Welfare Field Liaison, OKDHS 51. Dr. Stephen Gillaspy, Assistant Professor OU 52. Kimberly Martin, Area IV Child Welfare Field Liaison, OKDHS 53. Marie McCormick, Area II Director, OKDHS 54. Cynthia Miner, Programs Manager II, CQI, OKDHS 55. Sue Tate, Coordinator, Court Improvement Project 56. TeRessa Kaemmerling, OU National Resource Center 57. Trish Gardner, OU Health Sciences Center, Training 58. Dulce Ouellette, Area II Child Welfare Field Liaison, OKDHS 59. Jeri Poplin, Oklahoma County Director, OKDHS 60. Esther Rider-Salem, Hotline Coordinator, OKDHS 61. Shirley Roberts, Osage County Director, OKDHS 62. Stephen Scott, Area VI Director, OKDHS 63. Linda Smith, Coordinator, CW Professional Enhancement Program, OU School of Social Work 64. Alecia Teacher, Assistant County Director, Oklahoma County, OKDHS 65. Joani Webster, Programs Administrator, Resource Unit, OKDHS 66. Amy White, Programs Administrator, Permanency, Adoptions, Independent Living Unit, OKDHS 67. William Wilson, Area IV Director, OKDHS 68. Angela Wood, Area IV Oklahoma Children’s Services Liaison, OKDHS 69. Judy Wyatt, Area V Director, OKDHS 70 Mar 70. Marq Youngblood, Chief Operating Officer, OKDHS 71. Gary Miller, Director, Children and Family Services Division, OKDHS 72. Larry Johnson, Director, Office of Field Operations, OKDHS 73. Jean Wood, Programs Field Representative, CQI, OKDHS 74. Lisa Sosbee, Programs Field Representative, CQI, OKDHS 75. Mark Carson, Programs Field Representative, Training Section, OKDHS 76. Mark Nitta, Programs Manager, Practice Model Implementation, CQI, OKDHS 77. Marvin Smith, Programs Field Representative, CQI, OKDHS 78. Cheryl Coponiti, Programs Manager, CFSR Section, CQI, OKDHS 79. Jeff Sanders, Programs Field Representative, CQI, OKDHS 80. Angie Ivey, Programs Field Representative, CQI, OKDHS 81. Jeri Kay Thomason, Adoptive Parent 82. Laura Boyd, Executive Director Oklahoma Therapeutic Foster Care Association 83. Kent Kelly, Director Eastern Oklahoma Youth Services 84. Keitha Wilson, Cleveland County CWSIII, OKDHS
5
85. Rachel Vick, Pontotoc County CWSIII, OKDHS 86. Bill Mayhall, McCurtain County CWSIV, OKDHS 87. Janice Powell, Washington County CWSII, OKDHS 88. Lynn J. Sossamon, Director, Tulsa County Child Protection Coalition 89. Marcus Jones, Oklahoma County Assistant County Director, OKDHS 90. Tiffany Huser, Oklahoma County CWSII, OKDHS 91. Denise Gerhold, Beckham County CWSIV, OKDHS 92. Jeff Zachary, Cotton County Director II, OKDHS 93. Susan Boehrer, Executive Director, Oklahoma Federation of Families 94. Ann Davis, Programs Field Representative, Tribal Coordinator, OKDHS
*List key individuals who are actually working on the PIP and not necessarily everyone who was consulted during the PIP development process.
6
II. Program Improvement Plan Narrative
OKDHS Practice Standards
In late fall 2006 the state initiated the development of a set of Practice Standards that would guide the ―how‖ of the day-to-day practice of administrators, supervisors, and line staff and their interaction with children, youth and their families, other social workers, and the community of caregivers and providers. A cross section of agency leaders, supervisors, and line staff came together to explore their beliefs and values about this work, the ―evidence‖ that existed in the field, and the experiences of children and families involved in the system. Below is the bi-product of the Practice Standard effort.
11.. WWee CCoonnttiinnuuaallllyy EExxaammiinnee oouurr UUssee ((MMiissuussee)) ooff PPoowweerr,, UUssee ooff SSeellff aanndd PPeerrssoonnaall BBiiaasseess 22.. WWee RReessppeecctt aanndd HHoonnoorr TThhee FFaammiilliieess WWee SSeerrvvee 33.. WWee LLiisstteenn ttoo tthhee VVooiiccee ooff CChhiillddrreenn 44.. WWee CCoonnttiinnuuoouussllyy SSeeeekk ttoo LLeeaarrnn WWhhoo FFaammiilliieess AArree aanndd WWhhaatt TThheeyy NNeeeedd 55.. WWee BBeelliieevvee iinn tthhee VVaalluuee ooff ““NNootthhiinngg AAbboouutt UUss WWiitthhoouutt UUss”” 66.. WWee MMaaiinnttaaiinn AA CChhiillddss’’ PPeerrmmaanneenntt CCoonnnneeccttiioonn ttoo KKiinn,, CCuullttuurree aanndd CCoommmmuunniittyy 77.. WWee CCoonndduucctt OOuurr WWoorrkk WWiitthh IInntteeggrriittyy AAtt AAllll LLeevveellss OOff TThhee AAggeennccyy
The Practice Standards were well received by staff and supervisors and based on the CQI process, have become ingrained in the practice of the agency.
Following the development and yearlong implementation of the Practice Standards, the state embarked on an effort to develop a Practice Model that embeds the practice standards and specifically describes the ―what‖ of the day-to-day work.
A. OVERALL STRATEGY FOR PIP DEVELOPMENT
The Chronology of the Program Improvement Plan Process
The State of Oklahoma has participated in the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) twice. The CFSR is a broad review of a state’s child welfare system and includes some review of juvenile justice matters. The review includes, among other things, a review of the state’s social services agency; its Juvenile Court System, including the bar association’s members who practice in juvenile court; the level of access to health and mental health care; the appropriate access to educational services for children in out of home care; the Child Protective Services process; foster care services including foster parent involvement; and permanency services for children, including adoption services. The review includes certain systemic criteria and certain performance criteria. The broad goals include child safety, stability of placements, and child permanency.
Although Oklahoma maintains that some portions of the CFSR could be improved as discussed below, Oklahoma nevertheless believes that the CFSR process has significant value. We have enthusiastically embraced the process and use the process for each county to annually develop its own plans for improving their processes. We continue to support the use of the process to improve all facets of child welfare.
7
Because States have different definitions of child abuse and neglect, different criteria for timely responses to reports, different burdens of proof for establishing a confirmation of child abuse or neglect, different levels of sophisticated data collecting systems, and the accuracy of the data submission is unaudited, comparability of many data elements between states has been discouraged. ACF has attempted to harmonize some of the definitions of the data submitted and attempts to determine whether the data which is submitted conforms to certain definitions; however, the data that is submitted is not audited.
The ACF website: http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/statistics/childwelfare_foster.cfm Near the bottom of the page is a heading titled: ―Understanding the Data.‖ Under the heading ―Understanding the Data‖ is a subheading titled: ―Can States Be Compared Based on Child Welfare Data?‖ The link exits the ACF website and is directed to the website for the Child Welfare League of America. http://ndas.cwla.org/include/pdf/ComparStates_Revised_IB_051506.pdf
The May, 2006 Issue Brief details lots of flaws in the lack of comparability of data between states. The article specifically states: ―Comparisons among states based exclusively on national child welfare data sources can be misleading and should not be used to judge the effectiveness of one state versus another. While the national data sets provide good national estimates, they lack reliability for interstate comparisons due to variations in state laws, policies, definitions, and data collection processes.‖
Since the data can NOT be compared and yet the NON-COMPARABLE data is used to construct the national benchmarks, it should be concluded that those benchmarks use non-comparable data for their development. Several examples are detailed in the CWLA article to which the ACF links. Specifically, states have different definitions of child abuse and neglect, different burdens of proof for establishing child maltreatment, different policies, different data collecting processes, and varying degrees of reliability in the veracity of reported data.
One simple explanation is an understanding of child maltreatment prevalence. Some states keep a very narrow definition of abuse or neglect (non-accidental actual physical harm) and a burden of proof that is ―clear and convincing‖ evidence for confirmation with data collected in a child welfare information system that is not a federally approved SACWIS system, Those states will always have lower rates of child maltreatment than a state like Oklahoma that has a broad definition of child abuse and neglect (―harm or risk of harm‖) and a lower burden of proof for confirmation (preponderance) that collects information and documents it in a federally approved SACWIS system. Nevertheless, states have proceeded with the Program Improvement Plan process in hopes that when measured against itself, the state will improve its prioritized outcomes for children over time, even if statistical challenges exist in the inter-state data comparisons.
Oklahoma first participated in the CFSR in March 2002, after which Oklahoma’s Program Improvement Plan was approved January 1, 2003. It was ultimately determined to have been satisfied on January 1, 2005. Significantly, our goal to improve access to health care for children in foster care was a significant accomplishment in the successful completion of our first Program Improvement Plan.
The second Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) which is the subject of this Program Improvement Plan (PIP) began with a submission of Oklahoma Statewide Assessment in June 2007. The data was submitted and analyzed and 65 cases selected for the on-site visit. The on-site visit occurred August 2007. The initial CFSR from United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (ACF) was received by the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (OKDHS) on February 22, 2008. In response to the report, Oklahoma timely submitted a proposed PIP on May 23, 2008 (the First Submission). The First Submission proposed various targets for performance. Although several conference calls between ACF and Oklahoma happened over the next several months that followed, no written word was received from ACF on the First Submission until October 8, 2008. A series of back and forth exchanges have occurred. At no time has Oklahoma not submitted a timely response. However, the
8
statistical landscape has change between the picture taken and for which the first proposed set of goals were proposed. These delays are a challenge with the PIP process. Under the PIP process, no credit is given a State for the improvement in its program until after a PIP is approved. It has been more than a year and a half since the goals of the The First Submission of the PIP were submitted. Many of the goals
proposed in the First Submission have already been attained. Compliance with the PIP begins when it is
approved. The statistical landscape is different now. It is hoped that the goals upon which we have agreed
are attainable in the new statistical climate.
Nevertheless, we are submitting herewith a variety of goals. We are also outlining many of the strategies which have already been widely deployed and have been helpful in achieving the progress already attained. It is our desire to continue to work with ACF on improving the Child Welfare system in Oklahoma. We have a long history of working with ACF and are proud of our shared accomplishments. Oklahoma was the first state and remains one of only six states that have a federally approved Statewide Child Welfare Information System (SWCWIS). According to a report from the HHS Office of Inspector General, Oklahoma was one of only a handful of states that could document that they visit at least 90% of their children in foster care monthly. This is an attainment that Oklahoma has consistently achieved for many years. Nevertheless, there is room for improvement. Those goals are stated herein. We look forward to working with ACF on achieving the goals stated herein.
The Statistical Landscape
The AFCARS statistical profile submitted to ACF at the beginning of the current Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) process is badly out of date. In the last twenty-three months, Oklahoma has reduced the number of children in out of home care by more than 20%. Oklahoma now has the fewest number of children in care in more than eight years. At the time of the submission of the AFCARS data to ACF, Oklahoma was managing the one of the largest numbers of children in care in Oklahoma’s history. To ACF’s credit, the Data Profile which is now being used to establish the measures in this PIP actually is based on a data submission more recent than those on which the measures in the Final Report were calculated. A lot of factors have contributed to this significant improvement. Many of them are outline below. One factor is Oklahoma’s consistent effort to see that children get permanency. Oklahoma is consistently in the top five states in adoptions per capita. Oklahoma’s average length of stay in foster care is less than the National average. Nevertheless, improvements are necessary. The AFCARS statistical profile of Oklahoma today would be substantially different and show substantially different successes and problems than the AFCARS data submitted at the beginning of the current CFSR. The attached PIP proposes to continue the improvements already documented and highlights other improvements that have now become apparent due to the change in Oklahoma’s statistical profile.
9
Children in Out of Home Care
(last day of the year, trial reunification excluded)
8,457
10,560
9,699
8,194 8,519 8,2798,722 8,844 8,881 8,868
9,70110,407
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
SFY98 SFY99 SFY00 SFY01 SFY02 SFY03 SFY04 SFY05 SFY06 SFY07 SFY08 SFY09 at
5/09
The Legal Landscape
During the pendency of the PIP process, the legal landscape in which judges, attorneys, social workers, and advocates work has dramatically changed. Several landmark pieces of legislation have become law in the last nine months. These laws will dramatically affect Oklahoma’s ability to comply with the proposed PIP.
On October 7, 2008, President George W. Bush signed the most sweeping federal legislation involving child welfare in more than a decade. The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (P.L.-351) was signed into law. The Act is an omnibus child welfare bill that amends both Title IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. The intent of the law is to improve the well-being of children served by public child welfare agencies. It contains a number of provisions that require significant definition which has yet to be announced. Many provisions will require substantial practice changes including notice provisions to ―all relatives‖ (a partially defined term), requirements to consider school connections when making placement decisions and a host of changes.
On May 11, 2009, Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry signed Senate Bill 339 which adopted the Oklahoma statutory changes necessary to implement the Federal Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act.
Ten days later on May 21, 2009, Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry signed House Bill 2028. It is arguably the most dramatic piece of Oklahoma child welfare legislation in more than a decade. HB 2028 is more than 300 pages in length and totally rewrites Title 10 of the Oklahoma Statutes and creates a Title 10A, the
10
Oklahoma Children’s Code. A host of definitions and practices are changed. The bill contained an emergency clause which made it effective upon the Governor’s signature. The bill was the product of more than two years of work from a task force of judges, prosecutors, child advocates, social workers, and legislators.
Seven days later on May 28, 2009, Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry signed House Bill 1734 which also contained an emergency clause, but articulated that with one subsection’s exception, the Act would be effective on July 1, 2009. HB 1734 makes several definitional changes to the Oklahoma Children’s Code and several practice changes to how children are to come into the custody of the State. HB 1734 was the result of a recommendations made by a consulting firm retained by the Legislature to advise them on what changes they believed would improve Oklahoma’s child welfare system.
These statutory changes are in addition to a pending litigation alleging the civil rights of foster children have been violated and seeking relief by the court as appropriate. The litigation is brought by Children’s Rights, a non-profit organization headquartered in New York. While Oklahoma is vigorously defending the claims made in the litigation, the effort necessary to defend itself should not be underestimated.
The bottom line is that the legal landscape in which Oklahoma finds itself is substantially different than when the CFSR process began. Therefore, the improvements proposed herein should be discussed and negotiated in light of these emerging legal environments, some of the most important of which have became law in the last month.
The Economic Landscape
The current economic climate for the country and the State of Oklahoma cannot be ignored. The Oklahoma legislature adjourned within the last two weeks appropriating about 7% less for state fiscal year 2010 than it did for state fiscal year 2009. However, the short-term economic forecasts are even gloomier. Oklahoma’s tax revenues for April and May 2009 were more than 20% below the same months in 2008. Some of the initiatives which Oklahoma desires to pursue may fall victim to the realities of less money to deliver the services all of us desire to deliver. Whether or not material cuts become a reality cannot be known today. However, Oklahoma’s ability to perform the desired goals of the PIP may have to be altered at some point due to the economic limitations that seem certain to hit, only the timing appears to be uncertain.
The Political Landscape
In the last nine months, the United States has elected a new President who is getting his administration in place. Sometime in the next 15 months, Oklahoma will have an election where it will elect a new governor. Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry’s term expires next year and he is not eligible for reelection.
11
The point is that at the time the CFSR process began, a different political landscape existed than will exist during the pendency of Oklahoma’s efforts to perform the plan. How a new administration at the Federal and the State level choose to view the PIP may be different. Therefore, it is important that careful consideration be made of the proposed goals so that they are reasonable and can be agreeable to reasonable persons in successor administrations.
It should also be noted that the legislative branch of government has and is changing in Oklahoma. The Oklahoma State Senate has changed party control to the Republican Party since the CFSR process began. We are have just finished the first session in Oklahoma history with a Republican controlled Senate and the first in history where both houses of the legislature are controlled by the Republican Party members. Further, after the 2010 legislative session, term limits will end the terms of many legislators who have historically taken an interest in human services issues. Therefore, the landscape of new persons to the political process should be considered when working through the proposed goals.
The Oklahoma Department of Human Services (OKDHS) began the Program Improvement Process with the Statewide Assessment. The process was kicked off with meetings in October 2006 with staff and external stakeholders from across the state to revise and enhance the State’s Practice Standards. Oklahoma’s Child Welfare Continuous Quality Improvement process is designed to mirror the Federal Child and Family Service Review and has been revised to reflect the recent changes made to the federal process. Information collected during the State Child and Family Services Reviews and stakeholder interviews from multiple groups, indicated that the focus should be directed more toward assessment of risk and safety within families rather than focusing on the specific abuse or neglect incident. The culmination of the Statewide Assessment and the Federal CFSR led to the work that OKDHS and the State have done on the Practice Model which is a significant piece of Oklahoma’s Program Improvement Plan. Many of the ideas from the Court Improvement Project are also included in the plan.
Oklahoma has followed the Administration for Children and Families’ Procedure Manual section on Program Improvement Plan development. OKDHS has identified responsible individuals and specific geographic areas to focus initial efforts. OKDHS has attempted to address improvement in the day-to-day practice of child welfare and not focus strictly on new policy. OKDHS in collaboration with multiple external stakeholders worked to develop and implement practices that will impact the culture of the program to better provide services to children and families. The next step for Oklahoma will be to implement and maintain program improvement. OKDHS intends to implement the PIP in ten counties, hereafter known as the ten implementation counties. These counties were selected based on having the largest percentage of children in out of home care in their areas. OKDHS understands that practice can only change and remain changed when all levels from administration to line staff believe they are doing what is right. It is also important for all staff to believe their practices are based on sound case-by-case decision making rather than being based solely on policy changes or directives. OKDHS must provide initial and on-going training, support and monitoring for staff to assure progress. The two-year PIP is just the beginning and OKDHS must continually embed this process in the Child and Family Services Plan and in other strategic planning.
OKDHS, in order to promote ownership and share responsibility across both the Field Operations and Children and Family Services Division for the strategies of the Program Improvement Plan, has chosen not to indicate specific individuals in the ―Persons Responsible‖ column. Certain action steps will list a specific position with responsibility but others will not due to the number of persons responsible for completion.
12
B. STRATEGIES, GOALS, ACTION STEPS AND BENCHMARKS
1. Train and Implement the major components of Oklahoma’s Practice Model
Below is a brief description of Oklahoma’s Practice Model. The Practice Model, developed in order to address the issues identified in the federal CFSR, is a culmination of the work and input received from external and internal stakeholders statewide and is the cornerstone of the Program Improvement Plan. Technical assistance was received from numerous sources, including the National Resource Center on Family Centered Practice and Permanency Planning and ACF Region VI office. While information below is the basis for a large part of the PIP, it goes beyond the two-year PIP period. We are attempting to change the culture of OKDHS; the following information is included to provide an understanding of the foundation of our plan.
Assessment of Child Safety
Information is the foundation of safety assessment. To uncover and understand child safety, OKDHS child protection workers assess the pertinent areas of family life that contribute to children being safe. OKDHS will consider among other things six general areas of family life that when assessed may provide pertinent information to assess threats to child safety. Assessment in these six areas may provide helpful information from which CW staff will identify the presence of threats to child safety.
Six Areas to Assess When Determining Child Safety:
1. Assessment of the extent or severity of the maltreatment (including history). 2. Assessment of the circumstances surrounding the maltreatment. 3. Assessment of how the child functions on a daily basis. 4. Assessment of the disciplinary approaches 5. Assessment of the overall pervasive parenting practices used by the caregiver. 6. Assessment of how the caregiver functions with respect to daily life management. OKDHS understands the necessity of initiating safety assessments of children in a timely manner. The goal of OKDHS is to establish a plan to address this issue. This will include gathering current data related to the correlation between the age of the child, the seriousness of the maltreatment, and the time frame for response. Following analysis of the data that will be presented to the Human Services Centers, a plan of action will be developed. Family Team Meetings Family Team Meetings (FTM) are planning and decision-making processes that include parents, caregivers, children, social workers, and other service providers. They may also include extended family, friends, members of community groups, and other community partners. There is value in bringing families together in the planning and decision making process. The OKDHS Practice Model requires that Family Team Meetings be held throughout the process of serving a family—case opening to case closure. While a Family Team Meeting can be held at anytime throughout the case process, it must be held at the following times:
13
Following the assessment of child safety, in order to identify family supports that can be used to keep children in their home safely, or if that cannot occur, as part of the placement process to identify kin who might be able to provide temporary care to the child(ren)
As part of the ongoing assessment process When a decision to actively implement concurrent planning is made Prior to reunification
To date, the use of emergency shelter care has given rise to concerns. OKDHS anticipates the implementation of the Family Team Meeting process will positively affect this area of need identified during the Federal Child and Family Services Review. A Family Team Meeting emphasizes the need for the family to be an integral part of the decision making process. Collaboration with relatives and individuals concerned with the identified family to discuss placement planning may improve the likelihood of identifying the best first placement for a child. Ongoing FTM will assist in continually assessing the needs of the child and placement provider.
The current policy requires Permanency Planning Reviews (PPR) to be held sixty days following removal from the home or within thirty days of a court determination that reasonable efforts are not required, and again every six months as long as the child remains in out of home care. The PPR engages family as well as others involved in the case in discussion of permanency goals and plans to address any identified barriers to permanency. The FTM process, when used throughout the life of a case, provides opportunities to maintain focus on achievement of permanency goals in a timely manner through continued involvement of the family, children, caregivers, social workers, and service providers. OKDHS has amended procedures to encourage conducting these reviews concurrently with Family Team Meetings. The FTM process addresses the need for maintaining connections to community, extended family, culture, and tribes through engaging family members, the child, and others who are connected to the child and/or family. Family Team Meetings enhance the search process through updating the information needed to continually assess possible permanent placements and reinforce connections with community, extended family, culture, and tribes. When appropriate kinship placements are not available, Family Team Meetings are helpful in identifying alternative resources.
Family Team Meetings provide parents with enhanced opportunities to identify their individualized needs. When parents are absent, the FTM process can assist in locating them through information provided by the other members of the team.
Regular Family Team Meetings will encourage more consistent child and family engagement, strengthening the team approach between Child Welfare workers and families. Involvement in the process will empower families to impact their own success through goal directed discussions to identify the strategies needed to expedite permanency. This is done through sharing of information and brainstorming to enhance the services provided to the child while in out of home care and again to expedite permanency.
An area of concern related to placement stability is multiple school enrollments. It is expected that Family Team Meetings will lead to more stability in placement which will provide children the opportunity to remain in the same school setting.
Bridge
Bridge is a component of the Practice Model that seeks to view practice through the eyes of the child and seeks to ensure that children in care maintain connections to their kin, their culture, and their community while in out of home care. The goal of OKDHS is to increase the number of resource families to meet the varying needs of children who are placed in out of home care.
The definition of a Bridge Resource Family is a family who may be asked to:
14
Provide temporary care, love and nurturance to the child and serve as a mentor actively helping the parent improve their ability to safely care for his or her children.
Stay connected and assist in the transition to reunification, legal guardianship, or adoption to another family, and/or
Serve as the legal guardian for the child while maintaining a child’s connection to kin, culture and community and/or
Adopt the child while maintaining a child’s connection to kin, culture, and community.
By definition, it is clear that the Bridge Model recruits, orients, and supports traditional foster families, kin, and adoptive families. There is no distinction in approach. Oklahoma has implemented an assessment process that allows a family to be approved to provide care for children whether it is traditional foster care, kinship care, or adoption. This integrated assessment includes both an initial and re-assessment tool to be utilized with all resource families to impact placement stability and time to permanency. OKDHS added a component addressing the protective capacity of resource families to the assessment guide. OKDHS will continue to evaluate the need for developing additional tools. It is anticipated that implementation of this process will reduce maltreatment in out of home care. OKDHS has identified the need to improve communication within the Child Welfare system and between Child Welfare workers and the resource families providing care for the children placed in their homes. Enhanced communication will not only assist in identifying areas of concern in the home but will also add needed support for the families involved. OKDHS has recognized that there has been some confusion among Child Welfare workers regarding the difference between alleged policy violations and alleged abuse or neglect in out of home care. It is anticipated that increased communication will clarify this issue.
Enhanced Visitation Model
The frequency and consistency of visitation is a foundational component of the OKDHS Practice Model. As research suggests, parents cannot be expected to improve parenting practices, maintain bonds with their children, and improve the quality of their parent-child interaction when visits are infrequent. Logically, for frequent visitation to occur, children must be placed in close proximity to the birth family. OKDHS must provide assistance to support the visitation process.
The visitation plan serves as an agreement between OKDHS, the child in placement, and the child’s family. It structures visits, logistics, necessary tasks, and roles and responsibilities of placement caregivers, family members, and agency staff. A written plan reassures children and their families that the agency is invested in protecting family relationships. It also identifies possible consequences should the plan not be followed. Research on parental visitation of children in foster care indicates a strong relationship between the development of a visitation plan and actual visitation by parents. Social worker attitudes and behaviors that encourage visitation also have a positive influence on the quality and frequency of parent visitation.
OKDHS plans to utilize an enhanced visitation model in ten select counties. These sites will conduct a self-assessment, identifying areas of strength and those needing improvement, to be addressed as part of the county program improvement plan. Training will be provided to these CW staff regarding the visitation protocol. The outcomes of this plan will be utilized to identify the resources necessary for statewide implementation.
We believe the implementation of an enhanced model of visitation will positively affect placement stability, consistency in attaining the goal of reunification, maintaining connections, strengthening parent child relationships, sibling placements, and school stability.
15
More frequent and positive visitation with parents should improve the child’s adjustment in placement and reduce problematic behavior over time, potentially having a positive effect on stability of placement as well as reunification outcomes. Placement stability will also impact school stability.
A dedicated staff member will track separated siblings, identify sibling visitation issues, and send data to the counties monthly. This individual will also track successes of individual units/counties/areas in supporting sibling relationships and provide technical assistance in an effort to replicate promising practices.
Resource families are an integral part of planning visitation. The implementation of Bridge will go hand in hand with the enhanced visitation model as the resource families facilitate and support these visits. The relationship that develops between the birth and Bridge families should positively impact placement stability.
Functional Assessment and Behaviorally Based Service Planning
Assessment is the process of gathering information that will support service planning and decision making regarding the safety, permanency, and well-being of children, youth, and families. It begins with the first contact with a family and continues until the case is closed. Assessment is based on the assumption that for services to be relevant and effective, workers must systematically gather information and continuously evaluate the needs of children and parents/caregivers as well as the ability of family members to use their strengths to address their problems.
A Family Functional Assessment is a ―process,‖ not the completion of a ―tool.‖ This does not mean that tools are superfluous; they are helpful in documenting needs or in stimulating the conversation about assessment issues. It does mean, however, that the engagement of family members in a discussion that is individualized to their situation is vital. Simply completing a form will not capture all that is needed for a comprehensive family functional assessment.
The goal of safety and risk assessment is to determine if children are unsafe or at risk, and if child protective services are required. Once a decision has been made to open a case for services, regardless of whether or not the child is placed in out of home care, a Family Functional Assessment is undertaken as part of the development of a service plan. When OKDHS is responsible for serving the family, a functional assessment is critical to determine how to best serve the family and impact child safety, permanency, and well-being.
The new Functional Assessment tool provides a guide for enhanced assessment of the unique needs of families and children in state or tribal custody and those intact families whose children’s safety is threatened. Specific areas included in the tool are the assessment of physical, emotional, developmental, and educational/vocational needs, as well as any issues related to substance abuse. An enhanced assessment of need provides the foundation for locating the most appropriate placement in a timelier manner.
Subsequent to completion of the Functional Assessment and Individualized Service Plan, the worker meets with the child, placement providers, and parents on at least a monthly basis to discuss progress and address identified needs. The Contact Guide was revised to prompt staff to address any safety concerns observed in the home of the parent or placement provider. Use of the Contact Guide provides specific direction for the ongoing assessment of needs, functioning, and safety.
The assessment and individualized service planning process is completed within 60 days of removal and guides decision making on establishment of an appropriate permanency goal in a timely manner. The new Functional Assessment tool will guide workers to gather more pertinent information needed in developing the Individualized Service Plan.
16
Substance abuse and domestic violence are not always adequately addressed before reunification occurs. The Functional Assessment emphasizes behavioral change in these and other areas of family functioning that contributed to the child being unsafe rather than assessing compliance with services. The Contact Guide directs specific discussion of progress in this area, and prompts discussion of safety issues.
The Functional Assessment and Contact Guide prompt discussion regarding important people in the child’s life and the issue of establishing and maintaining connections, both at the beginning and throughout the life of the case.
Adequately assessing and meeting needs of parents, involvement of parents and children in case planning, and lack of sufficient contact with parents by the CW worker are areas that the new Functional Assessment tool will address. This will be accomplished through in-depth discussions with and identification of needs for families, particularly those that relate to safety of children. The Contact Guide directs ongoing discussions with parents during monthly worker visits.
The new Functional Assessment tool provides more specific direction on assessment of and service planning for any identified educational needs. School stability will be affected by this strategy through enhanced placement stability as many school changes occur as a result of change in placement.
Concurrent Planning
Concurrent Planning holds promise for expediting timely decision-making for children as a result of its dual focus on family reunification and planning for alternative permanency options. Effective use of Concurrent Planning includes the respectful involvement of parents and family members early in the planning process, as well as identification of any Poor Prognosis Indicators that might serve as barriers to timely reunification or another permanency outcome.
The goals of concurrent planning include:
Striving to provide children with stable, safe, and permanent families. Ensuring family and community-centered practice in least restrictive placement settings. Ensuring culturally responsive practice. Facilitating an open and inclusive case planning process. Providing goal-focused and time-limited services. Conducting frequent and regular case reviews of children's status and family progress toward reaching
safety, permanency, and well-being goals. Encouraging frequent parent-child visits to increase likelihood of early reunification.
OKDHS plans to revise and clarify the concurrent planning process and anticipates this will positively affect establishing permanency goals in a timely manner, attaining permanency goals timely, achieving adoptions timely, and ensuring long-term placement. Oklahoma is narrowing the focus of concurrent planning through identification of poor prognosis factors for reunification, as well as requiring documented concurrent planning activities when a concurrent goal is appropriate. Implementation of active concurrent planning should impact these issues through more expedient identification of appropriate goals and steps to permanency, including steps to identify appropriate alternative permanency plans when a poor prognosis for reunification exists.
2. Address Court Related Issues
The State of Oklahoma is in the process of addressing court related issues regarding cooperation and communication between all parties to improve safety, permanency, and well-being issues for children and families. The Oklahoma Children and Juvenile Law Reform Committee conducted a two-year systematic
17
review of laws in the Children’s Code in Title 10 of the Oklahoma Statutes and prepared and recommended a draft that was filed as House Bill 2028. The rewrite committee was comprised of legislators, judges, district attorneys, CASA, tribal representatives, child advocates, and several representatives from OKDHS, including the CFSD Director and CFSD legal counsel. This bill contained 315 sections that updated, reformed, and re-codified the laws relating to deprived children. HB 2028 was signed by the Governor and become effective on May 21, 2009. The final product was a collaborative effort of legislators, judges, district attorneys, the OKDHS Children and Family Services Director, OKDHS attorneys, tribal representatives, and other child advocates. This Act addresses court-related issues by:
requiring mandatory yearly training for judges assigned to and attorneys appearing in deprived cases;
permitting additional time for the filing of a petition, from five to seven days from date of removal, allowing more time for a thorough investigation;
allowing the ability to amend a deprived petition up to seven days prior to the adjudication hearing to conform with evolving evidence;
including definitions that are consistent with the agency’s Practice Model; expanding the venue for the filing of a deprived petition; clarifying the process for hearing an objection to a child’s change of placement; incorporating the agency’s family group conferencing as an alternate dispute resolution that can be
ordered by the court; allowing protective supervision by OKDHS while the child is placed in his or her own home; and permitting reinstatement of parental rights in certain circumstances to provide permanency for some
children.
The House of Representatives commissioned an audit of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services in 2008 with a focus on child welfare issues. The recommendations from the audit were contained in House Bill 1734 filed during the 2009 legislative session. This Act is effective July 1, 2009, and contains, among other things, legislative intent language to increase foster home reimbursements.
The recommendations enacted into law include requirements:
to develop a system, in consultation with law enforcement and the district courts, for joint response when a child is taken into protective custody by a peace officer;
for the agency to develop reception centers for accepting children in protective custody from law enforcement where a safety evaluation can be conducted within 23 hours to determine if emergency custody of the child is required;
restricting emergency custody to circumstances of imminent safety threats;
for the development of a Children’s Services Oversight Committee to review implementation of the recommendations;
for developing a Passport Program, in cooperation with other state agencies, to compile educational and physical and behavioral health information to accompany a child placed outside the home;
18
assuring school attendance for children eligible for a foster care payment under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act; and
to establish a statewide centralized hotline for reporting of child abuse and neglect to OKDHS.
Cooperation and communication regarding court-related issues will be enhanced as a result of these two Acts and further improve safety, permanency, and well-being for children and families.
Court certified mediations are occurring across the state focusing on removing barriers to permanency for children that have been in out-of-home care for a long period of time. A coordinated effort has started in Oklahoma County which has the largest number of children placed in out of home care. A target of 200 cases is planned for mediation during the next year. An Oklahoma County task force has been established to work on barriers to permanency and keeping children safe in their own homes. This task force includes many members of the OKDHS leadership, the presiding juvenile judge in Oklahoma County, the District Attorney, a public defender, CASA, and PARB.
The Court Improvement Project, in cooperation with the OKDHS, will be presenting five workshops across the State of Oklahoma in each of the next four years. Court staff, district attorneys, CASA, PARB, private attorneys, and county OKDHS staff will attend. These two day conferences will have workshops on numerous issues including safety, permanency, well-being, ASFA, Team Decision Making, etc. Each of the five conferences will have the same agenda and presentations to assure consistency. A presentation will be made at the annual Juvenile Judges Statewide Conference regarding the changing focus of CPS from incident based to an assessment model. OKDHS meets quarterly with the Juvenile Judges of the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s Juvenile Oversight and Advisory Committee for the purpose of exchanging new ideas, reviewing on-going joint training, and resolving issues.
3. Improve Collaboration with Tribes
A Tribal/State Collaboration workgroup was formed in September 2006. The members of the workgroup include Indian Child Welfare staff from across the state and OKDHS field and program staff. The purpose of the workgroup is to identify barriers and develop strategies to enhance the partnership between the state and tribes. Early work of the group focused on identifying strengths and needs of the existing partnership between the tribes and OKDHS. Issues were grouped into three broad areas of ―Practice‖, ―Training and Legal‖, and ―Resource‖. It was also decided that the meetings should be co-chaired by a tribal representative. .
The workgroup was instrumental in identifying a need for a tribal coordinator position. The practice sub-committee developed a job description for this position. Area III, which includes Oklahoma County and Canadian County, pursued developing this position and the position was filled in January 2005. The role of the Area III Tribal Coordinator is to assist OKDHS Child Welfare workers in compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act, as well as to facilitate communication and partnerships between OKDHS and tribes. One method of doing this is by holding tribal staffings. The staffings involve the OKDHS Child Welfare worker and supervisor, tribal workers, and Children and Family Services Division (CFSD) program staff. The staffings focus on both Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) compliance and movement towards permanency. The staffings occur on a monthly basis, and usually 5 to 10 cases are staffed. Area IV filled a tribal coordinator position August 2008. There continues to be review of these positions by the workgroup to ensure that the Tribal Coordinator role is consistent statewide.
19
The workgroup hosted a large Tribal/State Collaboration meeting on April 17, 2008. All Oklahoma Tribes were invited to this meeting as well as the workgroup members and other program staff. The purpose of the meeting was to identify ways in which tribes and OKDHS can enhance and improve collaboration in the provision of services to Native American children and families served through Child Welfare programs. The meeting focused on the areas of independent living, service sharing, local communication, training, and keeping tribal youth connected to their tribe and cultural identity. The groups made many recommendations including greater access to the KIDS system, more joint training, accountability for ICWA compliance, developing resource directories, and increased use of e-mail communications. Recommendations from this meeting continue to assist the workgroup in developing more specific strategies.
The workgroup, in conjunction with Casey Family Services, will be holding Strategic Planning Meetings in each of the six OKDHS Areas. The meetings will begin in June and conclude by the middle of October. Casey Family Services will provide a facilitator for each of the meetings. The meetings are entitled ―Serving Oklahoma’s Children‖ and will focus on increased collaboration between OKDHS and tribal CW programs to enhance the provision of services to tribal children and families, as well as enhance compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act. Each area develops a Strategic Action plan unique to their area based on strategies to address the three greatest challenges in their area. Both tribal CW staff and OKDHS staff were asked to complete surveys prior to each meeting. The challenges to be addressed will be determined by the survey information. Along with identifying strategies, each area will also indentify how progress will be measured.
Issues regarding training have been discussed at the workgroup meetings and other gatherings. Tribal staff will be invited to training provided in the field by the Practice Model Implementation Section. Two Training of Trainers workshops for Oklahoma Pride will be provided for tribal staff within the next year. The Bridge training for OKDHS workers will also be made available to tribal workers.
A legal opinion regarding releasing information from the Child Abuse and Neglect Information System has been requested from the OKDHS Legal Unit. If the decision is made that OKDHS can release information to the tribes for this purpose, safeguards for this information will be included in the Tribal State Agreement. CFSD is currently awaiting that decision.
OKDHS has continued to evaluate and expand services for tribal custody children exploring ways to provide the same services as those provided to children in OKDHS custody. Group home access and kinship start up stipends are now available to tribal custody children. Additionally, mileage reimbursement for tribal resource homes is now in place to support visitation, reunification, participation in court hearings, and medical visits.
Access to KIDS has been expanded to tribal workers to enter contacts regarding visitation. Previously tribes have had read-only access to Tribal E-KIDS. There are on-going discussions with tribes regarding enhancing KIDS to capture better information regarding tribal children. The ability to enter information on tribal custody children will continue and enhance tribal collaboration.
4. Broaden Service Array/Resource Development
Community partnership is critical to the success of OKDHS efforts to achieve safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes. The need to increase access to services has been identified in an effort to meet the needs of the children and families that are served by OKDHS.
20
OKDHS plans to approach the lack of services through implementing Resource and Capacity Development Plans within the individual counties of the state. Technical assistance will be accessed to gain information on how service array has been successfully improved in other areas of the nation. This will lay the foundation for providing individual counties with training and support in developing plans to increase services at the local level. The National Resource Center on Organizational Improvement (NRCOI) describes the process of Resource and Capacity Development as the state’s assessment of its system of service array. This includes its capacity to meet the individualized service needs of families and children and how the state utilizes that information to create a plan to enhance those capacities. These plans are specific on state and local levels. Oklahoma plans to seek technical assistance from the NRCOI, which has developed and field-tested a model for assessing capacity and creating these plans. Through utilization of technical assistance and involvement of community partners on state and local levels, the State plans to identify areas needing improvement and through collaboration enhance the State’s service array. Oklahoma will specifically target those areas identified during the onsite review, and engage stakeholders to create and/or expand capacity in order to more effectively meet the needs of children and families. Existing partnerships with providers of home based services and developing systems of care will be vital to meeting the service needs of children and families in metro and rural areas of the state. The Bridge component of the Practice Model includes recruitment, orientation, assessment, and training of resource families. It also includes child placement practices, and visitation between children and their workers and between children and those with whom they have a connection. As part of this process, a recruitment and retention work group has been initiated to ensure development of implementation plans. The membership of the current recruitment and retention work group will be expanded to include representation from all areas of Child Welfare and members of the community that are working with children in OKDHS and tribal custody. These meetings will focus on maintaining consistency in implementing Bridge throughout the state. Technical assistance and available data have been provided to assist in targeted recruitment. The recruitment process for Bridge families begins with messages that seek to make the role of the Bridge resource families clear. OKDHS is looking for families to meet the various needs of children in care; including young children, sibling groups, adolescents, and children with special medical, developmental, or behavioral needs. Bridge families are to partner with birth families and the other members of the team to help children reach permanency as rapidly and safely as possible. Understanding the value of resource families as part of the team will assist in the development of new recruitment and retention plans. OKDHS is working to communicate the message that resource families are valued and are providing an important service in the lives of the children in care and their families. Through Bridge, OKDHS is working to provide a consistent message as well as consistent recruitment materials to those families who express interest in caring for children in OKDHS custody. Retention of resource parents occurs when there is open communication and support. Resource parents must be included in the team decision making for children and families. OKDHS is expanding the involvement of resource parents in all aspects of program improvement planning. Resource parents will be participating in statewide committee meetings, workgroups, and focus groups and are to be an integral part of decision making at the local level. Bridge resource families are also being asked to support and mentor prospective resource applicants. Bridge, in conjunction with Family Team Meetings, will provide opportunities to develop kinship placements as well as to develop support systems for the children in care and their families. More
21
appropriate placement decisions through the engagement of families will assist with providing the optimal permanence for children. OKDHS plans to complete a detailed analysis of CHBS referrals in the ten implementation counties and review for appropriateness of referrals. The data will be used to consult with county staff, CHBS providers, and community stakeholders on ways to reduce waiting lists. A final report with quantitative and qualitative information will be prepared with recommendations for improvement.
5. Emergency Shelter Issues
The State of Oklahoma is addressing the emergency shelter issue on both a short and long-term basis. Both Oklahoma County and Tulsa County emergency shelters have enhanced and continue to enhance their service capacity for children. Medical and psychological assessments are conducted for each child and a developmental assessment is conducted on younger children. Oklahoma County shelter continues to transport children to their community schools to alleviate disruptions in their education.
Standing Orders – The Presiding Judges in both Oklahoma and Tulsa Counties will address standing orders that place children directly into the emergency shelter after they are picked up by the police. These orders automatically place children in OKDHS emergency custody. Judge Doris Fransein of Tulsa has been doing research with other cities to see how they address this issue. If OKDHS is able to build alternative capacity, these orders should be modified for younger children. Child Welfare has collaborated with some of the major police departments to create embedded or on-call workers within those departments. This should also reduce the prevalence of children delivered to the shelter by law enforcement.
Gary Miller, CFSD Director, reports that discussion of several strategies regarding the shelter issue has been occurring at the highest levels of OKDHS. Change of this magnitude cannot occur without understanding the complexities and cost of the change. The safety, stability, and well-being of children served must be foremost.
Technical assistance through the Casey Foundation occurred on October 25, 2008. Page Walley of the Casey Foundation led a discussion regarding young children and emergency care. OKDHS received word on September 25, 2008 that it is the recipient of a five year grant of $400,000 per year from the Children’s Bureau designed to assist OKDHS improve its recruitment and maintenance of resource families, including kinship, foster, concurrent (Bridge Resource Families), and adoptive families. OKDHS anticipates the grant will have a positive impact on the recruitment of families, including those for children under five and their siblings. The ultimate desire is that shelter care can be reduced for this population. Our overall goal is to reduce usage by at least 10%.
As the rate of out of wedlock birth continues to grow, as do the removal rates for children under age one and the prevalence of drug affected-infants, reducing the use of emergency shelters will also require the development of special services primarily for infants. The vision includes development of implementation projects which create standing capacity for emergency foster care homes that should virtually eliminate the need for shelter care for children under age five. OKDHS has had preliminary discussions with some providers who have expressed an interest in providing this service. The financial analysis has been preliminarily determined to be feasible for the projects.
22
PIP Strategy Summary and TA Plan
State: OKLAHOMA Date Submitted: 5/22/09
Primary Strategies
Key Issues
TA Resources Needed
Implement and Maintain Practice Model Including the following components:
Family Team Meetings (FTM) Safety Analysis and Decision Making Functional Assessment and
Behaviorally Based Service Planning Enhanced Visitation Concurrent Planning Bridge
(see attachment: The State of Oklahoma DHS Practice Model Guide)
FTM
Inadequate parent/child visitation Inadequate child and family engagement Length of time in OOHC Lack of connections Lack of kinship resources
Safety Analysis and Decision Making Lack of safety planning/ongoing
assessment of risk Safety concerns in OOHC High number of children in care Lack of appropriate services for In-home
cases Assessing protective capacity of kin Need for risk vs. incident based
assessments Functional Assessment and Behaviorally Based Service Planning
Lack of individualized service plans to meet the unique needs of children and families
Lack of on-going assessment of child safety, permanency, and well being
Visitation Inadequate parent/child/sibling visitation Lack of quality visitation which promotes
NRCCPS National Resource Center for
Recruitment and Retention of Foster and Adoptive Parents at AdoptUsKids
NRCFCPPP NRCOI Breakthrough Series Collaborative
(BSC)
23
parent/child/sibling bonds Concurrent Planning
Lack of consistent definition and utilization of ―concurrent planning‖ (i.e., not a back-up plan)
Lack of consistent practice related to court findings (―Efforts to reunite have failed‖)
Length of time of OOHC Bridge
Loss of connections to kin, culture and community
Lack of appropriate placement resources Exclusion of resource parents as part of
the team Multiple placements in OOHC Inadequate parent/child visitation Inadequate child and family engagement Length of time in OOHC Insufficient identification and utilization
of kinship resources Assessing protective capacity of resource
parent
24
Address Court Related Issues Title 10 Rewrite to clarify and
organize the State of Oklahoma statue regarding children.
Establish a statewide mediation process to achieve more positive permanency outcomes for cases which are legally stuck
Provide technical assistance to Oklahoma Co. juvenile court system to reduce legal barriers to permanency and to identify court related training needs
Court Improvement Program and OKDHS to conduct joint annual judicial conferences statewide. Summer 2005, 2009, 2010
Develop an Oklahoma County Task Force to evaluate communication between OKDHS and the Court.
Lack of timely permanency for children
because of failure to pursue TPR Lack of education for attorneys regarding
permanency and Termination of Parental Rights
Court perceptions of OKDHS staff Inadequate docket time for meaningful
hearings Inaccurate information regarding
concurrent planning, when to include concurrent planning, and what efforts are necessary to work a concurrent plan.
Lack of communication and data sharing between OKDHS and the court
Foster parent notice
National Center for State Courts National Counsel for Juvenile and
Family Court Judges Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee
(State of Oklahoma oversight committee that is appointed by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma and is working to improve outcomes for children)
25
Primary Strategies
Key Issues
TA Resources Needed
Tribes Improve collaboration with the tribes
to ensure safety and stability for children.
Develop a plan for the review of tribal cases in county offices.
Lack of consistent collaboration with the
tribes on both state and local levels Inconsistent partnering with tribes on
court involved Native American children Under utilization of tribal services Lack of cross training for OKDHS and
tribes
NRCOI Tribal/State Workgroup
Service Array/Resource Development
Fully implement Resource and Capacity Development Plans in each county.
Increase communication between service providers and OKDHS to ensure quality of service provision.
Lack of access to services
o Substance abuse treatment o Housing o Post permanency o Dental o Medical o Behavioral Health Services o Mental Health Services o Community Home Based Services
Lack of placement stability Lack of appropriate resources to meet
special needs (i.e., minority resources, teen youth, large sibling groups, and those with mental health needs)
Inadequate number of resource families
NRCOI Oklahoma Health Care Authority OKDHS Medical Director AdoptUsKids Oklahoma Foster Parent Association Oklahoma Therapeutic Foster Parent
Association Youth in care
26
Shelter Explore and assess alternatives to
Shelter Care in an effort to reduce removal and enhance placement stability through improved collaboration with the courts, law enforcement, and the diligent recruitment grant.
Children are not being placed in
appropriate placements that match their needs at the onset of placement, including the use of shelter care for all children coming into care.
Infants and toddlers were also placed in the shelters in Oklahoma City and Tulsa
Children are being placed in emergency shelters without attempts to find more appropriate alternative placements such as relatives or a foster home.
27
B. PIP Matrix Instructions
States are strongly encouraged to use the PIP Matrix form for both PIP submissions and PIP quarterly reports. A sample completed section of a PIP Matrix appears in attachment D. The matrix is designed to allow States to enter information by themes or broad strategy areas or approaches, under which each of the items out of conformity is addressed. Using a theme or broad strategy approach helps to both provide a focus on overarching reforms and simplify the PIP document.
The following are instructions for completing the PIP Matrix:
Introductory information: At the top of the PIP Matrix, States should enter the information requested to identify their State, the type of report being submitted (PIP or quarterly report), and the date submitted.
Part A: Strategy Measurement Plan and Quarterly Status Report: This section of the PIP Matrix is designed to allow States to detail
action steps that address the goals/negotiated measures and benchmarks. It also allows States to report quarterly progress on each action step.
States will need to copy the table framework for part A as many times as appropriate to the number of strategies and action steps contained in their PIP such that all of the outcome items, data composite indicators, and systemic factor items that contributed to nonconformity are addressed.
States should complete the shaded cells in the matrix only when using the matrix for quarterly reporting or reporting the results of renegotiation.
The following is information about each cell in part A:
– Primary Strategy: States should note each broad strategy approach that addresses the key concerns from the review and serves as a
framework for the goals/negotiated measures, action steps, and benchmarks. These include the overarching reforms and continuing strategies that build on prior PIP activity. The primary strategies should reflect integration with other plans such as the CFSP.
– Goal: States should describe the overall accomplishment that is to be achieved through the primary strategy that addresses applicable
areas requiring improvement based on the Final Report.
– Applicable CFSR Outcomes or Systemic Factors: States should identify the outcomes or systemic factors being addressed through the primary strategy and action steps.
28
– Applicable CFSR Items: States should indicate the specific item(s) addressed based on items requiring improvement in the Final Report.
– Action Steps and Benchmarks: States should provide a brief description of each action step that will be undertaken to create improvements under
each goal. Benchmarks in this section can be qualitative processes and/or incremental quantitative measures of progress toward achieving the action step. States should list as many benchmarks as appropriate for adequate monitoring of progress for each action step. Action steps and benchmarks should be numbered according to the primary strategy that they are associated with.
– Person Responsible: States should identify the individual(s) responsible for the action steps and benchmarks, clarifying staff and
stakeholder engagement and responsibility.
– Evidence of Completion: States should detail the specific documents or reports that will be used to provide the Children’s Bureau Regional Office with evidence of progress and eventual completion of the action step.
– Quarter Due: States should provide the quarter in which each action step or benchmark will be completed.
– Quarter Completed: The Children’s Bureau Regional Office will determine, based on review of State reports, the quarter in which each action step
or benchmark is completed.
– Quarterly Update: States should enter and report information regarding each action step or benchmark that is due during the quarter.
– Renegotiated Action Steps and Benchmarks: If applicable, States should note whether the action step and benchmarks were renegotiated and provide a detailed description.
Part B: National Standards Measurement Plan and Quarterly Status Report: This section of the PIP Matrix is designed to allow
States to enter and report information regarding each national standard data indicator that is to be addressed in their PIP, including (1) their performance as measured in the Final Report, and the source data period for the data indicator; (2) the performance as measured for the baseline established, and the source data period for the data indicator; (3) the negotiated improvement goal; and (4) the renegotiated improvement goal, if applicable. When using the PIP Matrix for quarterly reporting, they also should enter the status of the data indicator for each reported quarter.
Part C: Item-Specific and Quantitative Measurement Plan and Quarterly Status Report: This section of the PIP Matrix is designed
to allow States to enter and report information regarding each CFSR item or action step with quantitative measurement that is to be addressed in their PIP, including (1) the status of the item in the Final Report; (2) the performance as measured for the baseline
29
established and the source data period for the measure; (3) the negotiated improvement goal; (4) the method of measuring improvement; and (5) the renegotiated improvement goal, if applicable. When using the PIP Matrix for quarterly reporting, they also should enter the status of the item or action step for each reported quarter. States will need to copy the table framework for part C as many times as appropriate to the number of items contained in their PIP.
States should submit the PIP Strategy Summary and TA Plan and the PIP Matrix to the Children’s Bureau Regional Office staff person responsible for the State’s CFSR.
C. PIP Quality Assurance Checklist
State child welfare agency staff and their external partners may use the following quality assurance checklist to review the State’s PIP to determine whether it meets the requirements necessary to contribute to a successful PIP process that will result in improvements to child welfare practice:
Did the State negotiate with the Children’s Bureau Regional Office the level of improvement to be achieved for each outcome and systemic factor
determined not to be in substantial conformity, including a percentage of improvement for statewide data indicators that did not meet the national standards?
Does the plan contain action steps for each goal that build on strengths identified in the Summary of Findings (Final Report on the CFSR)?
Does the plan identify the person(s) responsible for overseeing the development, implementation, and oversight of each action step for achieving the
goals?
Does the plan contain realistic timeframes for implementing the action steps and achieving the goals?
Have the goals been prioritized to ensure that action steps for achieving the most important goals (for example, those related to safety) are implemented
first and within the timeframes outlined in the PIP instructions?
Does the plan explain how action steps targeted to one jurisdiction will lead to positive outcomes and adequate systemic functioning statewide?
Does the plan include benchmarks for measuring the progress of improvements towards goal achievement?
Are those benchmarks consistent with the level of effort required to improve performance and achieve PIP goals?
Does the plan include the State’s method for evaluating the progress being made toward the goals and action steps?
30
III. PIP Agreement Form The PIP should be signed and dated by the Chief Executive Officer of the State child welfare agency and by the Children’s Bureau Regional Office responsible for the State. The approved PIP with original signature must be retained in the Children’s Bureau Regional Office. A hard copy of the approved PIP must be submitted to the following parties immediately upon approval:
State child welfare agency
Children’s Bureau (Child and Family Services Review staff)
Child Welfare Review Project, c/o JBS International, Inc.
Agreements
The following Federal and State officials agree to the content and terms of the attached Program Improvement Plan:
Name of State Executive Officer for Child Welfare Services Date
Children’s Bureau Date
31
Amendments
This section should be completed only in the event of renegotiations regarding the content of the PIP, pursuant to 45 CFR 1355.35(e)(4). The specific renegotiated content should be inserted in the PIP Matrix under the appropriate section being replaced or modified. A summary by the action step, benchmark or improvement goal can be listed below. Copies of approved, renegotiated PIPs should be retained and distributed as noted above immediately upon completion of the renegotiation process.
The renegotiated content of the attached PIP, as summarized below, has been approved by State personnel and the Children’s Bureau Regional Office with authority to negotiate such content and is approved by Federal and State officials:
Renegotiated Action Steps, Benchmarks, or Improvement Goals
Date Renegotiated
Approval of State Executive Officer for Child Welfare Services
Approval Children’s Bureau
32
IV. PIP Matrix
State: Oklahoma Type of Report: PIP: x Date Submitted: First Submission, 5/22/08 Second Submission, 11/6/08
Quarterly Report:
(Quarter: )
Part A: Strategy Measurement Plan and Quarterly Status Report
Primary Strategy: 1. Implement and Maintain Oklahoma’s Practice Model in order to create a professional practice environment based on family centered practice and evidenced based practice that lead to improved outcomes for children and families.
Applicable CFSR Outcomes or Systemic Factors: Safety 1, Safety 2, Permanency 1, Permanency 2, Well being 1, Well being 2, Case Review System , Agency Responsiveness to the community
Goal: To operationalize the Practice Standards that will lead to better outcomes for OKDHS children and families through training, stakeholder involvement, policy review and analysis of data and progress.
Applicable CFSR Items: Items 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20
Action Steps and Benchmarks
Person Responsible
Evidence of Completion
Quarter Due
Quarter Completed
Quarterly Update
1. Train and implement the major components of Oklahoma’s Practice Model
1 (A) Complete training as outlined in the Practice Model Planning Document in each of the ten implementation counties regarding the following practice model components: standardized intake, assessment of child safety, safety planning, functional assessment, enhanced visitation, concurrent
Amy White, Margaret Devault, Joani Webster, H C Franklin, CFSD: Deborah Smith, Field Ops and Mark Nitta, CQI
Training modules, dates, and rosters for the ten implementation counties, summary of evaluations
Q1 – Q5, each quarter a report will be given regarding which component has been
33
planning, behavioral based service planning, and Bridge in order for Child Welfare staff to integrate into current practice.
completely trained.
1 (B) Design a document that provides the specific data that will be measured in order to assure successful completion of the PIP. Based on the analysis of the Data Profile for OK, the following items will be the focus for change: recurrence of maltreatment, absence of maltreatment in out-of-home care, involvement of non-custodial parents, visiting with parents, reunification in less than 12 months, placement stability and time to permanency for children who parents’ rights have been terminated. This document will be utilized by County Directors in assessing the effectiveness of the PIP implementation in their counties.
Mark Nitta, Cheryl Coponiti, Marvin Smith CQI , Deborah Smith, OFOD
Evaluation Document
Q1
1 (C) Hold a meeting with the ten implementation counties to provide them with the Evaluation Document
Mark Nitta, Cheryl Coponiti, Marvin Smith CQI ,and Deborah Smith (County
Date of meeting, participants and meeting notes
Q1
34
Directors) 1 (D) Conduct an analysis of outcomes data and provide report to the county director in each of the 10 implementation counties on a semi annual basis.
Mark Nitta, Cheryl Coponiti, Marvin Smith CQI
Outcome report for each of the implementation counties
Q2, Q4, Q6, Q5
1 (E) Hold a meeting with each County Director to explain results of analysis.
Mark Nitta, Cheryl Coponiti, Marvin Smith CQI ,and Deborah Smith (County Directors)
Dates of meetings and names of participants
Q2, Q4, Q6, Q5
1 (F) Analyze data to identify successful areas/counties and obtain names of CW staff from these areas/counties to provide any needed mentorship to CW staff and stakeholders in each of the implementation counties; provide ongoing training and consultation as needed.
Amy White PP, CFSD; Mark Nitta, Cheryl Coponiti, Marvin Smith CQI ,and Deborah Smith, OFO (County Directors)
List of successful areas/counties and names of CW staff to provide mentorship
Q2
1 (G) Provide County Directors in the ten implementation counties with names of staff from successful areas/counties to provide any needed mentorship to CW staff and stakeholders in each of the implementation counties; provide ongoing
Amy White, Permanency Planning Section; Mark Nitta, Practice Models Implementation Section (PMIS)
Dates list was provided to County Directors in the ten implementation counties.
Q2
35
training and consultation as needed. 1 (H) County Directors in the ten implementation counties will facilitate peer support in order to provide any needed mentorship to CW staff and stakeholders at least one time per quarter.
Deborah Smith OFO (County Directors, Identified mentors)
Dates of Peer Support meetings, Participant lists, summary of curricula and/or evaluative materials
1 (I) Each implementation county conducts a semi-annual meeting involving community stakeholders and CW staff, either through the creation or use of a currently existing multi-disciplinary team, to evaluate the impact of the implementation of the Practice Model on the data measures. The team will utilize the evaluation document to guide discussion in meetings regarding effectiveness of strategies in addressing identified needs, suggestions for modifications/ enhancements and develop a report to be provided to the Practice Model Steering Committee.
Deborah Smith OFO (Area Directors, County Directors) Cindy Miner, Cheryl Coponiti, Marvin Smith CQI
Description of the type of team to be used and a list of team members from each of the 10 implementation counties, dates of meetings, and meeting report
Q2, Q4, Q6, Q5
1 (J) Practice Model Steering Committee will conduct a semi-annual committee meeting to review team reports from
Deborah Smith, HC Franklin, Marie McCormic
Meeting notes and action steps
Q2, Q4, Q6, Q5
36
the implementation counties to identify themes, areas needing improvement, and identify action steps.
(Practice Model Steering Committee)
1 (K) Utilize feedback from the implementation counties in order to modify policy, protocols, and instructions to staff in order to integrate enhancements/changes to the Practice Model.
Amy White, Margaret Devault, Joani Webster, H C Franklin, CFSD: Deborah Smith, Field Ops and
Revised policy, protocols, instructions to staff, as applicable
Q2, Q4, Q6
1 (L) Provide staff and community stakeholders’ access to an Enhanced Practice Model Guide that has been modified as needed based on CW staff and community stakeholder input.
Mark Nitta, CQI ,and Deborah Smith, OFO
Link to Practice Model Guide for internet access
Q4
1.1 Develop a protocol and tool to assess safety, including the protective capacities, of resource families.
1.1 (A) Schedule Technical Assistance from appropriate NRC.
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care Program Manager
Date for TA Q1
1.1 (B) Hold a conference call with consultant and CFSD state office staff to obtain technical assistance in order to
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care Program
Notes of recommendations from call and copies of any
Q1
37
develop a protocol and tool that will assist staff in assessing safety and protective capacities of resource families, including obtaining examples of similar tools being used in other states.
Manager, Deborah Goodman, Adoption Manager
documents provided by the NRC
1.1 (C) Conduct a meeting with consultant, CFSD staff and OFOD field staff using the technical assistance provided to develop a protocol and tool that assesses safety and the protective capacities of resource families and to identify the data that will be used to analyze the effectiveness of the implementation of the tool into practice. This data will be incorporated in the evaluation tool utilized by the County Directors with the staff and stakeholder team.
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care Program Manager, Deborah Goodman, Adoption Manager
Minutes from meeting, list of participants
Q2
1.1 (D) Finalize a draft protocol and tool to be piloted in the ten implementation counties
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care Program Manager, Deborah Goodman, Adoption Manager
Draft protocol and Resource Family Safety and Protective Capacity Assessment Tool
Q2
1.1 (E) Create a training and Margaret Training and Q2
38
implementation plan with input from CFSD and OFOD in the ten implementation counties.
Linnemann, Foster Care Program Manager, Deborah Goodman, Adoption Manager and Deborah Smith,
Implementation Plan
1.1 (F) Complete training in each of the ten implementation counties.
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care Program Manager, Deborah Goodman, Adoption Manager, Mark Nitta, Practice Model Implementation Team
Training modules, dates, and rosters for the ten implementation counties
Q2
1.1 (G) Semi-annually evaluate the effectiveness of the draft protocol and Resource Safety and Protective Capacity Assessment Tool based on data results and feedback from ten implementation counties and modify as needed.
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care Program Manager, Deborah Goodman, Adoption Manager and Deborah Smith
Modified protocol and tool, if applicable and Evaluation Report
Q4, 6, 5
1.1 (H) Based on the results, if the protocol and tool have proven to be an effective
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care
Finalized protocol and form, if applicable or if
Q5
39
intervention in increasing safety for children in out of home care, finalize and promulgate the form.
Program Manager, Deborah Goodman, Adoption Manager and Deborah Smith
not applicable, a report explaining why the protocol and tool were determined to not be effective in achieving the outcome desired.
1.1 (I) If the protocol and tool have proven to be effective, develop a statewide implementation plan, including inclusion in policy and a formalized training plan.
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care Program Manager, Deborah Goodman, Adoption Manager and Deborah Smith
Finalized implementation plan
Q5
1.2 Develop a tool to orient kinship caregivers to the Child Welfare system in order to impact placement stability.
1.2 (A) Schedule Technical Assistance from appropriate NRC.
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care Program Manager, Deborah Goodman, Adoption Manager
Date for TA Q1
1.2 (B) Hold a conference call with consultant and CFSD
Margaret Linnemann,
Notes of recommendations
Q1
40
state office staff to obtain technical assistance in order to develop a tool that will orient kinship providers to the Child Welfare system in order to prevent disruptions in placements for children in kinship care.
Foster Care Program Manager,
from call and copies of any documents provided by the NRC
1.2 (C) Conduct a meeting with consultant, CFSD staff, kinship providers and OFOD field staff using the technical assistance provided to develop the Kinship Orientation Tool.
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care Program Manager,
Minutes from meeting, list of participants
Q2
1.2 (D) Finalize a draft tool to be used in the ten implementation counties.
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care Program Manager,
Draft Resource Family Protective Capacity Assessment Tool
Q2
1.2 (E) Create a training and implementation plan with input from CFSD and OFOD in the ten implementation counties.
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care Program Manager,
Training and Implementation Plan
Q2
1.2 (F) Complete training in each of the ten implementation counties.
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care Program Manager, Deborah Goodman, Adoption Manager and Mark Nitta Team
Training modules, dates, and rosters for the ten implementation counties
Q2
41
1.2 (G) Semi-annually evaluate the Kinship Orientation Tool based on data results and feedback from ten implementation counties and modify as needed.
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care and Deborah Smith
Modified tool, if applicable and Evaluation Report
Q4, 6, 5
1.2 (H) Based on the results, if the tool has proven to be an effective intervention in impacting the placement stability of children in out of home care, finalize and promulgate the form.
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care Program Manager, Deborah Goodman, Adoption Manager and Deborah Smith
Finalized form, if applicable or if not applicable, a report explaining why the tool was determined to not be effective in achieving the outcome desired.
Q5
1.2 (I) If the tool has proven to be effective, develop a statewide implementation plan, including inclusion in policy and a formalized training plan.
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care Program Manager, Deborah Goodman, Adoption Manager and Deborah Smith
Finalized implementation plan, if applicable
Q5
1.3 Planning for Reducing Initiation Time Frames in CPS
1.3 (A) Request TA to gather national data on initiation time frames.
Margaret Devault, CPS Programs Adm.
Date for TA Q1
1.3 (B) Hold meeting Margaret Meeting notes, Q1
42
between CPS Section, KIDS, CQI, Tribes and OFOD to determine data needed in order to evaluate current practice associated with the initiation of CPS involvement
Devault, CPS Programs Adm, Mary Grissom, KIDS, H C Franklin, CQI, Deborah Smith, and Ann Davis, Tribal Coordinator
recommendations
1.3 (C) Complete data run based on determination of data elements needed.
Mary Grissom, KIDS
Data Report Q2
1.3 (D) Hold meeting between CPS Section, KIDS, CQI, Tribes, and OFOD to analyze data and use technical assistance around initiation time frames in other states in order to determine if a change to current practice is needed.
Margaret Devault, CPS Programs Adm, Mary Grissom, KIDS, H C Franklin, CQI, Deborah Smith, and Ann Davis, Tribal Coordinator
Meeting date and evaluation report.
Q2
1.3 (E) If a determination is made that the initiation time frames need modification, a meeting will be held with CPS, KIDS, CQI and OFOD to draft recommendations.
Margaret Devault, CPS Programs Adm, Mary Grissom, KIDS, H C Franklin, CQI, Deborah Smith, and Ann Davis, Tribal Coordinator
Date of meeting and draft recommendations. (NOTE: This will be finalized in Q3 if no recommendations to the change in initiation time frames are determined as needed.)
Q3
1.3 (F) Presentation of draft Margaret E-mail with draft Q4
43
recommendations to CWFL’s and Area Directors via e-mail.
Devault, CPS Programs Adm, Mary Grissom, KIDS, H C Franklin, CQI, Deborah Smith, and Ann Davis, Tribal Coordinator
recommendation content, if applicable.
1.3 (G) Develop action plan based on feedback to draft recommendations to change policy.
Margaret Devault, CPS Programs Adm Deborah Smith
Action Plan, if applicable.
Q6
1.3 (H) Finalize Policy Margaret Devault, CPS Programs Adm
Final policy Q5
44
Part A: Strategy Measurement Plan and Quarterly Status Report
Primary Strategy: 2. Address Court Related Issues Applicable CFSR Outcomes or Systemic Factors: Safety 1, Safety 2, Permanency 1, Permanency 2, Well-Being 1, Well-Being 3, Case Review System
Goal: Improve cooperation and communication between courts and child welfare to improve the outcomes for children.
Applicable CFSR Items: 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20
Action Steps and Benchmarks
Person Responsible
Evidence of Completion
Quarter Due
Quarter Completed
Quarterly Update
2. Implement Title 10 Re-write.
2.1(A) Revise policy to reflect the statutory changes.
Amy White, Margaret Devault, Joani Webster, and HC Franklin, CFSD Program Adm. and Jonna Geitgey OKDHS Legal
Final Rule Q1
2.1(B) Provide training to Field Operations staff
Amy White, Margaret Devault, Joani Webster, and HC Franklin, CFSD Program Adm. and Jonna Geitgey OKDHS Legal
Training dates, participants verification of attendance and curriculum
Q1
2.2. Implement certified mediation in the ten implementation counties in
45
order to decrease time to termination of parental rights. 2.2 (A) Work with the Administrative Office of the Court’s Court Improvement Plan (CIP) to identify Permanency Mediators in each of the implementation counties
Sue Tate, CIP Project Director, Deborah Smith and Trish Howell, CFSD Permanency Planning Program Manager
List of Permanency Mediators
Q4
2.2 (B) Schedule and hold a meeting between the CIP, the County Directors and the Courts in each of the implementation counties to provide explanation of the process, the list of the mediators, and develop an implementation plan that contains a target number of mediations to be held each quarter.
Sue Tate, CIP Project Director, Deborah Smith and Trish Howell, CFSD Permanency Planning Program Manager, Deborah Smith (County Directors), and Court
Dates of meetings, implementation plans for each of the implementation counties, evidence of participant attendance, and meeting notes
Q4
2.2 (C) Implement the mediation plan in each of the identified counties.
Sue Tate, CIP Project Director, and Deborah Smith (County Directors), and Court
List of cases where mediation occurred, identification of whether the target number of mediations
Q5, 6, 7, and 8
46
occurred and outcome of each mediation.
2.3. Improve communication between OKDHS Oklahoma County and the Juvenile Court System.
2.3 (A) Create a task force to include OKDHS Director, Oklahoma County Presiding Juvenile Judge, OKDHS Child and Family Services Director and Area III Director, the District Attorney’s office, Public Defender’s office, CASA, and PARB. .
Howard Hendrick, OKDHS Director, Oklahoma County Presiding Juvenile Judge
List of Oklahoma County Task Force members
Q2
2.3 (B) Hold quarterly meetings with task force members to identify barriers to permanency and ways to keep children safe in their homes
Howard Hendrick, OKDHS Director, Oklahoma County Presiding Juvenile Judge
Dates of meetings, notes and directives from the Task Force
Q2, 4, 6, and 8
2.3 (C) Develop critical court-related training with the assistance of technical assistance from the appropriate National Resource Center based upon the issues identified by the task force
Gary Miller, CFSD Director Jonna Geitgey, OKDHS Legal, JJOAC, CIP-MDTF
Technical assistance dates and Training curriculum established
Q4
47
that can be delivered in a multi-disciplinary setting. 2.3 (D) Provide training to OFOD and Court staff via the newly developed training curriculum
Gary Miller, CFSD Director Jonna Geitgey, OKDHS Legal, JJOAC, CIP-MDTF
Training Dates Q6
2.4. Hold Judicial Conferences between OKDHS and Juvenile Court stakeholders in order to assure communication and collaboration.
2.4 (A) Schedule yearly meetings between representatives of the CIP, OKDHS, and Court to develop goals, objectives and agenda for Judicial Conferences to be held across the State on an annual basis
Sue Tate CIP, Deborah Smith (County Directors), and Court, Mark Nitta, CQI
Dates of meetings, goals, objectives and agendas
Q2 and Q6
2.4(B) Hold annual judicial conference between OKDHS and Juvenile Court Stakeholders
Sue Tate CIP, Deborah Smith (CWFL’s), and Court, Mark Nitta, CQI
Dates of conferences, evidence of participant attendance and agendas
Q4 and Q8
Renegotiated Action Steps and Benchmarks
48
Part A: Strategy Measurement Plan and Quarterly Status Report
Primary Strategy: 3. Improve Collaboration with Tribes Applicable CFSR Outcomes or Systemic Factors: Agency Responsive to Community, Case Review, Staff and provider training, Service Array and Resource Development
Goal: To increase collaboration with Tribes to ensure the safety and stability of children
Applicable CFSR Items: 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20
Action Steps and Benchmarks
Person Responsible
Evidence of Completion
Quarter Due
Quarter Completed
Quarterly Update
3.1 Utilize a Tribal /State Workgroup in order to facilitate communication and collaboration between the Tribes and OKDHS
3.1 (A) Continue Tribal/State Collaboration Workgroup meetings on bi-monthly basis.
Ann Davis OKDHS Tribal Coordinator
Notes from workgroup meetings
Q1-8
3.1(B) Utilize workgroup meetings to review CFSD policy and procedure.
Ann Davis OKDHS Tribal Coordinator and Tribal State Collaboration workgroup
Copies of revised OKDHS policy
Q4 and Q8
3.1 (C) Utilize workgroup meetings to identify issues and plan agenda for large Tribal Stakeholder meetings.
Ann Davis OKDHS Tribal Coordinator and Tribal State Collaboration workgroup
Tribal Stakeholder meeting agendas and notes
Q1-5
3.2. Obtain input from
49
Tribal stakeholders. 3.2 (A) Schedule and facilitate a tribal stakeholder meeting.
Ann Davis OKDHS Tribal Coordinator and Tribal State Collaboration workgroup, H C Franklin, CQI
Sign in sheet Q1
3.2 (B) Utilize information gathered at stakeholder meeting to develop plan and implement to increase collaboration.
Ann Davis OKDHS Tribal Coordinator
Copy of plan Q1-5
3.2 (C) Meet with individual tribes at their facilities in the implementation counties to discuss needs and strategies to improve service to tribal children and families.
Ann Davis OKDHS Tribal Coordinator H C Franklin, CQI
Notes from meetings.
Q1-5
3.3 Conduct county reviews in Oklahoma Co. that focus on ICWA compliance and achievement of permanency for Tribal children
3.3 (A) Implement process for ICWA review of Child Welfare cases involving tribal children in OKDHS custody.
Ann Davis OKDHS Tribal Coordinator, Area III Tribal Coordinator, Amy White, Margaret
schedule of staffings held, list of attendees, summary or results of the outcomes of
Q4-8
50
Devault, Joani Webster, and HC Franklin, CFSD Program Adm. and Jonna Geitgey OKDHS Legal, Area III OFOD
the staffings
Renegotiated Action Steps and Benchmarks
51
Part A: Strategy Measurement Plan and Quarterly Status Report
Primary Strategy: 4. Broaden Service Array/Resource Development. Applicable CFSR Outcomes or Systemic Factors: Agency Responsive to Community, Case Review, Staff and Provider Training, Service Array and Resource Development
Goal: Quality services will be provided with no waiting period. Applicable CFSR Items: Item 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20 Action Steps and Benchmarks
Person Responsible
Evidence of Completion
Quarter Due
Quarter Completed
Quarterly Update
4.1 Fully implement Resource and Capacity Development Plans in each county.
Deborah Smith and Trish Howell, CFSD Permanency Planning Program Manager, Deborah Smith (County Directors)
Spread sheet of counties who have implemented
Q5
4.1 (A) Review tools available from the National Resource Center for Organization Improvement on assessment and enhancement of service array.
Amy White, Permanency, Adoption and Independent Living Unit
Results of review
Q2
4.1 (B) Review state CFSR systemic interview and case review data results for one county per area that has opportunity for improvement with regard to service array.
Amy White, Permanency, Adoption and Independent Living Unit
List of identified counties
Q2
4.1 (C) Present list of potential counties to leadership of
Larry Johnson, OFOD Director
Results of meeting
Q2
52
Human Services Centers. and Gary Miller, CFSD Director
4.1 (D) Obtain TA from NRCOI for training of the County Directors for each of the identified counties on implementation of the assessment process.
Amy White, Permanency, Adoption and Independent Living Unit
Finalized request
Q3
4.1 (E) Provide training through TA to County Directors of counties.
NRCOI Dates of training
Q3
4.1 (F) County Directors utilize training to work with community providers in development of a Resource and Capacity Development Plan.
Deborah Smith and County Directors in implementation counties
Dates of meetings with providers
Q4
4.1 (G) County Directors provide Resource and Capacity Development Plan to Area Director.
Deborah Smith and County Directors in implementation counties
Dates of meetings with Area Directors
Q4
4.1 (H) County Directors implement Resource and Capacity Development Plan.
Deborah Smith and County Directors in implementation counties
Initiation of plan
Q4
4.1 (I) Meet with County Directors to assess outcomes.
Amy White, Permanency,
Dates of meetings
Q6
53
Adoption and Independent Living Unit, County Deborah Smith and County Directors in implementation counties
4.1 (J) Utilize County Directors to train all other County Directors on the process.
Deborah Smith and County Directors in implementation counties
Dates of trainings
Q6-5
4.1 (K) Full implementation statewide of identified successful planning strategies.
Larry Johnson, OFOD Deborah Smith and County Directors in implementation counties
Statewide implementation and monitoring
Q5
4.2 Increase communication between service providers and OKDHS to insure quality service provision.
4.2 (A) Hold a meeting with community stakeholders to discuss ways to increase communication and methods of determining how to assess whether communication is improving. Define outcomes
Deborah Smith and County Directors in implementation counties
Meeting date and notes
Q1
54
and feedback method. 4.2 (B) Hold a meeting with service providers to discuss ways to increase communication methods of determining how to assess whether communication is improving. Define outcomes and feedback method.
Deborah Smith and County Directors in implementation counties
Meeting date and notes
Q1
4.2 (C) Hold a meeting with CW staff to discuss barriers to communication, identify ways to increase communication and methods of determining how to assess whether communication is improving. Define a method of accountability that will be utilized when reports are received regarding lack of communication. Define outcomes and feedback method.
Deborah Smith and County Directors in implementation counties
Meeting date and notes
Q1
4.2 (D) Implement recommendations from meetings.
Deborah Smith and County Directors in implementation counties
Initiation report to Area Directors
Q1
4.2 (E) Provide feedback through the method determined in the meetings. Provide results of outcomes as defined by meetings.
Deborah Smith and County Directors in implementation counties
Feedback reports
Q1-5
55
4.2 (F) Provide quarterly reports of county results to Area Directors, Larry Johnson, and Gary Miller.
Deborah Smith and County Directors in implementation counties
Quarterly reports
Q1-5
4.2 (G) Assess results from County Directors. Share communication plans that have resulted in positive county results statewide.
Deborah Smith and County Directors in implementation counties, Larry Johnson, OFOD Director and Gary Miller, CFSD Director
Communication to counties
Q1-5
4.3 Modify service provision based on feedback from resource families targeted toward retention.
4.3 (A) Develop a survey to be administered to Resource Families with specific questions regarding support from and relationship with Child Welfare staff.
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care Program Manager, Deborah Goodman, Adoption Manager and Deborah Smith, OFOD field staff and resource
Completed survey format
Q4
56
parents 4.3 (B) Exploration of resource family on-line accessibility to surveys and resource family updates.
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care Program Manager, Deborah Goodman, Adoption Manager and Mark Nitta,CQI Unit
List of resource family e-mail address
Q4
4.3 (C) Plan for implementation of survey 6 months following initial placement and at time of home closure.
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care Program Manager, Deborah Goodman, Adoption Manager and Deborah Smith, OFOD field staff and resource parents
Date surveys are mailed out or available on-line
Q5
4.3 (D) Gather and analyze survey data.
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care Program Manager, Deborah Goodman, Adoption
Data report Q6
57
Manager and Mark Nitta,CQI Unit
4.3 (E) Schedule meeting with CFSD state office staff and OFOD field staff to review analysis and implement a plan to address issues.
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care Program Manager, Deborah Goodman, Adoption Manager
Completed plan Q6
4.3 (F) Present data from surveys on quarterly basis at the Bridge Convening and identify plans to address issues.
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care Program Manager, Deborah Goodman, Adoption Manager and Mark Nitta,CQI Unit
Report On-going, Q1- 5
4.3 (G) Review implementation of strategies on quarterly basis and make revisions on strategies based on feedback from committee.
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care Program Manager, Deborah Goodman, Adoption Manager and Recruitment Committee
Report On-going, Q1 -5
58
4.3 (H) Request time at Resource Parents’ Conference to provide data received from surveys and gain input from resource parents.
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care Program Manager, Deborah Goodman, Adoption Manager
Conference Agenda and report
Dependent on schedule of conference
4.3 (I) Provide ongoing consultation and support to Area and field staff as they implement the recommended techniques to improve retention.
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care Program Manager, Deborah Goodman, Adoption Manager Rebecca Boggard, Training Section, Deborah Smith (CWFL)
Receipt of support calls and visits to the county offices for support and consultation
Q5
4.3 (J) Use positive outcome data from the implementation counties and ongoing efforts in other counties as part of any necessary funding requests to expand the recommendations statewide.
Larry Johnson, OFOD Director and Gary Miller, CFSD Director
Requests to Legislature
Q5
4.4. Finalize plans to Amy White, CHBS Q8
59
improve utilization of CHBS in the ten implementation counties.
Permanency, Adoption and Independent Living Unit, County Deborah Smith and County Directors in implementation counties
Improvement Plan
7.1(A). Complete a detailed analysis of a sampling of CHBS referrals in the ten implementation counties, reviewing for strengths and needs, including appropriateness of referrals.
Amy White, Trish Howell Deborah Smith, OFOD field staff l,
Results of review
Q2 and on-going
7.1(B). Utilizing the data collected, consult with county staff, CHBS providers and community stakeholders on ways to improve CHBS services and reduce waiting lists.
Amy White, Trish Howell Deborah Smith, OFOD field staff
Meeting notes, list of participants
Q4 and on-going
7.1(C). Prepare a final report of qualitative and quantitative information compiled, including recommendations for improvement of CHBS services.
Amy White, Trish Howell Deborah Smith, OFOD field staff
Final report and recommendations
Q8
60
61
Part A: Strategy Measurement Plan and Quarterly Status Report
Primary Strategy: 5 Explore proactive approaches to address the use of emergency shelter care.
Applicable CFSR Outcomes or Systemic Factors: Agency Responsive to Community, Case Review, Staff and provider training, Service Array and Resource Development
Goal: Explore and assess alternatives to Shelter Care in an effort to reduce removal and enhance placement stability through improved collaboration with the courts and law enforcement and the diligent recruitment grant
Applicable CFSR Items: 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20
Action Steps and Benchmarks
Person Responsible
Evidence of Completion
Quarter Due
Quarter Completed
Quarterly Update
5.1 Assess impact on use of emergency shelter care and collaboration between Midwest City Policy Department and OKDHS through Memorandum of Understanding.
5.1 (A) Implement memorandum of understanding to place social worker in the Midwest City Police Department.
Margaret Devaulty,CPS Programs Administrator and Deborah Smith
Copy of memorandum of understanding
Q1
5.1 (B) Assessment of the MOU’s impact relating to collaboration, communication, and shelter care based on analysis and data.
Margaret Devaulty,CPS Programs Administrator and Deborah Smith
Assessment report
Q1 and Q2
5.1 (C) Discussion with OKDHS and Midwest City Police Department on next steps and recommendations
Deborah Smith Meeting date and notes, list of participants.
Q2
62
before MOU expires on Feb 25, 2010. 5.1 (D) Final assessment and development of an action plan based on continuous assessment of the MOU, data, and discussion with the Midwest Police Department before MOU expires on Feb 25, 2010.
Deborah Smith Action plan Q2
8.2 5.2 To prevent unnecessary removals of children from their home and ensure placement stability, assist Oklahoma and Tulsa County Presiding Judges, law enforcement and other interested parties of Oklahoma and Tulsa Counties in the elimination of the Standing Order that allows any child to be removed by law enforcement and placed directly into a shelter.
8.3
8.4 5.2 (A) Complete an analysis of monthly removal rates for the year prior to elimination of the standing order
8.5
Deborah Smith (Oklahoma and Tulsa Co. and OFOD)
Report on Review of Data
Q1
63
8.6 5.2 (B) Assess impact of the elimination of the standing order on the reduction of placement of children in the Tulsa Co. Laura Dester Shelter
8.7
Deborah Smith (Oklahoma and Tulsa Co. and OFOD)
Report on Review of Data
Q3, Q4, and Q7
5.2 (C) Hold meetings, as needed, to consult with county staff and community stakeholders to discuss quantitative and qualitative impact of the elimination of the standing order and obtain recommendations for improvement, if necessary.
Deborah Smith (Oklahoma and Tulsa Co. and OFOD)
Meeting notes, list of participants
Q1, Q3, Q7
5.2 (D) Continuously evaluate and make modifications to procedure as determined necessary.
Deborah Smith (Tulsa Co. and OFOD)
Modification documents
Q2, Q3, Q7
8.8
8.9 5.3 Explore and assess alternatives to Shelter Care
8.10 5.3 (A) Obtain information regarding how other states are providing alternatives to Shelter Care
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care CFSD Resource Unit
Reports and conversations with other states
Q3 and Q7
8.11 5.3 (B) Hold a meeting with Oklahoma, Tulsa and Comanche Co. OFOD, Private Agencies, Emergency Foster parent and CFSD, Resource
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care CFSD Resource Unit
Date of meeting, evidence of participation, and list of
Q4
64
Unit to analyze the current Emergency Foster Care system and identify opportunities for enhancement
identified opportunities
8.12 5.3 (C) Hold a meeting with Oklahoma and Tulsa Co. OFOD, Court, Tribes, Private Agencies and CFSD, Resource Unit to prepare an action plan and recommendations to reduce the use of emergency shelter care in Tulsa and Oklahoma Counties
Margaret Linnemann, Foster Care CFSD Resource Unit
Action plan Q5
65
Part B: National Standards Measurement Plan and Quarterly Status Report
Child Safety Measure VI : Absence of Maltreatment Recurrence National Standard 94.6% Performance as Measured in Final Report/Source Data Period
91.9% national standards performance as measured in the final report from the NCANDS 2005 report
Performance as Measured at Baseline/Source Data Period
91.8% national standards performance as measured in the NCANDS 2008 report
Negotiated Improvement Goal 92.4% Renegotiated Improvement Goal
Status (Enter the current quarter measurement for the reported quarter.)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12
Child Safety Measure VII: Absence of Child Abuse and/or Neglect in Foster Care (12 months) National Standard 99.68% Performance as Measured in Final Report/Source Data Period
98.8% national standards performance as measured in the final report from the NCANDS 2005 report
Performance as Measured at Baseline/Source Data Period
99.08% national standards performance as measured in the NCANDS 2008 report
Negotiated Improvement Goal 99.18% Renegotiated Improvement Goal
Status (Enter the current quarter measurement for the reported quarter.)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12
66
Permanency Outcome 1: Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification National Standard 122.6 Performance as Measured in Final Report/Source Data Period
119.8 The permanency composite in the national standards as measured in the final report were from the AFCARS 05B and 06A report.
Performance as Measured at Baseline/Source Data Period
117.6 The Source Data Period AFCARS 08B and 09A reports
Negotiated Improvement Goal 121 Renegotiated Improvement Goal
Status (Enter the current quarter measurement for the reported quarter.)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12
67
Permanency Outcome 3: Achieving Permanency for Children in Foster Care for Long Periods of Time National Standard 121.7 Performance as Measured in Final Report/Source Data Period
116 The permanency composite in the national standards as measured in the final report from the AFCARS 05B and 06A report.
Performance as Measured at Baseline/Source Data Period
108.2 The Source Data Period AFCARS 08B and 09A reports.
Negotiated Improvement Goal 111.2 Renegotiated Improvement Goal
Status (Enter the current quarter measurement for the reported quarter.)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12
Permanency Outcome 4: Placement Stability National Standard 101.5 Performance as Measured in Final Report/Source Data Period
74.1 The permanency composite in the national standards as measured in the final report from the AFCARS 05B and 06A report.
Performance as Measured at Baseline/Source Data Period
74.5 The Source Data Period AFCARS 08B and 09A reports.
Negotiated Improvement Goal 76.7 Renegotiated Improvement Goal
Status (Enter the current quarter measurement for the reported quarter.)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12
68
Part C: Item-Specific and Quantitative Measurement Plan and Quarterly Status Report
Outcome/Systemic Factor: S1 Item: 1 Performance as Measured in Final Report
83%
Performance as Measured at Baseline/Source Data Period
65% Source Data State CFSR process results from April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009
Negotiated Improvement Goal 67.4% Method of Measuring Improvement
Data collected from the State CFSR process on a rolling year basis.
Renegotiated Improvement Goal
Status (Enter the current quarter measurement for the reported quarter.)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12
Outcome/Systemic Factor: S2 Item: 3 Performance as Measured in Final Report
81%
Performance as Measured at Baseline/Source Data Period
73% Source Data State CFSR process results from April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009
Negotiated Improvement Goal 75.9% Method of Measuring Improvement
Data collected from the State CFSR process on a rolling year basis.
Renegotiated Improvement Goal
Status (Enter the current quarter measurement for the reported quarter.)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12
69
Outcome/Systemic Factor: S2 Item: 4 Performance as Measured in Final Report
71%
Performance as Measured at Baseline/Source Data Period
78% Source Data State CFSR process results from April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009
Negotiated Improvement Goal 79.9% Method of Measuring Improvement
Data collected from the State CFSR process on a rolling year basis.
Renegotiated Improvement Goal
Status (Enter the current quarter measurement for the reported quarter.)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12
Outcome/Systemic Factor: P1 Item: 7 Performance as Measured in Final Report
59%
Performance as Measured at Baseline/Source Data Period
44% Source Data State CFSR process results from April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009
Negotiated Improvement Goal 47.7% Method of Measuring Improvement
Data collected from the State CFSR process on a rolling year basis.
Renegotiated Improvement Goal
Status (Enter the current quarter measurement for the reported quarter.)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12
70
Outcome/Systemic Factor: P1 Item: 9 Performance as Measured in Final Report
25%
Performance as Measured at Baseline/Source Data Period
25% Source Data State CFSR process results from April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009
Negotiated Improvement Goal 29.5% Method of Measuring Improvement
Data collected from the State CFSR process on a rolling year basis.
Renegotiated Improvement Goal
Status (Enter the current quarter measurement for the reported quarter.)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12
Outcome/Systemic Factor: P1 Item: 10 Performance as Measured in Final Report
75%
Performance as Measured at Baseline/Source Data Period
50% Source Data State CFSR process results from April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009
Negotiated Improvement Goal 62.1% Method of Measuring Improvement
Data collected from the State CFSR process on a rolling year basis.
Renegotiated Improvement Goal
Status (Enter the current quarter measurement for the reported quarter.)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12
71
Outcome/Systemic Factor: WB1 Item: 17 Performance as Measured in Final Report
59%
Performance as Measured at Baseline/Source Data Period
57% Source Data State CFSR process results from April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009
Negotiated Improvement Goal 60.3% Method of Measuring Improvement
Data collected from the State CFSR process on a rolling year basis.
Renegotiated Improvement Goal
Status (Enter the current quarter measurement for the reported quarter.)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12
Outcome/Systemic Factor: WB1 Item: 18 Performance as Measured in Final Report
62%
Performance as Measured at Baseline/Source Data Period
58% Source Data State CFSR process results from April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009
Negotiated Improvement Goal 61.3% Method of Measuring Improvement
Data collected from the State CFSR process on a rolling year basis.
Renegotiated Improvement Goal
Status (Enter the current quarter measurement for the reported quarter.)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12
72
Outcome/Systemic Factor: WB1 Item: 19 Performance as Measured in Final Report
92%
Performance as Measured at Baseline/Source Data Period
82% Source Data State CFSR process results from April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009
Negotiated Improvement Goal 84.5 Method of Measuring Improvement
Data collected from the State CFSR process on a rolling year basis.
Renegotiated Improvement Goal
Status (Enter the current quarter measurement for the reported quarter.)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12
Outcome/Systemic Factor: WB1 Item: 20 Performance as Measured in Final Report
39%
Performance as Measured at Baseline/Source Data Period
41% Source Data State CFSR process results from April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009
Negotiated Improvement Goal 44.5% Method of Measuring Improvement
Data collected from the State CFSR process on a rolling year basis.
Renegotiated Improvement Goal
Status (Enter the current quarter measurement for the reported quarter.)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12
73
Attachment B
Elements of an Effective PIP Process
The Children’s Bureau Central and Regional Office staff administers the CFSRs. The reviews comprise two phases: (1) a Statewide Assessment and (2) an onsite review. The reviews assess State child welfare agency performance on seven outcomes and seven systemic factors. States found out of conformity with any of those outcomes or systemic factors is required to develop a PIP to address those.
While the CFSR process provides States flexibility in designing their PIP, the Children’s Bureau Central and Regional Office staff encourage States to develop a system for designing, implementing, and managing the PIP, including engaging external partners and stakeholders in the process. Regional Office staff should help States to consider the following elements of an effective PIP planning and implementation process when designing their PIP process and document:
Recognition that there is a link between the Statewide Assessment, the onsite review, the Final
Report, and the PIP; this process is not simply a series of linear steps, but is circular in nature, with each stage of the process both informing and leading to the next (as does a good continuous quality improvement process).
State leadership and commitment to using the PIP as a positive vehicle for change (from the
Governor’s office, State legislature, child welfare oversight/umbrella agency, and child welfare agency administrator). These leaders should actively convey the importance of the CFSR and PIP processes as vital to child welfare reform.
Integration of the PIP into broader State child welfare reform initiatives, or use of the PIP to
engage key players in developing a reform framework.
The State PIP lead’s success in obtaining the involvement and support of those who can make the decisions necessary to achieve the improvements outlined in the PIP.
A State (or child welfare agency) budget- and performance-based planning process.
Organizational leadership that emphasizes a ―culture of change‖ in which all agency staff are
engaged in the change process and information is shared with them about how changes will affect their job functions and contribute to improving outcomes for children and families.
A willingness by the agency leadership to define and then continually reassess priority roles and
workloads for child welfare agency staff during PIP design and implementation. This includes setting review- and PIP-related meeting schedules for all PIP contributors and working to ensure that meetings are not displaced by other agency functions.
The creation or enhancement of a QA system that facilitates greater use of data for managing
programs and tracking outcomes, and fosters communication between workers and managers regarding case-specific issues.
74
A philosophy that the PIP is a method for engaging with others strategically to create changes that
will result in better outcomes for children and families; collaboration works most effectively when the collaborating entities have clearly defined goals, such as those identified by the PIP.
Engagement of State agency leadership, QA, State Automated Child Welfare Information System
(SACWIS), and budget/fiscal staff early in the PIP development process.
Early engagement of, and buy-in by, agency staff, external partners, community leaders, and elected officials. This requires conducting an assessment of who needs to be involved and the barriers to their involvement, and developing strategies for addressing those barriers; to be most effective, this process will begin immediately after the completion of the Statewide Assessment.
A PIP process that is expanding, in the sense of who is included and/or informed about PIP
planning, implementation, and evaluation; States should seek to actively engage as many people as possible, with each playing unique roles under the umbrella of the Statewide PIP Committee (see information on the structured State process below).
Polling of staff and external partners about the causes of key child welfare challenges (areas of
nonconformity) and potential solutions to those.
Development of sustained partnerships between the State child welfare agency and stakeholders and others throughout the CFSR and PIP process.
A public relations process for managing the distribution of information about the review and the
PIP and for responding to ongoing media coverage of related child welfare issues.
Greater involvement of court personnel, tribal representatives, and children (especially older children/youth) and families in the PIP development and implementation process.
Involvement of the Children’s Bureau-funded NRCs on child welfare (which provide TA) in a
systematic fashion; the NRCs should be involved in providing both organizational and specific policy- or practice-related TA during the PIP planning process.
A structured State process for developing the PIP, both for managing it internally and for working
with the Federal staff (a schedule for providing PIP drafts for Federal review, for example). This might include the following:
– An internal State agency PIP Planning Team comprising agency leadership, mid-level managers,
and supervisors, who will ultimately create the agency’s PIP vision on the basis of the existing agency mission, policies, practices, and resources, and other ongoing planning and reform efforts and related initiatives. The PIP Planning Team will be responsible for establishing a process for creating an organizational culture of change, including educating workers (and external partners and stakeholders) about the need for, and value of, ongoing corrective action with regard to child welfare policies and practices.
75
The team also will approve major PIP strategies, provide the authority and support necessary to enable the core PIP Development Team (see below) to design and implement the PIP, and provide support to supervisors and others in implementing key PIP action steps and measuring their effectiveness.
A core PIP Development Team comprising a senior staff lead, a planning and logistical
coordinator, and other child welfare agency staff representing the range of agency divisions or program focus areas (including policy, QA, research/data analysis, and training). The PIP Development Team will provide support to the PIP Planning Team in designing the overall PIP planning process and in establishing the Statewide PIP Committee (see below). The team will produce the PIP draft on the basis of the input of the PIP Planning Team and Statewide PIP Committee. They will establish protocols for managing the PIP implementation and monitoring process (with the support of the PIP Planning Team) and produce the quarterly reports. While the team might be housed in and led by the Quality Assurance Division, it also should include staff from other parts of the agency.
A Statewide PIP Committee comprising internal agency staff from the PIP Planning and PIP
Development Teams and key external partners and stakeholders (including those involved in the State’s Child and Family Services Plan planning process, Statewide Assessment, and onsite review). The senior staff person in charge of the PIP Development Team will manage the committee, with logistical support provided by the coordinator and overall policy and management support provided by the agency administrator and internal PIP Planning Team. The Statewide PIP Committee will assist the core PIP Development Team in forming collaborative relationships with key agencies and individuals needed to support the PIP design and implementation, and in developing PIP strategies and measures within the framework developed by the PIP Planning and core PIP Development Teams. They also will assist in analyzing PIP outcomes/results and in making recommendations for adjustments to those, as needed.
Clear roles, responsibilities, and expectations for each of those involved in the PIP process; it is
critical never to give participants in the PIP development process a sense that their input will be used to a greater extent than is possible given the agency’s authority, hierarchy, decision-making process, and political structure.
A plan for engaging key local-level managers in county- or regionally based systems; this should
include limiting the scope of local PIPs (focusing on a small number of improvement objectives from the State’s overall PIP that relate to the greatest priorities of that community) and providing support (involvement in any onsite PIP development support activities) and TA (through the Children’s Bureau-funded NRCs) regarding strategic planning, measurement, and effective child welfare strategies.
A structured system within the State agency for engaging and working with outside parties toward
specific goals; this might include the use of interns in support of the PIP Development Team’s outreach to and beyond the Statewide PIP Committee, and logistical support for all team and committee meetings.
76
Training for key PIP leaders and staff on group facilitation and presentation techniques to ensure that all group processes are managed to result in real outcomes and to reduce the need for meetings. This includes how to develop framing questions to facilitate a discussion of key issues before focusing on solutions.
A focus on creating opportunities for early, small successes that can be shared and built on,
especially when working with other agencies or systems.
Communication vehicles, both internal and external, for regularly sharing and collecting information about the CFSR and PIP processes (especially electronic communications, such as Web sites, e- newsletters, e-mail lists, and press releases).
TA on using the PIP to leverage support and new resources from elected officials, as needed; the TA
is available from the Child Welfare Reviews Project, managed for the Children’s Bureau by JBS International, Inc.; JBS has subcontracted with the National Conference of State Legislators to provide the TA.
A quarterly reporting system in which the PIP Development Team meets to analyze and discuss
results and recommend adjustments to the PIP Planning Team (agency leadership).
Strategies for sustaining ongoing support for the PIP, including leadership speeches to key external partners and the broader community, and ongoing briefings of key administrative, policy, and legislative staff.
77
Glossary of Terms
AD Area Director
AdoptUsKids National Adoption Service
AOC Administrative Office of the Courts
ASFA Adoption and Safe Families Act
BSC Breakthrough Series Collaborative
Bridge Bridge Resource Families
CFSP Child and Family Services Plan
CASA Court Appointed Special Advocate
CFSD Child and Family Services Division
CFSR Child and Family Services Review
CHBS Comprehensive Home Based Services
CIP Court Improvement Plan
CIP-MDTF Court Improvement Program Multidisciplinary Task Force
CORE Child Welfare Training
CPS Child Protective Services
CQI Continuous Quality Improvement
CW Child Welfare
CWFL Child Welfare Field Liaison
DA District Attorney
OFOD Office of Field Operations Division
FTE Full-time Employee
FTM Family Team Meeting
ICW Indian Child Welfare
ICWA Indian Child Welfare Act
78
JJOAC Juvenile Justice Oversight Advisory Committee
MDT Multidisciplinary Team
NRC National Resource Center
NRCFCPPP National Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice and Permanency Planning
NRCOI National Resource Center for Organizational Improvement
OCS Oklahoma Children’s Service
OHCA Oklahoma Health Care Authority
OFOD Office of Field Operations
OKDHS Oklahoma Department of Human Services
OPM Office of Personnel Management
OPRS Office of Policy, Research and Statistics
PAIL Permanency, Adoption, and Independent Living
PARB Post Adjudication Review Board
PIP Program Improvement Plan
SACWIS Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System
TA Technical Assistance
TPR Termination of Parental Rights
Related Documents
