Findings-From-the-Initial-Child-and-Family-Service-Reviews结果从最初的儿童和家庭服务的评论课件.ppt

Findings From the Initial Child and Family Service Reviews 2001 - 2004,Findings From the Initial Chi,Number of Cases Reviewed in 52 Reviews,In-Home:1092Foster Care:1477TOTAL2569,Number of Cases Reviewed in 52,Identification of Outcomes,Safety OutcomesChildren are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect2. Children are safely maintained in their own homes whenever possible and appropriate,Identification of OutcomesSafe,Permanency Outcomes,1. Children have permanency and stability in their living arrangements The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children,Permanency Outcomes1. Childre,Child and Family Well Being Outcomes,Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their childrens needs2. Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs3. Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs,Child and Family Well Being Ou,States in Substantial Conformity on Outcomes,States in Substantial Conformi,Range and Median of State Performance with regard to Substantial Conformity with the Seven Outcomes,Low Median HighPermanency 17.1% 50.9% 92%Well Being 1 18% 60% 86%Well Being 351.2% 69.9% 92.1%Permanency 237.9% 77.3% 94.3Safety 248% 80.8% 93.5%Well Being 264.7% 83% 100%Safety 1 62% 85.8% 100%,Range and Median of State Perf,Strongest and Weakest Outcome Performance Indicators,Strongest IndicatorsProximity of placement (49 States)Placement with siblings (36 States)Foster care re-entry (26 States),Weakest IndicatorsNeeds & Services (1 State)Mental health of child (4 States)Tie at 5 States each:Child & family involvement Placement stabilityPermanency goal for child,Strongest and Weakest Outcome,States in Substantial Conformity on Systemic Factors,States in Substantial Conformi,Strongest and Weakest Systemic Performance Indicators,Strongest IndicatorsLicensing standards (51 States)Criminal background checks (50 States)Cross-jurisdictional placements (47 States),Weakest IndicatorsDeveloping case plans jointly with parents (6 States)Accessibility of services (9 States)Diligent recruitment of foster/adoptive homes (21 States),Strongest and Weakest Systemic,Findings Regarding Safety,Findings Regarding Safety,Common Concerns Regarding Safety Indicators (2002-2004 States N= 35),ConcernLower risk reports not investigated timelyReports on open cases not investigatedInsufficient risk or safety assessmentsInconsistent services to protect children at homeInconsistent services to address risk, especially in in-home casesInconsistent monitoring of families,Number of States121622182220,Common Concerns Regarding Safe,Associations Between Safety Outcome 2 and other Indicators,Significant associations exist between Safety Outcome 2 and these indicators:,Needs & Services of Child, Parents, Foster Parents Parents Involvement in Case Planning Caseworker Visits with Child Caseworker Visits with Parents Timeliness of Initiating Investigations,Associations Between Safety Ou,Findings Regarding Permanency,Findings Regarding Permanency,Permanency Achievement by Age (Permanency Outcome 1),Permanency Achievement by Age,Common Concerns Regarding Establishing Permanency Goals (2002-2004 States N= 35),ConcernCase goal of LTFC established without considering adoption or guardianshipInconsistent concurrent planning effortsMaintaining goal of reunification for long time periods without re-evaluatingNot filing for termination of parental rights timely (from Item 7),Number of States15262412,Common Concerns Regarding Esta,Relationship of Well-Being to Permanency,Positive ratings onServices to children, parents, foster parentsInvolvement of parents in case planningCaseworker visits with childrenCaseworker visits with parents,Substantial achievement onTimely achievement of permanency (Outcome P1)Preserving childrens connections while in foster care (Outcome P2),supports . . .,Relationship of Well-Being to,Factors Associated with Timely Reunification, Guardianship, and Permanent Relative Placement,The strongest associations with timely reunification guardianship, and permanent relative placement include:,Caseworker Visits with Parents Childs Visits with Parents and Siblings in Foster Care Services to Children, Parents, & Foster Parents Family/Child Involvement in Case Planning ASFA Requirements Regarding Termination of Parental Rights Placement Stability,Factors Associated with Timely,Factors Associated with Timely Adoption,The strongest associations with timely adoption include:,Needs & Services for Children, Parents, & Foster Parents Holding timely permanency hearings Holding timely six-month case reviews ASFA requirements regarding termination of parental rights,Factors Associated with Timely,Common Concerns Regarding Achieving Adoption(2002-2004 States N= 35),ConcernAdoption studies and paperwork not completed timelyLengthy TPR appeals processNot seeking termination of parental rights timely (from Case Review System)Reluctance of courts to terminate parental rightsOvercrowded court dockets,Number of States1712261920,Common Concerns Regarding Achi,Factors Associated with Placement Stability,The strongest associations with placement stability include:,Placement with relatives Services to children, parents, and foster parents Involvement of children and parents in case planning Caseworker contacts with parents (not children) Age of child most stable are ages 0 - 6 and 16 - 18 least stable are ages 13 - 15,Factors Associated with Placem,Common Concerns Regarding Placement Stability(2002-2004 States N= 35),ConcernFrequent use of shelters for initial placements and disruptionsFew placements for children with disabilities or behavior problemsInconsistent support services to foster parentsMismatching placements to childrens needs,Number of States18192121,Common Concerns Regarding Plac,Findings Regarding Youth in Foster Care,Findings Regarding Youth in Fo,Permanency Goals for Children Age 13 and Older,Permanency Goals for Children,Percentage of Strength Ratings for “Other Permanent Planned Living Arrangement”(Item 10),Percentage of Strength Ratings,Ages of Children with Goal of “Other Permanent Planned Living Arrangement” (Item 10),The ages of the Children with a goal of “Other Permanent Planned Living Arrangement” who were rated for Item 10 include:,Ages of Children with Goal of,Reasons for Entering Foster Care for Children Age 13 & Older,Reasons for Entering Foster Ca,Achieving Permanency by Reason for Case Opening(Permanency Outcome 1),Achieving Permanency by Reason,Comparison of Permanency Goals to Permanency Achievement by Age,Comparison of Permanency Goals,Long-Term Foster Care,Other permanency goals had not been ruled out for more than half of the 113 children with a goal of Long-Term Foster Care,Long-Term Foster Care Other,Findings Regarding Case Review System,Findings Regarding Case Revie,States With Positive Ratings for Case Review Indicators,States With Positive Ratings f,Item and Outcome Ratings that were Significantly Associated with Case Review Indicators,PermanencyHearingsAdoption,Termination ofParental RightsAdoptionPermanency Outcome 1Reunification,Six-Month Case ReviewsAdoptionWell Being Outcome 1,Item and Outcome Ratings that,Termination of Parental Rights,Of the 965 children in the foster care sample for 2002-2004, 591 had been in foster care for 15 of 22 months.,Termination of Parental Rights,Findings Regarding Child & Family Well-Being,Findings Regarding Child & Fa,Association with Systemic Factors,States in substantial conformity with these 2 systemic factors had significantly higher percentages of cases rated substantially achieved for Well Being Outcome 1 than States that were not in substantial conformity with these systemic factors.,Service ArrayQuality Assurance,Association with Systemic Fact,Well Being: The Importance of Caseworker Visits with Parents and Children,Well Being: The Importance o,91% of the cases rated as a strength for Caseworker Visits with Parents were also rated as a strength for Caseworker Visits with Children.,Caseworker VisitswithChildren,Caseworker Visitswith Parents,91% of the cases rated as a st,Strongest Associations Between Visits and Other Indicators,Both Caseworker Visits with Parents and Caseworker Visits with Children were strongly associated with:,Risk of harm to children (Item 4) Needs & Services for children, parents, foster parents (Item 17) Child and parent involvement in case planning (Item 18),Strongest Associations Between,Other Significant Associations Between Visits and Indicators,Caseworker Visits with Parents and Caseworker Visits with Children were also strongly associated with:,Services to protect children at home Safety Outcome 1 Safety Outcome 2 Timely permanency goals Timely reunification Childs visits with parents and siblings Relative placements Meeting educational needs Meeting physical health needs Meeting mental health needs,Other Significant Associations,Caseworker Visits with Parents by Age of Child,Caseworker Visits with Parents,Common Concerns Regarding Caseworker Visits with Children(2002-2004 States N= 35),ConcernInsufficient frequency of face-to-face contacts with children to address childrens safety and well-being Inconsistent focus on issues regarding case plans and goals during contacts with children,Number of States2714,Common Concerns Regarding Case,Common Concerns Regarding Caseworker Visits with Parents(2002-2004 States N= 35),ConcernInsufficient frequency of face-to-face contacts with parents to address childrens safety and goal attainmentLack of contact with fathers, even when fathers are involved with the familyInconsistent focus on case plans and goals during contacts with parents,Number of States341314,Common Concerns Regarding Case,Well Being: The Importance of Assessment,Well Being: The Importance of,Reviewing for Assessment,Item 17: Needs and Services of Children, Parents, and Foster Parents Assessing Needs Providing Services,Reviewing for AssessmentItem 1,Common Assessment Concerns in the 2002-2004 States,Common Assessment Concerns in,Associations Between Case Ratings for Assessment & Service Provision (Item 17) and Other Measures,Case ratings on Assessment of Needs and Provision of Services were found to be associated with the following:,Permanency Outcome 1 Permanency Outcome 2 Safety Outcome 1 Safety Outcome 2 Placement stability Meeting educational needs Meeting physical health needs Meeting mental health needs,Associations Between Case Rati,Findings By Race and Ethnicity,Findings By Race and Ethnicity,Race/Ethnicity of Children and Families Reviewed,NumberPercentWhite (non-Hispanic)1121 43.6Black (non-Hispanic) 729 28.4Hispanic 219 8.5Two or more races 217 8.4Alaska Native/American Indian 118 4.6Asian/Pacific Islander 44 1.7Missing Information 121 4.7,Race/Ethnicity of Children and,Race/Ethnicity by Type of Case,Race/Ethnicity by Type of Case,Permanency Achievement by Race/Ethnicity (Permanency Outcome 1),Permanency Achievement by Race,Enhancing Parental Capacity by Race/Ethnicity (Well Being Outcome 1),Enhancing Parental Capacity by,Meeting Physical & Mental Health Needs by Race/Ethnicity (Well Being Outcome 3),Meeting Physical & Mental Heal,Preserving Connections for Native American Children(Item 14),Preserving Connections for Na,Tribal Notification and Placement for Native American Children(N = 72 Children for 2002-2004 Cases),Tribal Notification and Placem,Permanency Goals for Native American Children(N = 72 Children for 2002-2004 Cases),For the 72 Native American children reviewed in 2002-2004, the most common permanency goal was adoption.,Permanency Goals for Native Am,Findings Regarding Fathers & Mothers,Findings Regarding Fathers &,Significant Differences in Serving Fathers & Mothers,Significant Differences in Ser,Findings Regarding Urban & Non-Urban Sites,Findings Regarding Urban & No,Comparison of Largest Metropolitan Areas to Other State Review Sites,No Significant DifferencesSafety Outcome 1Safety Outcome 2Permanency Outcome 1Permanency Outcome 2Well Being Outcome 2,Significant DifferencesWell Being Outcome 1Well Being Outcome 3,Comparison of Largest Metropol,Findings Regarding In-Home and Foster Care Cases,Findings Regarding In-Home an,In-Home and Foster Care Differences on the Outcomes,In-Home and Foster Care Differ,In-Home and Foster Care Differences on the Indicators,In-Home and Foster Care Differ,Summary of Findings,Summary of Findings,Summary of Major FindingsNew Information,Importance of caseworker visits with parentsRefinement of relationships between individual Case Review items and outcomesRacial/ethnic differences in goal achievementDifferences in urban vs. non-urban sites,Insights into stability of foster care placementsInsights into the importance of assessmentPermanency achievement by youth in foster careNeeds & Services of Children, Parents, Foster Parents is weakest indicator (not adoption),Summary of Major FindingsNew,Summary of Major FindingsAffirmed Information,Importance of caseworker visits with childrenDifferences in services to in-home cases and foster care casesDifferences in services to fathers and services to mothers,Permanency 1 and Well Being 1 are still the weakest performing outcomesOverrepresentation of children of color in foster care cases vs. in-home casesImplications for improved casework practice,Summary of Major FindingsAffi,Childrens Bureau Websitewww.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb,Childrens Bureau Websitewww,