1、In-Home:1092Foster Care:1477TOTAL2569Safety Outcomes1.Children are,first and foremost,protected from abuse and neglect2.Children are safely maintained in their own homes whenever possible and appropriate1.Children have permanency and stability in their living arrangements 2.The continuity of family
2、relationships and connections is preserved for children1.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 needs0246810121416Perm 1 W
3、B 1 WB 3Safety1Safety2Perm 2 WB 2Low 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%Strongest Indicators1.Proximity of placement(49 States)2.Placement with siblings(36 Sta
4、tes)3.Foster care re-entry(26 States)Weakest Indicators1.Needs&Services(1 State)2.Mental health of child(4 States)3.Tie at 5 States each:Child&family involvement Placement stabilityPermanency goal for child05101520253035404550Case RevServiceArrayTrainingQALicensingInfo SysAgencyRespStrongest Indicat
5、ors1.Licensing standards(51 States)2.Criminal background checks(50 States)3.Cross-jurisdictional placements(47 States)Weakest Indicators1.Developing case plans jointly with parents(6 States)2.Accessibility of services(9 States)3.Diligent recruitment of foster/adoptive homes(21 States)ConcernlLower r
6、isk reports not investigated timelylReports on open cases not investigatedlInsufficient risk or safety assessmentslInconsistent services to protect children at homelInconsistent services to address risk,especially in in-home caseslInconsistent monitoring of familiesNumber of States121622182220Signif
7、icant 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 Investigations0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%0-5 Yrs6-9 Yrs10-12
8、Yrs13-15 Yrs16-18YrsPercentage of cases substantially achieved on Permanency Outcome 1Percentage of cases with timely goals establishedConcernlCase goal of LTFC established without considering adoption or guardianshiplInconsistent concurrent planning effortslMaintaining goal of reunification for lon
9、g time periods without re-evaluatinglNot filing for termination of parental rights timely(from Item 7)Number of States15262412Positive ratings onlServices to children,parents,foster parentslInvolvement of parents in case planninglCaseworker visits with childrenlCaseworker visits with parentsSubstant
10、ial achievement onlTimely achievement of permanency(Outcome P1)lPreserving childrens connections while in foster care(Outcome P2)supports.The strongest associations with timely reunification guardianship,and permanent relative placement include:Caseworker Visits with Parents Childs Visits with Paren
11、ts 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 The strongest associations with timely adoption include:Needs&Services for Children,Parents,&Foster Par
12、ents Holding timely permanency hearings Holding timely six-month case reviews ASFA requirements regarding termination of parental rights ConcernlAdoption studies and paperwork not completed timelylLengthy TPR appeals processlNot seeking termination of parental rights timely(from Case Review System)l
13、Reluctance of courts to terminate parental rightslOvercrowded court docketsNumber of States1712261920 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 c
14、ontacts with parents(not children)Age of child most stable are ages 0-6 and 16-18 least stable are ages 13-15ConcernlFrequent use of shelters for initial placements and disruptionslFew placements for children with disabilities or behavior problemslInconsistent support services to foster parentslMism
15、atching placements to childrens needsNumber of States181921210%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%AdoptionGuard/RelPlacementReunificationEmancipation andLong-term FC66.80%33.20%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%StrengthArea NeedingImprovement The ages of the Children with a goal of“Other Permanent Planned Living Arr
16、angement”who were rated for Item 10 include:0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%0-6Yrs6-9Yrs10-12Yrs13-15Yrs16-18Yrs0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%Child BehaviorParentsBehavior(InclNeglect)Child AbuseMent/PhysHealth ofFamily0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%Child BehaviorParentsBehavior(InclNeglect)Ment/Phys Healthof Fam
17、ilyChild AbusePercentage of Cases Substantially Achieved for Permanency Outcome 1Percentage of Cases Not Substantially Achieved for Permanency Outcome 10%10%20%30%40%50%60%0-5 Yrs6-9 Yrs10-12 Yrs13&Older0%10%20%30%40%50%60%AdoptionReunificationGuardianship or Relative PlacementEmancipation<FCPerce
18、ntage of Cases Substantially Achieved for Permanency Outcome 1 Other permanency goals had not been ruled out for more than half of the 113 children with a goal of Long-Term Foster Care 48%52%0%20%40%60%80%100%Other Permanency Goals Ruled Out Before LTFCOther Permanency Goals NOT Ruled Out Before LTF
19、C05101520253035404550Case Planw/Pas6-moReviewsPermHearingsTPRNotifyCaretakersSrengthArea Needing ImprovementPermanencyHearingsAdoptionTermination ofParental RightsAdoptionPermanency Outcome 1ReunificationSix-Month Case ReviewsAdoptionWell Being Outcome 1 Of the 965 children in the foster care sample
20、 for 2002-2004,591 had been in foster care for 15 of 22 months.57%43%36%64%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%TPR Filed or NotFiled(N=591)Exeption Noted orNot Noted(N=256)TPR FiledTPR Not FiledException NotedException Not Noted States in substantial conformity with these 2 systemic factors had signifi
21、cantly 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 AssuranceCaseworker VisitswithChildrenCaseworker Visitswith Parents Both Caseworker Visits with Parents and Ca
22、seworker 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)Caseworker Visits with Parents and Caseworker Visits with Children were also strongly associate
23、d 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 needs0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%0-5 Yrs6-9
24、Yrs10-12 Yrs13-15 Yrs16-18 YrsPercentage of Cases Rated as Strength for Worker Visits with ParentsConcernlInsufficient frequency of face-to-face contacts with children to address childrens safety and well-being lInconsistent focus on issues regarding case plans and goals during contacts with childre
25、nNumber of States2714ConcernlInsufficient frequency of face-to-face contacts with parents to address childrens safety and goal attainmentlLack of contact with fathers,even when fathers are involved with the familylInconsistent focus on case plans and goals during contacts with parentsNumber of State
26、s341314Item 17:Needs and Services of Children,Parents,and Foster Parents Assessing Needs Providing Services05101520253035InconsistentComprehensiveNeeds AssmtsInconsistentPhysical HealthAssmtsInconsistentMental HealthAssmtsInsufficient riskand safetyAssmts Case ratings on Assessment of Needs and Prov
27、ision 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 NumberPercentWhite(non-Hispanic)1121 43.6Black(non-Hisp
28、anic)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 4.70%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%WhiteBlackHispanicAN/AI2 RacesIn HomeFoster Care0%10%20%30%40%50%60%Asian/PI BlackAN/NAMultRaceHispanic WhitePercentage of
29、 Cases Substantially Achieved on Permanency Outcome 10%10%20%30%40%50%60%Asian/PI AN/AI Hispanic BlackMultRaceWhitePercentage of Cases Substantially Achieved on Well Being Outcome 162%64%66%68%70%72%74%BlackHispanic AN/NA Asian/PIMultRaceWhitePercentage of Cases Substantially Achieved on Well Being
30、Outcome 379.60%74%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%2002-2004-All Children2001-2004 Native AmericanChildrenPercentage of strength ratings for Item 1472%48.60%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%Tribe NotifiedPlaced with Relative orTribe For the 72 Native American children reviewed in 2002-2004,the most common permane
31、ncy goal was adoption.129112227051015202530ConcurrentPlanRelativePlacementLTFCGuardshipReunifyAdoptionNumber of children with each goal0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%SeekingRelativesAssessingNeedsProvidingServicesInv in CasePlanningWorkerContactsMothersFathersNo Significant DifferenceslSafety Outcome 1lS
32、afety Outcome 2lPermanency Outcome 1lPermanency Outcome 2lWell Being Outcome 2Significant DifferenceslWell Being Outcome 1lWell Being Outcome 30%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%Safety 1Safety 2Well Being 1 Well Being 2 Well Being 3In-HomeFoster Care0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%risk ofharmneeds&servicesInv in C
33、asePlanVisits withChildEducationPhysHealthMentHealthIn-HomeFoster CarelImportance of caseworker visits with parentslRefinement of relationships between individual Case Review items and outcomeslRacial/ethnic differences in goal achievementlDifferences in urban vs.non-urban siteslInsights into stabil
34、ity of foster care placementslInsights into the importance of assessmentlPermanency achievement by youth in foster carelNeeds&Services of Children,Parents,Foster Parents is weakest indicator(not adoption)lImportance of caseworker visits with childrenlDifferences in services to in-home cases and foster care caseslDifferences in services to fathers and services to motherslPermanency 1 and Well Being 1 are still the weakest performing outcomeslOverrepresentation of children of color in foster care cases vs.in-home caseslImplications for improved casework practice
