minnesota department of human services child …...minnesota department of human services child and...

Minnesota Department of Human Services

Child and Family Service Review

Hubbard County Agency Self Assessment

(June 2015)

January, 2015

i

Minnesota Child and Family Service Review Instructions for Conducting the

Agency Self Assessment

Purpose of the Agency Self Assessment The Agency Self-Assessment is the first phase of the Minnesota Child and Family Service Review (MnCFSR). The Self Assessment process provides the agency an opportunity to evaluate strengths and areas needing improvement across systemic factors. These systemic factors provide a framework for the delivery of child welfare services and achievement of safety, permanency and well-being outcomes. The Agency also examines child welfare data to assess the effectiveness of the child welfare system and evaluates performance on seventeen federal data indicators. During the first round of MnCFSRs, the Self Assessment process allowed counties/tribes to identify systemic strengths and areas needing improvement, and provided a method to examine data related to safety, permanency and well-being performance. Issues raised in the Self Assessment were further evaluated through the on-site case reviews or community stakeholder interviews. In addition, information from the Agency Self Assessment was shared with other program areas at DHS to inform plans for statewide training, technical assistance, practice guidance and policy development. In preparation for subsequent reviews, counties/tribes will review their most recent Self Assessment and update their evaluation of core child welfare systems. Counties/tribes are also asked to review child welfare data and comment on factors or strategies that impacted the agency’s performance. Process for Conducting the Agency Self Assessment Department of Human Services (DHS) Quality Assurance consultants provide the Agency Self Assessment document at the first coordination meeting held with the Agency, and offer ongoing technical assistance as the Agency completes the document. The Self Assessment document includes Agency specific data on national standard performance along with safety and permanency data. The Agency Self Assessment is completed and submitted to the Quality Assurance consultant approximately two weeks prior to the onsite review. Completed Self Assessments are classified as public information and are posted on the child welfare supervisor’s website. Counties/tribes are strongly encouraged to convene a team of representatives of county/tribal agency staff and community stakeholders to complete the Self Assessment. Children’s Justice Initiative Teams, Child Protection Teams or Citizen Review Panels are examples of community stakeholders who play a role in the county/tribal child welfare delivery system. These community stakeholders bring a broad and meaningful perspective to the evaluation of systemic factors and performance related to safety, permanency and well-being. Staff members and community stakeholders who participate in the county/tribal Self Assessment process also provide a valuable resource to the development of the Agency’s Program Improvement Plan

1

PART I: GENERAL INFORMATION DHS Quality Assurance staff will identify the period under review. The Agency is requested to designate a person who will be primarily responsible for completing the Self Assessment and provide contact information below.

Hubbard County Social Services

Period Under Review

Period Under Review (PUR) For Onsite Case Review: Period for Part IV Data Tables: 2013, 2014 and 2015_

County/Tribal Agency Contact Person for the Agency Self Assessment

Name: Michelle Fischer Title: Social Service Supervisor Address: 205 Court Avenue Phone: ( 218 ) 732-2306 Fax: ( 218 ) 732-3231 E-Mail: [email protected]

Key Dates

Month/year of prior MnCFSR(s): August 2005

Month/year of on-site review: June 2015

2

PART II: SYSTEMIC FACTORS

The framework for completing the Self Assessment is divided into four sections: review of systemic factors, review of program improvement plan activities, detailed responses to questions targeting specific practices, and agency ratings of overall systemic factors. Use the following guidance when responding to each of the eight Systemic Factors. Section 1: Description of Agency Practice. Use the exploratory issues to assess and describe the capacity and quality of the

county/tribe’s child welfare system. Describe how the system works, including strengths and promising practices and ongoing challenges. Each exploratory issue has specific guidance and instructions provided.

Section 2: Target Questions. Some systemic factors include a set of targeted questions designed to focus agency attention on specific

practice areas or activities. Target questions represent areas identified as needing improvement in Minnesota’s 2007 federal CFSR. Provide information regarding agency practice, promising approaches or identified barriers in these specific areas.

Section 3: Ratings. Determine a rating for each Systemic Factor according to the following scale:

Area Needing Improvement Strength 1 2 3 4

None of the practices or requirements are in place.

Some, but not all, of the practices or requirements are in place and some function at a lower than adequate level.

Most, but not all, of the practices or requirements are in place and most function at an adequate or higher level.

All of the practices or requirements are in place and all are functioning at an adequate or higher level.

3

A. Information System (SSIS) A1. Review the agency’s use of the information system (SSIS). Consider the following when responding:

• County developed/modifications to policies or protocols related to the use of SSIS • Resources to support use of SSIS (training for workers, mentors, equipment upgrades, etc.) • Supervisor staff use of SSIS for individual case oversight and/or monitoring overall performance.

Description of Agency Practice

SSIS reports are used by our Child Protection Case Aide on a daily basis. She attends all mentor meetings, is a member on the SSIS WAG committee and assists Hubbard County Social Service staff with knowing the most up to date information. SSIS supervision tools are used for individual meetings with the social workers and cases for supervision monthly and this is a definite area for needed growth. Our Child Protection Case Aide enters necessary documentation into SSIS for screening, court orders, and placements. SSIS has become increasingly sophisticated over the past five years, and she has kept up with the continuous changes. She presents at monthly unit meeting along with a co-worker who has also become an SSIS mentor. They review changes and updates and offers SSIS training internally. We always support adherence and oversight to SSIS policies. She works with SSIS policy staff who provide technical assistance to Hubbard County in using data to track child protection reports and assessments We have used SSIS most recently to develop forms and referral for PSOP and Relative Search.

Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Information System

Area Needing Improvement Strength

1 2 3 X 4

4

B. Case Review System 1. Review the agency’s case review system processes. Consider the following when responding:

• Structure for supervisory consultation with staff • Processes for reviewing screening decisions, track assignments and maltreatment investigations/assessments • Use of SDM tools (initially and ongoing) to support decision-making (identify concerns, needs which informs case planning and

service provision)


The Child Protection Social Workers meet on a weekly basis to review case and/or map difficult cases using the Signs of Safety Approach. The workers share guidance and support with each other’s cases. Case planning suggestions are addressed. The Child Protection Social Workers meet with the supervisor as needed daily or several times a day. There is regularly scheduled supervision with each Child Protection Social Worker monthly. The Screening Team meets daily for monitoring, decision making, and consultation. The supervisor reviews all Child Maltreatment Reports, screening decisions, and tracks all assignments. Checklists, SDM tools, and consultation formats provide structure for support and agency decisions. These are completed regularly on all cases and reviewed by the supervisor. SSIS tools assist the supervisor to review a Social Worker strengths or areas of concern.

• Decision making processes within agency/system to petition the court • Timing and effectiveness of permanency hearings • How court processes support and/or present barriers to timely achievement of permanency • ICWA practices and compliance


The Assistant County Attorney meets with the Child Protection Team formally on a monthly basis. She is also available as needed – daily or many times a day. The Assistant County Attorney, District Court Judge, and a Guardian ad Litem attends the Hubbard County Children’s Justice Initiative on a quarterly basis. The Assistant County Attorney attends the Child Protection Multidisciplinary Meeting which is held on a quarterly basis. The Assistant County Attorney’s position is crucial on every child protection/placement/permanency decision. Our court system assures that hearings are held timely and are effective. Thorough reviews assure that barriers are addressed and that we are held accountable.

5

Two years ago a .5 FTE was added to the Child Protection Team. Approximately one month ago, another .5 FTE was added to the Team. Initially the .5 FTE handled Truancies, PSOP, and Child Welfare cases. When the position was increased to full-time, Child Protection investigations, Family Assessments, and placements became part of that job description. In December of 2014, Hubbard County Social Services began contracting with Family Connections to implement the Parent Support Outreach Program for Hubbard County. One of the goals has been to prevent out-of-home placement. Although it is still early, the program seems to be received well by those referred. Family Connections was also contracted in December 2014 to complete Relative Search. This is completed after a placement is made and we have already seen more relatives being found and reports to court being made on a more timely basis. Lexis Nexis is used for Relative Searches. Hubbard County Social Services works primarily with the White Earth Reservation and the Leech Lake Reservation in regard to ICWA practices and compliance. We continue to strive to meet ICWA requirements. Continued training is needed in this area.

• Functions of the CJI Team


Hubbard County CJI has recently begun to meet on a regular basis. It is led by Our District Court Judge. Attendance is usually a Guardian ad Litem, a school representative, Assistant County Attorney, Social Service Director, Probation, Social Service Supervisor, District Court Judge, Defense Attorney, and a court administration representative. CJI used to meet on a regular basis, fell off, and now currently meets approximately quarterly. We review conference and regional meeting information and process issues that have arisen in our county. There is open discussion about what is or is not working, weakness that need improvement, legislative changes, strengths in our system, etc.

B2. Target Question

Target Questions

Describe the county’s process for ensuring foster parents receive notice of court hearings and their right to be heard at hearings regarding children in their care. Hubbard County Court Administration distributes all notices of court hearings to the foster parents. Foster parents are included in providing input at all hearings and are highly regarded as valuable partners with the children and families.

Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Case Review System


6

1 2 3 X 4

7

C. Quality Assurance System C1. Review the agency’s quality assurance system. Consider the following when responding:

• Standardized processes for reviewing case records • Processes for reviewing screening decisions, track assignments and maltreatment investigations/assessments • Structure for supervisory consultation with staff • Existence of pre-placement and/or treatment screening team(s).


The staff to supervisor ratio is high. The supervisor of Social Services oversees all programs, children and adults, encompassing 21 full-time workers. There is one Case Aide that assists CP workers and the supervisor with SSIS, IV-E, and all reports. The supervisor meets with all workers on a monthly basis to review cases. Cases are also reviewed on a constant basis with the workers. Screening of maltreatment reports is done at the beginning of every work day. (Unless there has been a report that has warranted emergency action, and that is screened immediately upon receipt.) The screening Team reviews the report using the “Minnesota Child Maltreatment Screening Guidelines” and documents Intake time and date, Screening time and date, members of the Team present, Case Name, Alleged victim(s), Alleged Offender, Intake type, Maltreatment Report allegations by statute, screening decision, reason, Refer to:, Notification to reporter to:, if the report will not be assess, reason why, and assignment to, and date and time of assignment. The supervisor reviews all Child Maltreatment Reports and screening decisions, signs and dates. The supervisor tracks all assignments and has to approve a case transfer to another worker. Checklists are in place for all types of Child Protecting work, whether it is investigation, assessment, placement, etc. Pre-placement/screening team meetings are held on all placements, whether they are child protection, children’s mental health, or probation. If an emergency placement was made, a screening team meeting is held as soon as possible after a child is placed. The Social Worker, the Social Service Supervisor, and Mental Health Professional are at every screening team meeting. If appropriate (if assigned to the case), the probation officer, the tribe and guardian ad Litem are also in attendance. The Assistant County attorney is invited but rarely attends. All children placed in out of home care –regardless of the length of stay – must receive a Pre Placement Screening.

Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Quality Assurance System


8

1 2 3 X 4

9

D. Staff and Provider Training 1. Review the agency’s staff and provider training system. Consider the following when responding:

• Providing training for CP workers, development of training plans • Coordination with MN Child Welfare Training System

o Access website o Contact with MCWTS Staff

• Access/Availability of MCWTS courses o Foundation o Specialized o Unmet Needs

• Pre-service and in-service training for foster and adoptive parents and providers.


The MCWTS is used consistently for Child Protection trainings. The use of VPC and webinars is also helpful. We have worked with regional counties to host specific trainings in the area of Signs of Safety. All CP staff recently attended a two-day training in Signs of Safety as did several stakeholders. DHS staff travelled to Hubbard County to offer this training. All of the Child Protection Social Workers have attended the Foundations training (one new worker has completed 2 weeks of the 3 week series). Three of the five CP social workers and the Supervisor have attended either CornerHouse or First Witness Forensic Interviewing Training. The other two CP social workers are registered to attend in June 2015. The Supervisor has attended the Strengthening Child Welfare Series and the Leadership Series of trainings. MCWTS is used for all kinds of specialty training, be it ICWA, Facility Investigations, Trauma, NorthStar, FGDM, etc. TrainLink is our main avenue for locating training opportunities. On a quarterly basis, Child Protection Social Workers attend the Communities of Practice meetings. They utilize these meeting for peer review, consultation with state staff, as well as review of recent legislation updates. This meeting also encompasses Signs of Safety, PSOP, and other areas of need such as FGDM. Training is provided in Hubbard County to foster parents on a quarterly basis. We also offer individualized support, guidance and training as needed. The Hubbard County licensor will meet with foster parents in their home to complete paperwork and walk with foster parents every step of the way. The primary unmet need that our agency faces is training in the area of adoption. Because we do not have a designated worker, our knowledge of the process is not sufficient. We recently requested adoption training from the MCWTS, but the response was that much of the focus was being put on Northstar right now, so adoption training was not of the highest priority. We have

10

several cases which have gone through to the point of TPR, but we have struggled to get these children to the point of permanency.

Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Staff and Provider Training System


1 2 3 4 X

11

E. Service Array and Resource Development E1. Review the agency’s service array and resource development system. Consider the following when responding:

• Availability and accessibility of services to prevent placement, achieve safe and timely reunification or achieve other permanency plans and meet the child’s well-being needs

• Access/availability of culturally appropriate services • Agency efforts to develop additional resources or reallocate resources to meet an identified gap or community’s changing needs


We have one In Home Skills provider and two CTSS providers that contract with our agency. We are also able to make referrals to other non-contracted providers. One of our providers had Behavioral Aides available but discontinued this service. One of the CTSS agencies provide Trauma Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Reactive Attachment Therapy, and Parent Child Interactive Therapy. Our in-Home Provider provides skills training as well as parenting classes and one-on-one parenting training. They also facilitate Family Group Decision Meetings and are trained in Signs of Safety. We collaborate with Public Health Nursing, Early Childhood, Kinship and Community Education and they all contribute to our ability to prevent some placements or return home other children as soon as possible. Once placed though, the lack of resources for the parents in our rural setting remains an ongoing barrier and concern. Travel time and transportation impede timeliness of services. Services for Chemical Dependency are limited in the Hubbard County area. HCSS uses the SDM tools and finds them invaluable an decision making and case planning. We are currently assessing the possibility of a “whole family placement” to assist the mother with parenting skills and to assist them in getting the services necessary to achieve safety, permanency, and well-being. She is otherwise homeless, making any service provision to her virtually impossible. We do not have local providers that can address culturally competent service needs – some consumers utilize services in the communities of tribal services – approximately 25 to 50 miles away. Housing is a barrier for parents with a drug history or eviction record. There continues to be a need for more education of the impact and danger of domestic violence among community providers and a need for more providers with specific training. Methamphetamine has also seemed to have resurgence in Hubbard County, leading to the breakdown of the family and the need for more child protection involvement.

E2. Target Question

Target Questions

12

If applicable, describe how changes in service availability or accessibility have impacted agency efforts to prevent entry or re-entry. The use of random and more frequent drug screenings are used as well as stepped up visitation plans. The use of the Parent Support Outreach Program is also being utilized with families to prevent entry or re-entry into out-of-home placements. If applicable, describe how changes in service availability or accessibility have impacted agency efforts to achievement of timely permanency. Approximately 6 months ago, Hubbard County entered into a contract with a provider to complete Relative Searches. Our agency also stresses the need to find families immediately for children and work diligently to achieve this goal. We have also increased our use of Interstate Compact. We also began contracting with a provider that will deliver PSOP services to families. This preventative step allows services into the home to address issues, difficulties, or areas of weakness before they become the level of Child Protection.

Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Service Array and Resource Development System


1 2 3 X 4

13

F. Agency Responsiveness to the Community F1. Review the agency’s responsiveness to the community. Consider the following when responding:

• Consulting with external partners/stakeholders to achieve organizational or systemic improvements • Procedures for seeking consumer input • Child Protection Team, Child Abuse Prevention Council, and/or Citizen Review Panels functions


Hubbard County Child Protection works closely with many of our stakeholders. We rely on their knowledge and expertise throughout the child protection process from start to finish with a family. Hubbard County provides annual training to the Park rapids school of Mandated reporting and Maltreatment Guidelines. A staff member sits on the Child Abuse Prevention Council and this Council recently funded to equip an interview room to be used for forensic interviews. We review difficult cases with our Child Protection Multi-Disciplinary Team to determine best practices that we may have overlooked, receiving feedback for case specific, organizational, or systematic improvement. Members of the Child Protection Multidisciplinary team include: Law Enforcement, the schools that are located in Hubbard County, Mental Health providers, Public Health, a physician, Community Education, Independent Living Skills provider, probation, attorneys, Leech Lake Child Welfare, the Ministerial Association, Guardian ad Litem director, the Father Project, and a sex trafficking professional. Hubbard County District Court strictly enforces and supports ICWA. Child Protection Social workers are in constant communication with the families that they work with. The workers are instructed to always return phone calls within 24 hours. The supervisor is always available to receive phone calls to assist, problem-solve, or to receive feedback.

Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Agency Responsiveness to the Community


1 2 3 X 4

14

G. Foster and Adoptive Home Licensing, Approval and Recruitment G1. Review the agency’s foster and adoptive home licensing system. Consider the following when responding:

• Adequacy of foster and adoptive home resources • Whether foster and adoptive home resources reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of children in care • Licensing of relative caregivers and supports/resources available


Our agency has 18 County Licensed Foster Homes and 9 of these will provide emergency foster care. We have several therapeutic foster care agencies that provide services to Hubbard County and provide the ethnic and racial diversity that is needed. We end up using these therapeutic homes when not necessarily needed or are forced to travel further to locate a home. Keeping sibling groups together is challenging due to lack of adequate resources. We make every effort to place children in homes that are reflective of their ethnicity and racial considerations. Consultation with their tribal affiliation when applicable is a priority and expected to be followed is Hubbard County. Hubbard County Social Services continues to be in need of more skilled foster homes. We do not have adequate foster and adoptive home resources and we struggles to locate these in close proximity to family and their current school districts. Although, relative homes are being utilized more and more and resources provided by our placing SW and our licensing SW are evident. We recently did advertising for foster care home with no responses received. Family Support and In-Home are provided to our homes as needed. Hubbard County has contracted with an outside agency for the last 6 months which conducts relative search activities. Relative search and subsequent licensing has gone well and the contractor, licensing worker, and Child Protection workers work well together. A placement packet with all necessary paperwork is completed, allowing the licensing worker to take over licensing duties quickly following an emergency relative placement.

Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Foster and Adoptive Home Licensing System


1 2 X 3 4

15

H. Supervisor and Social Worker Resources 1. Review the agency’s supervisor and social worker resources since the last MnCFSR. Consider the following when responding:

• Organizational structure • Supervisor to staff ratios • Caseload/workload size,(describe any tools to assist in assignment decisions) • Agency’s experience with staff turnover.


There are a total of 18 Social Workers, 2 Case Aides and an Information Systems Specialist, Sr. with one Supervisor. CSP staff increased by .5 FTE approximately 3 years ago. This position was increased to a full-time FTE approximately 2 months ago resulting in a total of 5 CP Social Workers. 4.5 of the CSP staff do investigations, assessment, and on-going Child Protection. One worker handles all truancies which account for .5 of her case duties. Child Protection Social Workers caseloads range from 14-22. Children’s Mental Health caseloads range from 14-20. Adult Mental Health caseloads range from 48-65. Developmental Disabilities caseload range from 42-45. Long Term Care ranges from 66-76. The Chemical Dependency caseload is at 84. One of the Case Aides handles placement documentation for the CP Social Workers as well as all IV-E work, screening documentation, permanency and adoption support, court documentation, and Relative Custody Assistance. Intake rotates between all of the Social Workers. Three of the CP Social Workers are new to our agency within the last 9 months. We are optimistic about the current make-up of the CP team. 2 of these workers have completed CP Foundations Training and the last has completed 2 of the 3 requirements. All CP Social Workers also complete Forensic Interviewing Training, with 3 of the 5 trained thus far. The last two are scheduled in June of 2015. Our agency contracts with an outside agency for Mental Health Professional support. Approximately 6 months ago, Hubbard County contracted for PSOP services and we have seen an increase in the utilization of these services.

Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Supervisor and Social Worker Resources


1 2 X 3 4

16

Community Issues Discuss changes or community issues that have emerged that could impact planning and delivery of services to children and families and achievement of safety, permanency and well-being outcomes.

Our community has been plagued with the use of methamphetamine, and we find that out of home placement of children in our county often results because of this use and abuse. We also see an abundance of domestic violence. At the Child Protection Multi-disciplinary Team meeting, cases are reviewed along with recent issues within our system. The community at times questions our choices of relative supports and placements, but this education process is on-going. Increase in prenatal exposure and use of drugs also continues to be on the rise increasing our concern and ability to achieve safety and permanency. The supervisor sits on the Hubbard In Prevention (HIP) Coalition whose mission is to address underage drinking in the Hubbard County area. Through this Coalition, we have assisted in recently bring Dr. David Walsh to our schools to address the effects of alcohol and drugs on the brain. David Walsh, Ph.D. is a professional who works with children, teens, parenting, family life, and also addresses the impact of technology on children’s health and development. Our community benefitted greatly from Dr. Walsh expertise. HIP also supports many activates in the community and provides positive community messages. Kinship is another organization that has a positive impact upon many of the kids we serve. Kinship of Park Rapids is a community based preventive and proactive mentoring program for children and youth ages 6-18 living in the area surrounding Park Rapids. The Kinship Director sits on many committees with Social Services and Kinship contracts with our agency to help provide services to the youth we serve.

17

PART III: ASSESSMENT OF SAFETY, PERMANENCY AND WELL-BEING PERFORMANCE

Use the data tables provided in Section IV, SSIS reports DHS data releases or other data sources to examine the agency’s performance and respond to the following safety, permanency and well-being questions.

A. Safety

Outcome S1: Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect.

Outcome S2: Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate.

1. Safety Indicator 1: Absence of Maltreatment Recurrence (Table1). If the agency met the national standard, identify factors that contribute to strong performance. If the agency did not meet the national standard, identify and discuss barriers. The CP Social Workers provide thorough on-going case management. They help people attain appropriate community services once they have completed services with Hubbard County Social Services [HCSS]. We received 100% in this category and there were nor maltreatment re-occurrence through HCSS. And, this safety indicator has been at 100% for HCSS for the last five reporting years.

2. Safety Indicator 2: Absence of Child Abuse/Neglect in Foster Care (Table 1). If the agency met the national standard, identify factors that contribute to strong performance. If the agency did not meet the national standard, identify and discuss barriers. There was one child that was a victim of child abuse/neglect while in foster care in Hubbard County. The child in question was a child from Anoka County that was in a Kindred licensed therapeutic foster home. The foster parent in the home was charged and convicted of First Degree Assault in this matter.

3. Trends in Child Maltreatment (Table 2). Examine the data on reports of child maltreatment. Identify trends and factors that may have contributed to an increase or decrease in the number of maltreatment reports and the maltreatment/service determinations at the conclusion of a family investigation or family assessment. Increased use of drugs coupled with domestic violence plays a part in increased maltreatment. The emphasis on strength based plans, relatives, in school programs, and Safety Networks and Family Group Decision Making assist in preventative measures.

4. Screening Decisions and Referrals (Table 2). Examine the rate of screened out child maltreatment reports. Describe screening process(es), e.g. identify who is involved in making screening decisions. If applicable, identify child welfare services and/or programs that may be offered to subjects of a screened out maltreatment report, e.g. Parent Support and Outreach Program (PSOP), other child welfare program. Child Protection Intakes are received through our general intake process which is done by all of the Social Workers of HCSS. The reports are all screened immediately if warranted, by the end of the workday, or at the beginning of the next workday if no immediate action is necessary. The CP Social Workers rotate screening duties every day for emergencies, but screen as a team daily. The screening team is made up of all

18

A. Safety



of the CP worker and if a report is screened in, they make a decision as to FA or Investigation. For the last several months, the supervisor has reviewed every CP report that has been received by HCSS. The Child Maltreatment report is cross reported to the Law Enforcement agency of jurisdiction, and notification is made to all reporters. If a report is screened out after review of the MN Child Maltreatment Screening Guidelines, a referral is sometimes made to PSOP, Child Welfare, Children’s Mental Health Services, or other community agencies as appropriate (i.e. The Father Project.) All CHIPS Petitions are reviewed by the Supervisor before they are sent to the Assistant County Attorney.

5. Timeliness of Initial Contact in Assessments or Investigations (Table 3). Examine the data on timeliness of initial contacts. Identify factors that contribute to timely face-to-face contacts with children, and factors that contribute to delays. Describe efforts to address identified barriers to contact within statutory timeframes. HCSS is at 100% and meeting the State Goal for all levels of Investigations. All of the CP Social Workers work as a team to accomplish timely contact. The supervisor and the CP workers work together when something urgent comes into the agency. Our child protection services are not meeting timelines in regard to assessments. This is often due to the inability to locate the client despite repeated attempts. But it is also due to scheduling conflicts or oversight on the part of the social worker. Adherence to the timeliness guidelines is a top priority. We have a positive relationship with our Law Enforcement who assists us a great deal with joint efforts to locate and see the family face to face – especially if there is a potential dangerous situation.

6. Absence of Re-Reporting (Table 4). Examine the data on the absence of re-reporting in child maltreatment. Identify factors that may contribute to the rate of re-reporting. During CY 2014, HCSS did not meet the state goal of 91%, but did in CY 2013. Although HCSS may be involved with a family or had been previously, abuse or neglect may still be occurring or to a more significant level warranting another investigation or assessment. Prior services may not have been successful and HCSS may have been too quick to discontinue our involvement with a family.

7. Reasons for Placement Entry (Tables 5-6). Examine the percentage of children who enter out-of-home placement for reasons related to protection compared to those entering for non-protection related reasons. Discuss the county’s ability to ensure that the children who enter foster care are only those children whose needs for protection or specialized treatment cannot be met in their own homes. HCSS needs to continue to strengthen the pre-placement screening process and continue to develop services within the community to assist families with raising their children within their own homes. Parental drug abuse is the primary reason behind children who enter out of home care for protection reasons. The other predominant reason for out-of-home placement is within children’s mental Health and this has been

19

A. Safety



classified a child’s behavior. More accurately, this should be re-documented as child’s disability as it is the child’s mental health that has resulted in their placement along with the parent’s inability to address those concerns within the home or because our county lacks the resources necessary to address the mental health concerns of the child.

8. Entry into Foster Care. (Tables 7, 8 and 8a). Discuss agency efforts to prevent children’s initial entry into foster care. HCSS has rejuvenated the use of Signs of Safety and hopes to continue using this approach when working with families. Our out-of-home placements have risen in Hubbard County. We have attributed this in the rise of CMH placements and the increased number of difficult children in need of placement as well as the drug use that plagues our area. Discuss factors that contribute to children’s re-entry into foster care, and agency efforts to prevent re-entry following discharge from placement. Hubbard County needs to provide active efforts to work with all families to prevent re-entry – not just reasonable efforts. We need to maintain the placements, meeting timelines, but dealing with them on a more intense basis while the family is with us. Examine the agency’s use of short-term placements. Identify factors that contribute to short-term placements.

9. Other Safety Issues. Discuss any other concerns, not covered above, that affect safety outcomes for children and families served by the agency. Struggles occur when families move from county to county on a regular basis. Determining COR and CFR is a regular occurrence and “Conflict of Interest” cases seem to arise often.

20

B. Permanency

Outcome P1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations.

Outcome P2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children.

1. Permanency Composite 1: Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification (Table1). Identify and comment on overall strengths and barriers to the agency’s performance on the four measures included in Permanency Composite 1. Hubbard County performed well in only 1 out of 4 measures and was 1% off in another measure. Hubbard County struggles to get youth to permanency in a timely manner. Eight youth exited and re-entered in 2014. Five of these were a sibling group. A family member has just been located in the AZ area for these 5 and communication has begun with Interstate Compact. The median stay in foster care to reunification for 2014 was 2.3 months and this was well below the national standard. Hubbard County struggles with reunification the longer the children are in care. The situation becomes more difficult and the issues of the parent(s) become more complex – very often when there is chemical use and treatment involved.

2. Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of Adoptions (Table 1). Identify and comment on overall strengths and barriers to the agency’s performance on the five measures included in Permanency Composite 2. Hubbard County achieved the goal in 2 out of 5 measures. Once our agency reaches a TPR or there is a change of custody, we have allowed the children to languish in our system. This is an area we will rectify with possibly a Social Worker who has some specialized training in the adoption area or other permanency options. We have several young children that we are working on with DHS to process and will be met with completion shortly. Another young child and one older youth are on the adoption exchange and we hope to make a decision about these youth after home study information is received and reviewed. Barriers include locating relatives and or families willing to adopt. Although we are doing better in this area, we have still not met the goal. Locating families able to address the needs of the children we have in placement is a concern for matching families with children.

3. Permanency Composite 3: Permanency for Children and Youth in Foster Care for Long Periods of Time (Table 1). Identify and comment on overall strengths and barriers to the agency’s performance on the three measures included in Permanency Composite 3. Hubbard County achieved the goal in only one of the three measures. Several of our harder to place youth are aging out of the system (primarily CMH children) and AMH homes are being sought for future care. The Extended Foster Care program is also going to be utilized in the near future. Children’s Mental Health placements seem to require longer periods of care. Lack of resources pose barriers for us.

21

B. Permanency



4. Permanency Composite 4: Placement Stability (Table 1). Identify and comment on overall strengths and barriers to the agency’s performance on the three measures included in Permanency Composite 4. Hubbard County also struggles in Placement Stability for children in our care. One CMH client has 13+ placements due to her behavior. She has been repeatedly been discharged from facilities because of her behaviors and not allowed to return. Children’s Mental Health case usually reflect multiple changes in placement as we struggle to locate the least restrictive alternative but this is often disrupted due to difficulty due to the child’s needs necessitating change in placement.

5. Age of Children in Care (Table 9). Discuss any significant changes in the age of children entering placement and possible contributing factors. For 2013, Hubbard County Social Services statistics are lower than the state average for younger children in placement. HCSS statistics are higher than the state average for older youth in placement because our out-of home placements also encompass probation youth that are in detention or placement and Children’s Mental Health youth that are in Rule 5 facilities.

6. Race/ethnicity of children in out-of-home placement (Table 10). Identify and discuss data regarding the composition of the agency’s foster care population and any disparities present. The highest percentage of children in care in 2013 was white (58.6%). This is much lower than the rate of whites in Hubbard County. Disproportionately, 32.8% of children in Care in 2013 were American Indian or Alaska Native, whereas there is only 2.6% of this racial group in Hubbard County. HCSS needs to continue to engage the tribes of the families we work with of Indian heritage – primarily the White Earth and the Leech Lake tribes. It is also important that we procure their involvement from Day 1 of HCSS involvement.

7. Relative foster care (Tables 11 and 11a). Describe agency efforts to promote timely placement with relatives, including the agency’s relative search process. Include a description of agency efforts to consider both maternal and paternal family members. Describe efforts specific to promoting stability for children placed with relatives. HCSS statistics for the Rate of Relative Foster Care has continued to increase every year (with the exception of one year.) Almost ½ of all children in out-of-home care are with a relative. Lexis Nexus is used for relative searches and the CP Social Workers talk to families about available family. Our agency has contracted out for the relative search process and notifications are being made to many, many family members in search of possible relatives for placement. The number of children in Group Homes or Residential Treatment Centers account for one quarter of placements which are children in placement for mental health reasons. Every Pre-Placement Screening addresses relative search efforts to assure accountability to locate a possible relative as an option.

22

B. Permanency



8. Permanent custody to the agency. (Formerly long-term foster care.) Describe the agency’s current practices related to the use of permanent custody to the agency as a permanency option for children. Include information regarding the process for identifying and ruling out other, more permanent options, and the process for reassessing the ongoing appropriateness of the goal. One youth is in foster care with his aunt and uncle and will be going on to college this fall under the Extended Foster Care program. Although this is not the most desirable route, the child was stable in this home and the father and the family was unwilling to transfer custody and any type of family stability would have been lost. We felt this was in the child’s best interests to assist him in entering adulthood in this manner.

9. Other Permanency Issues. Discuss any other issues of concern, not covered above, that affect permanency outcomes for children and families served by the agency. The supervisor needs to continue to review all SSIS reports, which include concerning measures such as length of placements, timeliness of initial contacts, timeliness to adoption, and reviewing information with individual case managers to seek improvement.

C. Well-being

Outcome WB1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs.

Outcome WB2: Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs.

Outcome WB3: Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs.

1. Parent involvement. Discuss strategies the agency has implemented to improve performance in the following areas: • Engaging fathers/non-resident parents in needs assessment, service delivery and

case planning. Identify promising approaches or current barriers to involving fathers/non-resident parents. The Father Project organization recently began in Hubbard County and they have been a great resource for the Child Protection Social Workers. If appropriate, referrals are made to this agency. Fathers are included in all Out of Home Placement Plans and the Assistant County Attorney reviews these as well to ensure this is done. With continue use of Lexis Nexus as well as more in-depth relative searches though our contracted provider, it is evident that more and more fathers are being found – one recently in El Salvador!

2. Caseworker visits with children (Table 12). Describe the agency’s process for determining the frequency of face-to-face worker visits with children. Identify promising approaches or current barriers to frequent worker contact. Describe caseworker practices that contribute to quality visits with children.

23

B. Permanency



HCSS statistics of Monthly Caseworker Visits with Children in Foster Care continue to improve. From 2012, to 2013, to every quarter of 2014 our percentage has increased. We did not meet the state goal of 95% which I attribute to turnover, but hope to in 2015 as we continue to work together in making sure these contacts are made and we ensure that the children in our care have their needs met.

3. Other Well-being Issues. Discuss any other issues of concern, not covered above, that affect well-being outcomes for children and families served by the agency.

The statistics for Physical Health Exams and Mental Health Screenings are well below the state goals. The supervisor and the Case Aide working with Child protection have begun to pull the data and remind the workers of children in need of these exams or screenings.

24

Part IV: Safety and Permanency Data

A. Federal Data Indicators Beginning with the first round of the CFSR, single data measures were used for establishing national standards. This provided information to states and counties about their performance; however, did not always reflect the broader, more complex factors that contribute to performance. In 2007 the Administration of Children and Families revised the national standard indicators. Safety data indicators continue to be single data elements. Permanency data was expanded to allow for a closer examination of what particular practices drive the outcomes for children in foster care. Permanency data is now reflected in components, composites and measures as defined below:

• Composites: Refers to a data indicator that incorporates Agency performance on multiple permanency-related individual measures. There are four permanency composites.

• Component: Refers to the primary parts of a composite. Components may incorporate only one individual measure or may have two or more individual measures that are closely related to one another. There are seven permanency related components.

• Measures: Refers to the specific measures that are included in each composite. There are 15 individual permanency measures.

Table 1 includes Agency performance on the two safety data indicators and 15 permanency measures. B. Safety Data Tables Tables 2-8 include child welfare data related to the agency’s practices in addressing safety. These tables contain information about the agency’s use of track assignments, report dispositions, timeliness of initial face-to-face contacts with children who are the subject of a maltreatment report, length of placement episodes and reasons for out-of-home placements. C. Permanency Data Tables Tables 9-11 provide demographic information about the children in out-of-home placement (gender and age) and the type of settings in which children are placed. D. Child Well-being Data Tables Tables 12-14 provide information regarding the frequency of caseworkers’ monthly face-to-face contact with children in foster care, and rates of completing physical health exams and children’s mental health screenings.

25

A. Federal Data Indicators Table 1

Data Indictor National Standard

Hubbard County Performance** MN 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Safety Indicator 1: Absence of Maltreatment Recurrence. Of all children who were victims of determined maltreatment during the first six months of the reporting period, what percent were not victims of another determined maltreatment allegation within a 6-month period.

94.6%↑ 100%* 4/4

100%* 4/4

100%* 2/2 NA 100%

1/1 97.2%*

Safety Indicator 2: Absence of Child Abuse/Neglect in Foster Care. Of all children in foster care during the reporting period, what percent were not victims of determined maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff member.

99.68%↑ 100%* 10/10

100%* 35/35

100%* 63/63

100%* 71/71

99% 99/100 99.8%*


Hubbard County Performance** MN 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Permanency Composite 1: Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification Component A: Timeliness of Reunification.

Measure C1.1: Exits to reunification in less than 12 months. Of all children discharged from foster care to reunification in the year shown, who had been in foster care for 8 days or longer, what percent was reunified in less than 12 months from the date of the latest removal from the home?

75.2% 90.9%* 10/11

87.5%* 7/8

100%* 24/24

83.3%* 15/18

74.2% 23/31 85.1%*

Measure C1.2: Median stay in foster care to reunification. Of all children discharged from foster care to reunification in the year shown, who had been in foster care for 8 days or longer, what was the median length of stay (in months) from the date of the latest removal from home until the date of discharge to reunification?

5.4 7.1 4.0* 1.4* 3.2* 2.3* 5.5

Measure C1.3: Entry cohort of children who reunify in less than 12 months. Of all children entering foster care for the first time in the 6 month period just prior to the year shown, and who remained in foster care for 8 days or longer, what percent was discharged from foster care to reunification in less than 12 months from the date of the latest removal from home?

48.4% 87.5%* 7/8

50%* 3/6

50%* 5/10

37.5% 6/16

6.7% 1/15 54.1%*

Measure C1.4: Children who exit and re-enter foster care in less than 12 months. Of all children discharged from foster care to reunification in the 12-month period prior to the year shown, what percent re-entered foster care in less than 12 months from the date of discharge?

9.9% 22.7% 5/22

22.2% 2/9

12.5% 1/8

23.1% 6/26

42.1% 8/19 25.7%

26


Hubbard County Performance** MN 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of Adoptions Component A: Timeliness of Adoptions of children Discharged From Foster Care

Measure C2.1: Adoption in less than 24 months for children exiting to adoption. Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in the year shown, what percent was discharged in less than 24 months from the date of the latest removal from home?

36.6% 0% 0/1 NA NA 83.3%*

5/6 0% 0/1 54.7%*

Measure C2.2: Median length of stay to adoption. Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in the year shown, what was the median length of stay in foster care (in months) from the date of latest removal from home to the date of discharge to adoption?

27.3 57.1 NA NA 17.7* 25.1 22.7*

Component B: Adoption for Children Meeting ASFA Time-In-Care Requirements Measure C2.3: Children in foster care 17+ months, adopted by the end of the year. Of all children in foster care on the first day of the year shown who were in foster care for 17 continuous months or longer (and who, by the last day of the year shown, were not discharged from foster care with a discharge reason of live with relative, reunify, or guardianship), what percent was discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption by the last day of the year shown?

22.7% 33.3%* 1/3

0% 0/2

0% 0/2

25%* 1/4

0% 0/6 20.7%

Measure C2.4: Children in foster care 17+ months achieving legal freedom within 6 months. Of all children in foster care on the first day of the year shown who were in foster care for 17 continuous months or longer, and were not legally free for adoption prior to that day, what percent became legally free for adoption during the first 6 months of the year shown?

10.9% 0% 0/6

0% 0/6

0% 0/5

0% 0/6

0% 0/5 3%

Component C: Progress Toward Adoption of Children who are Legally Free for Adoption Measure C2.5: Children, legally free, adoption in less than 12 months. Of all children who became legally free for adoption in the 12 month period prior to the year shown, what percent was discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12 months of becoming legally free?

53.7% NA NA 0% 0/2

50% 1/2

75%* 3/4 49.8%

27


Hubbard County Performance** MN 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Permanency Composite 3: Achieving Permanency for Children in Foster Care Component A: Achieving Permanency for Children in Care for Extended Periods of Time

Measure C3.1: Exits to permanency prior to 18th birthday for children in care for 24+ months. Of all children in foster care for 24 months or longer on the first day of the year shown, what percent was discharged to a permanency home prior to their 18th birthday and by the end of the fiscal year? A permanent home is defined as having a discharge reason of adoption, guardianship, or reunification (including living with a relative).

29.1% 28.6% 2/7

16.7% 1/6

0% 0/5

20% 1/5

0% 0/5 19.2%

Measure C3.2: Exits to permanency for children with TPR. Of all children who were discharged from foster care in the year shown, and who were legally free for adoption at the time of discharge, what percent was discharged to a permanent home prior to their 18th birthday? A permanent home is defined as having a discharge reason of adoption, guardianship, or reunification (including living with a relative).

98.0% 100% 1/1 NA NA 100%*

6/6 100%

1/1 98%*

Component B: Children Emancipated Who Were in Foster Care for Extended Period of Time Measure C3.3: Children emancipated who were in foster care for 3 years or more. Of all children who, during the year shown, either (1) were discharged from foster care prior to age 18 with a discharge reason of emancipation, or (2) reached their 18th birthday while in foster care, what percent were in foster care for 3 years or longer?

37.5% 66.7% 2/3

50% 1/2

75% 3/4

100% 2/2

100% 2/2 30.7%*

28


Hubbard County Performance** MN 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Permanency Composite 4: Placement Stability

Measure C4.1: Two or fewer placement settings for children in care for less than 12 months. Of all children served in foster care during the 12 month target period who were in foster care for at least 8 days but less than 12 months, what percent had two or fewer placement settings?

86.0% 89.5%* 17/19

87.5%* 21/24

90.9%* 40/44

65.1% 28/43

82.1% 46/56 85.8%

Measure C4.2: Two or fewer placement settings for children in care for 12 to 24 months. Of all children served in foster care during the 12 months target period who were in foster care for at least 12 months but less than 24 months, what percent had two or fewer placement settings?

65.4% 100%* 4/4

50% 1/2

55.6% 5/9

78.6%* 11/14

40% 8/20 60.7%

Measure C4.3: Two or fewer placement settings for children in care for 24+ months. Of all children served in foster care during the 12 months target period who were in foster care for at least 24 months, what percent had two or fewer placement settings?

41.8% 22.2% 2/9

37.5% 3/8

28.6% 2/7

12.5% 1/8

30% 3/10 33.5%

*The Agency met the performance standard. **Data on county/tribal performance on Federal Data Indicators was pulled from Charting and Analysis on 4/7/15.

29

B. Safety Data

Child Maltreatment Reports Table 2

Year

Child Maltreatment Report Screen

Out Rate

Total Family Investigations

& Family Assessments

Investigations with

Maltreatment Determined

Reports with Child Protection Services Needed

Determined (Family

Investigations)

Reports with Child

Protection Services Needed (Family

Assessment)

Reports with Support Services Offered (Family

Assessment)

2010 ** 80 4/40% 4/44.4% 21/30% 2/2.9%

2011 ** 71 5/50% 6/60% 21/34.4% NA

2012 ** 105 2/50% 2/50% 35/34.7% 2/2%

2013 ** 119 1/100% 1/100% 35/29.7% NA

2014 68.9% 264/383

pending

DHS Research, Planning and Evaluation

** Child maltreatment report screen out rates prior to 2013 are not included because agencies were not required to document screened out reports prior to that time. Data prior to 2013 is considered incomplete. Statewide rate of child maltreatment reports screened out in 2013: 71.3% Statewide rate of reports with maltreatment determined in 2013: 54.4% Statewide rate of reports with child protection services needed determined in 2013: 48.2% Statewide rate of Family Assessments with need for Child Protection Services in 2013: 15.5% Statewide rate of Family Assessments with supportive services offered in 2013: 13.1%

30

Completed Face-to-Face Contact with Alleged Child Victims Table 3

Type of Assessment State Goal Reporting Period

Statewide Rate of Timely Contact

Hubbard County % and # With

Timely Contact*

Investigations – Alleged Substantial Child Endangerment

100% Q4 2014 76.1% 100%*

6/6

CY 2013 70.2% NA

Investigations – Not Substantial Child Endangerment

100% Q4 2014 88.6% 100%*

1/1

CY 2013 84.9% NA

Family Assessments 100% Q4 2014 77.0% 81.1%

43/53

CY 2013 73.2% 85.5% 124/145

DHS Child Welfare Data Dashboard *Timely contact is defined as:

• Family Investigation – Alleged Substantial Child Endangerment: Immediately/within 24 hours of receipt of report

• Family Assessments and Investigations – Not Substantial Child Endangerment: Within 5 calendar days of receipt of report

Absence of Re-Reporting Table 4

Time Period State Goal State % Hubbard County % and #

Q4, 2014

91%

91%* 85.8%

109/127

Q3, 2014 89.9%

83.7% 77/92

CY, 2013 90.7%

96.8%* 2/62

DHS Child Welfare Data Dashboard • Of all children who are subjects of an accepted maltreatment report (concluded two

quarters prior to the reporting quarter), the percent of children who are not the subject of a subsequent accepted maltreatment report within six months.

31

Reasons for Entering Out-of-Home-Care, Related to Protection-2013 Table 5

Reason State % Hubbard # Hubbard %

Alleged Physical Abuse 7.1% 4 4.8%

Alleged Sexual Abuse 2.8% NA NA

Alleged Neglect 22.4% 9 10.8%

Parent Alcohol Abuse 5.1% 7 8.4%

Parent Drug Abuse 15.3% 18 21.7%

Abandonment 2.3% 2 2.4%

Other (parent death, TPR, safe place for newborns)

0.9% 2 2.4%

Parent Incarceration 3.1% NA

Total Reasons Reported for All Placements 18,294 83 --

Total Placements 11,510 70 --

Total Reasons Related to Protection 10,803/59.1% 42 Minnesota’s Child Welfare Report – 2013

Reasons for Entering Out-of-Home-Care, Other than Protection-2013 Table 6

Reason

State %

Hubbard#

Hubbard %

Child Alcohol Abuse 1.3% 2 2.4%

Child Drug Abuse 2.3% 1 1.2%

Child Behavior 21.2% 34 40.9%

Child Disability 4.4% 1 1.2%

Caretaker Inability to Cope 8.7% 2 2.4%

Inadequate Housing 3% 1 1.2%

Total Reasons Reported for All Placements 18,294 83 --

Total Placements 11,510 70 --

Total Reasons Other than Protection 7,491/ 40.9% 41 Minnesota’s Child Welfare Report - 2013

32

Rate of Entry into Foster Care Table 7

Time Period State % Hubbard County Rate per 1,000 and #

Q4, 2014 3.9

13.0 56/4310

Q3, 2014 3.8

10.4 45/4310

CY, 2013 3.8

7.5 32/4295

DHS Child Welfare Data Dashboard • Rate of children less than age 18 who enter out-of-home care for the first time in their

lives as compared to per 1000 in the county’s child population. Length of Placement Episodes Ending in 2013 Table 8

Length of Placement Episodes State % Hubbard County #

Hubbard County %

1 – 7 days (5 year history below)

19.89% 3 8.5%

8 – 30 days 8.83% 5 35.3%

31 – 90 days 11.4% 4 11.8%

91 – 180 days 13.3% 2 5.9%

181 – 365 days 21.2% 9 38.2%

366+ days 25.5% 12 NA

Total Episodes 6105 35 -- DHS Research, Planning and Evaluation

Length of Placement Episodes – 5 year history Table 8a

Length of placement Episodes 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

1-7 days NA

9% 1/11

8.8% 3/34

8.5% 3/35

pending

DHS Research, Planning and Evaluation

33

C. Permanency Data Age Group of Children in Care – 2013 Table 9

Age Group

State %

Hubbard County #

Hubbard County %

0-3 Years 21.2% 14 20%

4-5 Years 9.2% 7 10%

6-11 Years 21.1% 10 14.3%

12-14 Years 13.3% 8 11.4%

15-17 Years 23.7% 21 30%

18-21 Years 11.5% 10 14.3%

Total Children in Care 11,510 70 Minnesota’s Child Welfare Report – 2013

Race of Children in Care - 2013 Table 10

Race State % of Placements

Hubbard County # of Children in

Placement**

Hubbard County % of Placements

% of Racial Group in Hubbard County’s

Population***

African American/Black 19.9% NA NA .4% American Indian or Alaska Native 17.2% 23 32.8% 2.6%

Asian/Pacific Islander/Other 2.3% NA NA .4%

White 46.7% 41 58.6% 94.8%

Two or More Races 12.6% NA NA 1.8%

Unable to Determine 1% NA NA NA

Total Children in Care 11,510 70

Hispanic Ethnicity* 9.3% NA NA 1.8% *Hispanic may be of any race Minnesota’s Child Welfare Report – 2013 ** The number of children is less than seven and is not shown to prevent identification of individuals ***Source: U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts

34

Children in Out-of-Home Care by Placement Setting-2013 Table 11 (Children may be counted in more than one placement setting)

Placement Setting

State %

Hubbard County #

Hubbard County %

Foster Family Non-Relative 38.8% 61 47.3%

Foster Family Relative (5 year history below) 16.5% 16 12.4%

Foster Home – Corporate/Shift Staff 1.6% NA NA

Group Home 9.5% 15 11.6%

Juvenile Correctional Facility (locked) 5.1% 6 4.6%

Juvenile Correctional Facility (non-secure) 4% 9 6.9%

Pre-Adoptive Non-Relative 3.9% 5 3.9%

Pre-Adoptive Relative (5 year history below) 2.4% 3 2.3%

Residential Treatment Center 16% 14 10.9%

Other* 2.3% NA

Total Placement Settings 19,315 129

*”Other” includes ICF/DD and Supervised Independent Living settings Minnesota’s Child Welfare Report - 2013 Rate of Relative Care – 5 year history Table 11a

Foster Care Placement

State Goal 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Foster Family Relative

45%

18% 9/50

23.8% 5/21

43.2% 16/37

36.7% 18/49

47.2% 34/72

DHS Child Welfare Data Dashboard • The percentage of children in family foster care or pre-adoptive homes who are placed in

relative family foster homes or relative pre-adoptive homes.

35

D. Child Well-being Data Monthly Caseworker Visits with Children in Foster Care Table 12

State Goal

State %

Hubbard County

% and #

Q4, 2014 (1/1/14 – 12/31/14) 95% 76.2% 92% 447/486

Q3, 2014 (10/1/13 – 9/30/14) (FFY) 90% 77.5% 90.6% 495/516

Q2, 2014 (7/1/13 – 6/30/14) 90% 78.9% 89.7% 382/426

Q1, 2014 (4/1/13 – 3/31/14) 90% 79.6% 83.3% 33/400

Q3, 2013 (10/1/12 – 9/30/13) (FFY) 90% 78.8% 80.8% 198/245

Q3, 2012 (10/1/11 – 9/30/12) (FFY) 90% 80.1% 40.7% 11/27

DHS Child Welfare Data Release Reports & Child Welfare Data Dashboard Physical Health Exams Table 13

State Goal State % Hubbard County % and #

Q4, 2014

70%

61.4% 62.9% 44/70

Q3, 2014 69.1% 64% 50/78

CY, 2013 70.5% 72.9% 51/70

DHS Child Welfare Data Dashboard • The percentage of children in out of home care for 30 or more days during a calendar

year who have received either a medical exam or a comprehensive child and teen checkup during that calendar year, or the year before.

Children’s Mental Health (CMH) Screening Table 14

State Goal State % Hubbard County % and #

Q4, 2014

60%

50.2% 25.3%

Q3, 2014 50.1% 27.55 22/80

CY, 2013 53.9% 19.4% 13/67

DHS Child Welfare Data Dashboard

36

• The percentage of children between the ages of 3 months to 18 years who received child protection, foster care or adoptive services who had at least one CMH screening during the current or previous year.

37

PART V: SUMMARY OF STRENGTHS AND NEEDS Based on examination of data and narrative responses provided in early sections of this report, summarize the information in response to the following questions.

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

Our median stay in foster care is less than the national standard, our 2014 percentage is also less than the previous year, so we are trending the right direction. The CP team meets daily to screen. New resources are always being sought and contracted. Service delivery continues to be addressed and improved upon.

2. What specific needs have been identified that warrant further examination in the onsite review? Note

which of these needs are the most critical to the outcomes under safety, permanency and well-being for children and families in the county.

Our overall percentages in regards to permanency are underwhelming. This appears to be a huge concern and there is review of statistics and specific cases already in process to address these concerns. Supervision is warranted to see timely contacts, plans, case notes and each worker needs to identify goals and barriers with their families. As I continue to learn more and more about SSIS, I learn that all of this information is there. I just need to continue to research it and develop our processes on how to address our weaknesses to provide the best protective services possible. MH Screenings and physical exams are two areas that definitely need strengthening for the youth that we have in care - and developing a process to facilitate their occurrence.

3. Please describe additional practices/needs related to achievement of safety, permanency and well-

being outcomes that the agency is interested in examining during the onsite review. Use/exploration of Extended Foster Care, Whole Family Placements, and Trial Home Visits

4. Please complete the following evaluation of the agency Self Assessment Update process in terms of

its usefulness to the agency and recommendations for revision. a) Were you allowed adequate time to complete the Self Assessment Update process?

Yes X No Comments: Plenty of time was allowed to complete the self-assessment and I appreciate this

consideration.

b) Did you find the data provided helpful to your evaluation of safety, permanency and well-being performance? Yes X No

Comments: Because these are not items I regularly review, it was an eye-opening experience.

c) Did you engage county/tribal child welfare staff and/or community stakeholders in the self- assessment process? Yes X No

Comments: Child Protection Social Workers and Case Aide assisted in the self-assessment process. Summaries were mine that I gather as a result of discussion at CJI, Multi-disciplinary Team Meetings, Community Meetings and workers conveying information to me.

38

d) Did you find the Self Assessment Update an effective process for evaluating your agency’s child welfare system? Yes X No

Comments: This tool provided a very thorough process for evaluating our system. And coupled with specific data was effective and provides a road map for improvement.

e) Will you use findings from the agency Self Assessment Update to plan for systemic and/or organizational improvements in your child welfare system? Yes X No

Comments: In determination of our strengths and weaknesses, definite systematic changes will be made going forward. Most specifically, changes need to be made in the MH Screenings, physical exams, timeliness of initial contact, and permanency.

f) Any additional comments or recommendations for improving the Self-Assessment Update

process: We have viewed the process thus far as a positive way to identify strengths, areas of

weakness, self-analysis, allowing us to see for ourselves the avenue for improvement.

minnesota department of human services child …...minnesota department of human services child and...

Documents