COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA

Eastern Regional Office

Quality Management Review

of the

CHILD WELFARE DIVISION VIRGINIA BEACH DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

July 2012

TABLE of CONTENTS

TOPIC

PAGE NUMBER

LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PERMANENCY (FOSTER CARE and ADOPTION) CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES RESOURCE FAMILIES INTERVIEWS WITH SUPERVISORS and OTHER PARTNERS INTERVIEW WITH JDR COURT JUDGE INTERVIEWS WITH VBDHS DIRECTOR, CITY MANAGER & OTHERS EMPLOYEE SURVEY

3 4 5 14 41 47 54 59 60 62

APPENDIX 1 - VIRGINIA CHILDRENS SERVICES PRACTICE MODEL

70

Virginia Department of Social Services

VDSS Review of the Child Welfare Division
of the

Virginia Beach Department of Human Services VDSS Quality Management Review Team Members

Stephen Blythe, Regional Director, Eastern Regional Office Patricia Panels, Regional Administrative Manager, Eastern Regional Office Jane Joyner, Permanency Program Consultant, Eastern Regional Office Gail Heath-Davidson, Child Protective Services Program Consultant, Eastern Regional Office Flora Harris, Resource Family Program Consultant, Eastern Regional Office Therese Wolf, Permanency Program Manager, Division of Family Services Vernon Simmons, Training Manager, Division of Family Services Cynthia Bauer, Permanency Policy Consultant, Division of Family Services Laura Polk, Curriculum Developer, Division of Family Services Elizabeth Bowen, Quality Analyst, Division of Family Services Lytricia Toler, Quality Analyst, Division of Family Services Monica Hockaday, Child Protective Services Consultant, Central Regional Office Sandra Bell, Resource Family Consultant, Northern Regional Office Mary Walter, Child Protective Services Policy Specialist, Division of Family Services Tracey Jackson, Family Engagement Sr. Program Consultant, Division of Family Services Lana Mullins (off-site), Resource Family Consultant, Western Regional Office Mary Norris (off-site), Child Protective Services Program Consultant, Western Regional Office Ed Schuster (off-site), Child Protective Services Program Consultant, Northern Regional Office

VDSS Quality Management Review of the Child Welfare Division of the Virginia Beach Department of Human Services March 2012

Executive Summary

The Virginia Department of Social Services (VDSS) conducted a Quality Management Review (QMR) of the Child Welfare Division of the Virginia Beach Department of Human Services (VBDHS) during the month of March 2012. The on-site portion of the review was conducted during the period March 6 9, 2012 by a fifteen member team of VDSS staff from different parts of the state. The review was initiated due to multiple, significant programmatic, practice and service delivery concerns expressed by the Child Welfare Program Consultants at the VDSS Eastern Regional Office in 2011 and early 2012. The primary focus of the QMR is on the social services being provided to children and families in Virginia Beach based on the Virginia Childrens Services Practice Model (Practice Model) and outcome measures of the Federal Child and Family Service Review (CFSR) criteria. In December 2007 the VDSS began a statewide reform initiative, known as the Virginia Childrens Services System Transformation (Transformation), to increase the effectiveness in assisting at-risk children and their families strengthen permanent family connections for children and youth. The goals of this initiative were: (1) to increase the number and rate at which youth in foster care move into permanent family arrangements (permanency), (2) to increase the number of placements of at-risk children and youth with relatives and/or foster parents, (3) to devote more resources to community-based care to prevent children from entering foster care unnecessarily, and (4) to embrace management by data and outcomebased performance management. A Council on Reform (CORE) was established to lead the statewide Transformation initiative. Thirteen local agencies, including the Virginia Beach Department of Human Services, made up the initial CORE group whose major purpose was to develop a common philosophy and methodology to guide this statewide paradigm shift in child welfare practice to improve services to and outcomes for children and families. A Practice Model (see Appendix 1), was developed to serve as guidance and assist in the implementation of the statewide reform. The majority of the 120 local departments of social services in the state have fully embraced the Childrens Services System Transformation and the Practice Model. As a result of this major statewide reform initiative, there has been a significant decrease in the number of children in foster care, a
5

significant decrease in the number of children in congregate care and group home settings and an ongoing reduction in the number of children coming into foster care. In December 2007, the thirteen CORE local agencies accounted for almost 50% of the states foster care population. Review of critical reform building blocks to include current practices involving Managing by Data, Resource and Family Development, Family Engagement, Family Partnership Meetings and Community Resource Development practices at the VBDHS are key components of the Childrens Services Transformation and, therefore, are included in the focus of this review. As a part of this review, child welfare supervisors completed a Family Services Self-Assessment questionnaire. Interviews were conducted with all of the approximately 105 local agency staff involved in the delivery of child welfare services as well as the local agency Director, Deputy Director, Director of the Adult and Family Services division, IT Manager, CSA Coordinator, supervisory staff, community partners, the Chief Judge of the Va. Beach Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts, Assistant City Attorneys, the Virginia Beach City Manager and sixteen resource families. An electronic, confidential survey was sent to all 105 child welfare staff. Seventy-nine out of 105 (75%) of the child welfare staff participated in and responded to the confidential survey.

Permanency (Foster Care and Adoption) Program Review Summary: Fifty permanency cases were selected to review the departments case practices based on the Virginia Childrens Services Practice Models core practice functions. Individual interviews were conducted with all social workers and supervisors assigned to the Foster Care and Adoption programs and collateral agency partners. A Child Welfare Self-Assessment document was completed by all of the supervisors. Although the VBDHS was one of thirteen CORE agencies, the agency has not embraced and does not practice the tenets of Transformation or the Practice Model. The staff needs to fully embrace the practice of Family Engagement in order to help provide more positive outcomes for children and families. The Director and other members of Management need to require accountability and incorporation of Family Partnership Meetings (FPMs) as a regular practice for every child and family, when appropriate, to help ensure more positive outcomes. FPMs should be held at every critical case point decision: when there is a change of placement, change of a goal, prior to reunification, prior to a childs 18th birthday and at the request of the child, family, resource parent or social worker. Only a few of the 27 workers interviewed demonstrated an understanding of Transformation or the Practice Model. Case reviews revealed that service plans are developed but documentation does not show evidence that the family is involved. Service plans are generalized and do not clearly identify and individualize the circumstances, strengths or needs of the child, parents or prior custodian. Cases reviewed and social workers interviewed reveal that most permanency workers do not understand or are not aware of the principles of Transformation or the Practice Model. During individual interviews, many permanency workers stated that they had never observed or been a participant in a FPM. Because the agency does not have an organized and solely identified Engagement
6

Program, FPMs are not an expectation or practice for foster care and adoption cases and, therefore, they occur on an infrequent basis. Relative searches were completed inconsistently. There was insufficient documentation in OASIS, the states child welfare data base, or in the hard copy case records to support that thorough relative searches were completed or continued for significant individuals or as permanent families throughout the childs involvement with the child welfare system. Based on information contained in the case records and interviews with staff, the agencys practice is to only contact family members when suggested by the parents. Permanent Foster Care was the selected goal by the VBDHS after several permanency planning hearings were held or when parents or prior custodians did not make significant progress in reuniting with their children. Although the goal of Permanent Foster Care is an allowable goal, it should only be used after all of the other goals have been examined. In contrast to child welfare practice at other local agencies in the state, the VBDHS highly promotes the goal of Permanent Foster Care. Accordingly, as of January 2012, the VBDHS had the second highest number of children in the state with the goal of Permanent Foster Care. Several youth placed in residential and group home settings by the VBDHS had approved Permanent Foster Care goals. This practice is contrary to state law and must be stopped immediately. According to VA Code 63.2-908, a child with the goal of Permanent Foster Care is to be placed in the residence of a person(s) who is/are determined to be appropriate in meeting the childs needs on a longterm basis. Residential facilities and group homes are not personal residences and, therefore, are not allowed by state law for placement of children with the goal of Permanent Foster Care. Placements in non-family settings should be temporary, should focus on individual childrens needs and should prepare them for return to family and community life. The VBDHS staff should meet routinely with the residential treatment facility or group home staff and discuss the process of a step-down plan for the children in these types of facilities as a step towards removing the child from the facility. This step-down approach may include the possibility of family members being involved, if not for placement, by taking an active role in the childs life with visits, phone and email contacts. Management at one residential facility used regularly by the VBDHS stated during an interview that they have tried, unsuccessfully, to get the staff at the VBDHS to work with them on several step-down situations. In each such case the VBDHS staff refused to participate in discussions involving a step-down approach and stated the children needed to be kept in a residential facility. Children placed in residential or group home settings had been in a facilitys care for long time periods with multiple placements. There was no documented evidence in the case records that efforts were being made by staff to continue the search for relatives or to seek support systems for lifelong connections for youth. The VBDHS has the highest number of children placed in congregate care (residential facilities and group homes) in the state. Appeal hearings after termination of parental rights often take from several months to several years. Incorporating Family Engagement practices (e.g., routinely communicating with parents and family

members throughout the familys judicial process) could help to resolve many of the adversarial relationships between the VBDHS staff and parents. Many adoption home studies for already-approved resource parents are delayed, and as a result, postponing permanency for children. The review team did not find evidence of child specific recruitment campaigns for special-needs children with severe disabilities or multiple placements. Data taken from SafeMeasures for the fourth quarter of years 2008 through 2011 shows that of the seven Level 3 Agencies in the Eastern Region, five of the seven agencies significantly decreased the number of foster children in care. In contrast, the Virginia Beach DHS had an increase in the number of children in foster care from 2008 through 2011. (See data from SafeMeasures in the chart on page 25.) The most significant change is noted in the number of children placed in residential and group home settings. Five large agencies in the Eastern region (Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Portsmouth and Norfolk) showed significant decreases in the number of children in congregate care. In comparison, the data for the VBDHS shows that the number of children in congregate care has increased over the baseline 2008 year and the total number of children in care has remained substantially the same. (See data from SafeMeasures in the chart on page 25.) Six out of ten (60%) of the residential foster care staff interviewed expressed to the interviewers local agency practices and beliefs that are in opposition to the VDSS Transformation initiatives and the Practice Model. They hold strong beliefs that most children placed in residential facilities or group homes should not be placed in any family setting since they had previous behavioral, substance abuse and/or mental health issues and the staff must look out for the safety of the citizens in the community. This is a work place culture change needing to be addressed and changed immediately by the Director of the VBDHS.

Child Protective Services Program Review Summary: A total of 100 CPS case records consisting of 68 ongoing records and 32 referrals were selected for review. Unit interviews were conducted with CPS staff and a Self-Assessment document was completed by supervisory staff. The Intake Unit staff expressed concerns that they are unable to take lunch or breaks unless they can secure their own coverage. The Unit is staffed by four social workers. The current phone system does not track how many CPS calls are waiting to be answered or are lost by not being answered in a timely manner. The Family Assessment and Investigations Unit staff stated that the VBDHS management instituted a monthly standard of no more than 7 overdue referrals for each worker with reprimands for noncompliance. Currently nineteen staff exceed this limit. Staff stated that they are not able to meet the new standard because it is too strict. Supervisors should perform a complete review (not a partial review which is the current practice) of the referrals and send them back to the staff one time for appropriate
8

action/follow-up on all of the deficiencies so they can be corrected and re-submitted to the supervisor within the required time frames to ensure compliance. No Family Partnership Meetings were documented in the Family Assessment (FA) or Investigation (INV) referrals. Two referrals reviewed involved children being taken into protective custody. This is one of the decision points when a Family Partnership Meeting (FPM) is to be held. This is consistent with the VBDHS management not embracing and implementing the Transformation initiatives and the Practice Model. At the time of the review, there were only seven facilitators for FPMs. If the agency were conducting all of the FPMs needing to be conducted, due to the high caseload several more trained facilitators will be needed to conduct FPMs. VDSS Broadcast 6142 issued on March 16, 2010, strongly encouraged all child welfare staff in each local agency statewide to take the on-line course, CSW 4010 and the instructor lead course, CSW 4020. These two courses focus on family engagement and the content and methodology of conducting Family Partnership Meetings. Only two VBDHS CPS staff have completed any Family Engagement training. In contrast, four other large, Level 3 agencies in the Eastern Region (Chesapeake, Newport News, Norfolk and Portsmouth) have between 20 and 57 child welfare staff who have completed both of these courses. Policy is not being followed when allegations of abuse/neglect in foster homes is reported. Allegations in at least five different foster care situations were never taken as valid reports and investigated. The practice may be to remove the alleged victim child or close the foster home. During staff interviews, CPS staff indicated the in-house training program for new CPS staff has not been offered for some time. Management has responded that experienced workers mentor, shadow and train new hirers while the in-house training program is being reestablished. FPMs are not held in those high-risk cases within 30 days of the case being opened to services, reflecting an overall lack of engagement with families. Service plans are not targeted to the needs of the family and there is little or no family input in the development of the service plans, as required.

Resource Family Program Review Summary: Thirty-eight cases were selected for review. Individual interviews were held with all eleven staff members and with sixteen resource families. There was insufficient or, in some cases, no documentation entered in the resource screen in OASIS. When contacts and visits were entered, very limited documentation was provided. Six cases were reviewed with allegations of abuse and neglect by resource families, according to the childs foster care record. In four of the cases, there was no documentation of CPS allegations in OASIS and none of the hard copy records contained documentation regarding the allegations. One case indicated that the abuser was unknown. There was very limited documentation of resource families competencies (skills and abilities) to meet the needs of the children. Agency team staffings to determine approval/denial of prospective resource
9

families are held but, according to staff, all decisions to approve the families are determined based solely on the desires of the supervisor without consideration of the input provided by members of the staffing team. There is no documentation added to the mutual family assessment when families are approved as TAFY families (a therapeutic foster parent program) regarding additional training or their ability to parent the children in the TAFY program. The TAFY program provides specialized foster care for children residing in the community who have emotional and/or behavioral issues. The agency does not make diligent efforts to engage resource families in working with biological families. Potential resource families were told during an orientation training session, attended by the reviewers, that the potential resource families would not have to communicate with the biological families. In another training session, also attended by the reviewers, potential resource families were told it was their choice whether or not the resource family wanted to work/communicate with the biological family. Only two of the sixteen families interviewed have participated in Family Partnership Meetings and none of the families interviewed have received training in Family Partnership Meetings except for the general information provided about FPMs during pre-service training. Within the TAFY unit (therapeutic foster parent program), the majority of the recruitment for foster parents is only general recruitment. There is limited child-specific recruitment for placements in the therapeutic foster homes.

Leadership

The Virginia Beach Department of Human Services is a large, complex organization offering an array of services through the Division of Adult and Family Services, Financial Assistance Division, the Juvenile Detention Center, Mental Health and Substance Abuse and the Pendleton Child Services Center. There are approximately 1,041 FTEs employed with the VBDHS. Leadership of the VBDHS is provided by the Director and the Deputy Director. The Director of the Adult and Family Services Division is responsible for Adult Protective Services, Child and Youth Services, Child Welfare Services, Foster Care, Adoptions, Child Protective Services, Prevention and Support Services, Employment Services and Day Care Support Services. There are approximately 161 FTEs in the Adult and Family Services Division. Eighteen supervisors report to the Director. Thirteen of the eighteen supervisors work with Child Welfare programs. Staff Feedback/Major Concerns: Many child welfare staff reported to the Review Team that there is low morale in the child welfare division, that staff members are looking for new jobs, that there are inconsistent policies/practices among supervisors and there is an overall lack of concern for employees. Caseloads, especially in the CPS day unit, are unmanageable and punitive action is allegedly taken when an employee fails to meet the agency standards. Staff reported that families are made to accept agency services by threat of court action if they do not agree/comply. Because of the staff turnover, the amount of time to hire and train new workers and
10

inexperienced staff needing close supervision, overtime has increased to the point where some staff members related being stressed beyond what is acceptable.

Data Sources: The data used in this report is taken from SafeMeasures, a web based, real-time database system which is updated every 24 hours. VBDHS management has questioned differences in SafeMeasures data compared to OASIS reports. SafeMeasures data may be different due to federal reporting requirements and daily updates which occur when agencies enter new information. MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS The VBDHS management and staff needs to fully embrace and practice the VDSS statewide Transformation initiative and the Practice Model immediately in order to achieve better and more positive outcomes for the children and families they serve. The VBDHS needs to work to reduce the number of children in congregate care (residential facilities and group homes) by reinforcing the belief that children and youth belong in family and community settings. The child welfare division staff needs to spend more time and effort focusing on older foster care youth in establishing permanent family connections. The Family Partnership Meetings need to be a strong program and practice recognized by all child welfare staff as a required component to all casework. Family Partnership Meetings should be held at every critical case point decision and specifically, within the Permanency Program, when there is a change of placement, change of a goal, prior to reunification, prior to a childs 18th birthday and at the request of the child, family, resource parent or social worker. More qualified, trained facilitators are needed to be available for FPMs on a daily basis, including emergency removals and critical case point decision meetings. Supervisors need to be consistent in implementing agency goals, practices and policies. Internal communications should involve input from line staff in order to increase ownership and a sense of satisfaction by the workers. Supervisors need to be available to staff for consultation when needed. Staff needs to have input in individual unit decision making. Systemic issues in the CPS unit need to be addressed immediately: High turnover in this unit, the amount of time to staff cases, the high workloads, the expected amount of significant staff overtime for case documentation and low morale. Management needs to assess the need for additional workers and/or redistributing worker caseloads or reassigning workers among units in order to better manage existing and future caseloads. The City Manager and the Director of the VBDHS should work together to assess the current VBDHS organizational structure to determine how the child welfare division can be reorganized
11

to have a more effective chain of command and provide for more effective delivery of services to children and families. The City Manager and the Director of the VBDHS need to work together to assess the Director of the Adult and Family Services Division whose leadership and/or management style is perceived as not effective within the division. There needs to be an assessment to include an honest, fact-based performance review of the supervisors in this division, some of whom are not providing effective supervision of their units. This assessment also may require providing additional supervisors to direct the efforts of the staff in the Child Welfare Division. The Adult and Family Services Division must be reorganized to significantly reduce the number of direct reports to the Director of the division. Currently there are 18 direct reports, which is an unmanageable situation and is perhaps a major contributing factor in the perceived lack of effectiveness of the division Director and problems with staff as reported in the confidential Employee Survey and during individual staff interviews. The Director of the VBDHS must be more involved in and knowledgeable about the work of the supervisors and staff in the social services side of the organization, particularly in the child welfare division. The Directors current span of control and responsibilities is too great for any one person to effectively manage. In order to provide for the proper and effective administration of social services, the City Manager and the Director need to have serious discussions and a detailed assessment on the merits of changing the present DHS organizational structure to separate the social services organization from the current structure and have a Director of Social Services and a separate Director of Mental Health and Substance Abuse. The VBDHS should strongly consider collaborating with several other, large DSSs who have embraced the Transformation initiatives and the Practice Model and who have made significant improvements on positive outcomes for children and families in their localities. Doing so will allow the VBDHS to learn best practices under common challenges faced and positive outcomes realized from other local departments ultimately resulting in better services to children and families.

CONCLUSION The Child Welfare Division of the VBDHS is a division in crisis and needs the immediate and on-going attention of the Director of the VBDHS. A significant culture change is needed. Corrective action needs to be taken immediately. There must be a significant reorganization of the child welfare division as well as an examination of caseload distribution, effectiveness and accountability of supervisors and a review of work flow and processes should take place immediately. Although the VBDHS was a CORE agency beginning in December 2007, the child welfare division has not embraced the statewide Transformation initiative or the Virginia Practice Model, as strongly recommended by the Virginia Department of Social Services. Very few Family Partnership Meetings are being conducted in relationship to the size of the agencys caseload and most of the FPMs that have been conducted do not fully comply with the VDSS guidelines for conducting FPMs. In several program areas, the division is not operating within policy guidelines and sound management practices. Child and Family Services Critical Outcome Scores, based
12

on federal criteria, place the VBDHS at or near the bottom in each major category when compared to the other 120 local agencies statewide. (see chart on page 24) The current training curriculum for resource families, developed in-house, is inadequate and, in some cases, inappropriate and must be stopped immediately. The agency must use the standardized, copyrighted curriculum such as that offered by PRIDE, MAPP or PATH. Other local agencies statewide use one of these three resources to provide training for resource families. Of the 120 local departments in the state, the VBDHS has the highest number of children in congregate care/group home facilities, so additional efforts must be made in this area to reduce the number of children in congregate care and return children to their families or to the community in foster homes. The VBDHS also has the second highest number of children in the state classified with the goal of Permanent Foster Care. The Director of the Adult and Family Services Division is not effectively performing the duties required of this position in such a large agency and appears to not have the professional respect of many of the child welfare staff working in this division. This also was confirmed by the results of the Employee Survey as well as during individual interviews with staff. An assessment needs to be made of the ability of the current Director of this large child welfare division to provide the type and level of supervision needed to effect the required changes and initiate best practice strategies recommended in this review. Many staff conveyed to the review team that the Director of the VBDHS is largely ineffective, distant, unresponsive to the needs of the organization and completely out of touch with the work being done by staff and supervisors in this division. The City Manager and the Director of the VBDHS need to collaborate and create a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) to be submitted to the Eastern Regional Office of the VDSS on or before September 1, 2012, in response to the numerous findings and recommendations included in this report. Adequate staffing, proper and effective supervision, staff training, adherence to VDSS recommendations on the proper implementation of Transformation initiatives and Virginias Practice Model, reducing the number of children in congregate care or group home facilities, conducting Family Partnership Team Meetings at the major decision points, increasing the number of trained facilitators, minimizing the practice of Permanent Foster Care, making significant changes to the type of training curriculum offered for potential resource families and improvement in the OASIS automated system documentation requirements are some of the major areas that need to be addressed immediately and addressed in the CAP. The CAP must include timelines for the achievement of each of the VDSS recommendations provided in this report. The VDSS staff will be available to assist in this undertaking but the major initiative and overall responsibility rests with the Director of the VBDHS.

13

PERMANENCY PROGRAMS (Foster Care and Adoption) Jane Joyner, Permanency Program Consultant, Permanency Team Leader The Virginia Beach Department of Human Services Permanency Program was assessed and evaluated based on how the agency applies the tenets of the Virginia Childrens Services Practice Model and outcomes of the Federal Child and Family Services Review Criteria (CFSR). This review focused on the following key areas: The adoption of the state-wide philosophy that supports family-focused, child-centered, community-based care with emphasis on permanence for all children (Virginia Childrens Services Practice Model (See Appendix #1) The implementation of the statewide strategy to increase availability and utilization of relative care and non-relative foster and adoptive placements to ensure that children can be placed in the most family-like setting that meets their needs The use of defined performance measures for monitoring/quality assurance system to identify and measure outcomes, monitor quality of practice, and improve accountability (SafeMeasures data base)

These critical reform areas were identified as the missing links in Virginias child welfare/child serving system. These strategies continue to be among the key drivers for improved outcomes for children in foster care in Virginia. Since the initiation of the Virginia Childrens Services System Transformation in 2007, the state as a whole has made remarkable improvements on the key outcomes: A 35.5 % decrease in the congregate care population between December 2007 and May 2011 A 10.6 % increase in kinship placements in the same time frame 69 % of children discharged in SFY 2011 went to permanent homes, compared with 61% in SFY year 2008, the baseline year for SafeMeasures data

Methodology of Selected Information for the Review: As of 1/31/2012, monthly data reported in SafeMeasures indicated that the agency had 248 children placed in their custody. Fifty cases (20%) were selected to determine the agencys practices and applications based on the Practice Model. The category breakdown for the 50 Permanency Cases reviewed were:
No.ofCases 16 12 12 5 5 Goal ReturnHome PermanentFosterCare Adoption IndependentLiving AnotherPermanentPlan LivingArrangement Additionalinformation 4cases<120days incare 12cases>450daysor15monthsincare Includesplacementinfamiliesandcongregatecare Includeschildrenplacedincongregatecare,siblinggroups <18years; goalapprovedpriorto7/2011 Childrenwithseveredisabilitiesrequiringlongtermresidential treatmentof6monthsorlonger

14

The review elements included agency practices relating to how a child is placed in foster care, the selection of the most appropriate permanency goal and timeliness to achieve the goal. The engagement of the childs family and significant relationships including the appropriate selection of the childs placements and efforts to stabilize the child were assessed. The Placement with Relative goal was reviewed from the 50 selected cases and was evaluated where the goal was either an initial, concurrent, subsequent or possible goal. Selection also included at least one case from each social workers caseload. In addition to reviewing OASIS 1 (Online Automation State Information System) case information and hard copies of the record, the following also was conducted: Twenty-seven social workers and five supervisors who are assigned to the Foster Care and Adoption Programs were individually interviewed. Collateral agency partners including Juvenile Domestic Relations Court personnel, city attorneys, guardian ad litems, and the local office of Comprehensive Services were interviewed. The review included a large sample of congregate care cases: 21 of the 50 cases reviewed were children placed in residential facilities or group home care. (It is significant that the VBDHS has the highest number of children in congregate care and/or group homes in the state.) Review of the local departments continuing and outdated practice of placing children in permanent foster care. Review of the local departments practice to conduct regular Family Partnership Meetings. Review of the critical outcome measures as provided by SafeMeasures 2 in comparison with other Eastern local agencies: all state level 3 agencies (largest in size); and overall of all agencies in the state.

Permanency planning with the child and family focuses on preserving the family, reunifying the family, or achieving permanency for the child with another family. It involves facilitating lifelong connections for the child with siblings, extended family, and other significant adults. It begins with the child and familys first contact with the childrens services system and continues with a sense of urgency until permanency is achieved. Permanency is only achieved when the child leaves foster care to live with a permanent family. The three permanency goals are: Return Home (Reunified with his family with custody transferred back to the parents) Placement with a relative who obtains custody of the child Adoption by a relative or non-relative Alternative foster care goals may be selected when the three priority permanency goals are determined to be inconsistent with the childs best interest. The two alternative goals are: Permanent Foster Care Another Planning Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA)
1 OASISistheonlinecasemanagementsystemforChildProtectiveServices,FosterCareandAdoption. 2 SafeMeasuresisacustomrealtimedatareportingandqualityimprovementsystemforchildwelfare.Thedatabaseis updateddaily. 15

Cases with goal of Return Home Sixteen cases consisting of 31 children with the goal of Return Home were reviewed. The average length of time of children in foster care at the time of the review was 17.8 months; one case with 3 children had been in care for 42 months, still with the goal of Return Home. The average age was 9 years, 3 months, one child was age 17 at the time of custody and now is age 18, and the youngest child was 1 year old. Six of 16 cases had at least one documented FPM. Eight of the 16 cases were sibling groups; in 5 of the 8 sibling groups, the children were placed in different resource family homes.

There were 11 cases with no indication of substantial progress being made by the birth parents or prior custodian, or there was lack of documentation to explain why the agency had not requested the court to change to another permanency goal. One case documented that the children were now placed with their mother and the agency was on track in transferring custody. Three cases where the children had been in care for less than 6 months, determination could not be made as to whether progress was being made. One case reviewed was a prevention case and the children did not enter care. The following are examples of cases which demonstrate these findings: In one case the childrens goal is that of Return Home, although the agency did submit the goal of Adoption and petitions for termination of parental rights after the children had been in care for 12 months. There was a lack of documentation for the courts decision to not proceed with the goal of Adoption. At the time of the review the children had been in care for over 24 months with no progress towards the goal of Return Home. In another case the child had been in care for 19 months with the goal of Return Home, but there was a lack of documentation that the agency assessed the appropriate needs of the family in order to achieve the goal. In another case the children have been in care for three and half years and the agency had just completed the sixth Permanency Planning Hearing with the submitted goal of Return Home. There was lack of documentation as to why the agency has not sought other permanent goals for this sibling group of three children, since the agency had significantly documented the parents lack of progress. Of the 16 cases reviewed with the goal of Return Home, there were six cases with documented family partnership meetings (FPM). One case documented a timely family partnership meeting. Another case had only one meeting although the child had been in foster care since 2010. One case with a FPM prior to the sixth permanency planning hearing had minimal documentation giving no information regarding the plan and outcome of the meeting.

16

Cases with goal of Placement with Relatives Ten cases were reviewed where the goal of placement with a relative was either a concurrent, previous, subsequent or a possible goal. With five of these cases the agency made attempts to contact several relatives. In one of the five cases, a Family Partnership meeting was held in order to appropriately assess the relatives for possible placement. The relative lived out of state and the agency immediately initiated an Interstate Compact Placement (ICPC). Five of the ten cases (50%) lacked diligent efforts to contact or place the children with a relative. In one case the agency had identified a paternal grandmother for possible placement for one of the siblings; however there is a lack of documentation as to the delay with obtaining an ICPC home study. The child had been in care for over 28 months. In another case, the child entered care at the age of 17 and documentation suggests that the agency did not consider the goal of relative placement but rather moved to the goal of Independent Living as a concurrent goal upon entry into foster care. There was lack of documentation for why relatives were not considered as a placement option. Another case reviewed did not include documentation as to why efforts were not made to identify relatives by an Accurint* 3 Search or engaging the birth mother. One case in which the childrens goal was initially Placement with Relative, an ICPC emergency request was initiated. The children, a set of twins, were born prematurely and needed extensive medical care. The paternal aunt who was contacted was a registered nurse with adequate income. Not documented in the OASIS record, but found in the hard copy of the case, was a letter from the paternal grandmother who was moving in with her daughter (aunt) to provide child care. In addition, the aunt had also hired a nanny to provide additional support. There was lack of documentation in the OASIS record of follow up from the agency. It was reported in the service plan that the aunt was no longer interested in obtaining custody because she had a disagreement with her brother, the childrens father. Reported in the case of a 15 year old youth who had been in care for over 3 years was his grandmother who expressed interest in obtaining her grandsons custody. The agency worker reported that the grandmother did not have the means and she is not in a financial position. However, the grandmother was not given the option to be approved as a relative foster care placement for the child. There was no extended help given to the grandmother until recently when it was noted in the foster care review that transportation would be provided by the agency and she would be included in family counseling with her grandson.

3 VDSShascontractedwithLexisNexistoprovideasearchtoolcalledAccurinttoalllocaldepartmentsofsocialservices. Accurintwasdesignedtofindfamilymembersandotherinterestedadultsasaresourcetochildren/youthconnectedwith thechildwelfaresystem.Italsohelpsfindinformationforadultadoptees. 17

Cases with the goal of Adoption Twelve cases were reviewed which consisted of a total of 22 children with the goal of Adoption. Of the 22 children, only 6 children had Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) completed within 17 months or less of the original custody date, which is within the 24 month acceptable time frame for adoption. The 22 children with the goal of adoption were in the following stages of the adoption process: 5 children with goal of adoption - petition for TPR has not been filed with the court 11* children with termination of parental rights, not placed in an adoptive home 5 children placed in non-finalized adoption placement 1 child awaiting results of appeal of termination of parental rights *40 months average time in foster care without an adoption placement, which greatly exceeds the 24 month standard

In reviewing these 12 cases it is important to note barriers that were common to achieving adoption. One such barrier was timely Circuit Court and Court of Appeals decisions on TPR cases. Of 12 cases reviewed three cases were held in TPR appeals for 15 months to 17 months. One case had a pending Circuit Court Appeal of 17 months with no resolution. A second barrier was the completion of timely adoptive home studies. Of the 12 cases reviewed it was documented in two cases that the adoptive placement agreement would go forward upon completion of the adoptive home studies. It was noted the families were on a waiting list for this to be completed. These families were existing resource families leading to the question of the need of an adoptive home study. Of the 12 cases reviewed, three cases had placement disruptions and two cases had a goal change. The three cases that experienced placement disruptions had no documentation of a family partnership meeting. One case with a goal change did not have a documented family partnership meeting. Three of the 22 children have been in foster care for several years without an adoptive placement. One child placed in foster care at age 8, has experienced 37 foster care placements since 2005, of which 15 were in residential facilities, group home settings or hospitalizations. Although not noted in the childs OASIS case, the hard copy case record contained documentation that this child has several older siblings who had not been contacted for possible family connections or support, even if not for placement options. Another child also placed in a group home setting has been in foster care for 5 years and 8 months. The agency was diligent in initially placing this child and his siblings with relatives but the placement was unsuccessful. His siblings are now in adoptive placements. The child has severe behavior problems and is in treatment and the social worker along with the group home staff are recruiting for an adoptive placement.

18

A child with the goal of adoption has been in foster care for nine years. He has been in his current foster to adopt placement since October 2011. The service plan states that he will be placed on an adoptive basis with this family after a period of six months. It was unclear if this family has the support and services needed to eventually adopt the child.

Cases with goal of Permanent Foster Care Twelve cases consisting of 13 children with the goal of Permanent Foster care were reviewed. Children with this goal had an average length of time in foster care of 5 years, 4 months. The children had an average number of six placements, with the highest number of 16 placements for one child in care for nine years. The average age was 15 years, 8 months. Two of the 13 children had completed termination of parental rights, while the remaining 11 children had parents whose legal rights had not been terminated and who the children had not lived with or had contact with for several years. Eight children were placed in residential facilities or group home settings, and 5 children were placed in treatment foster homes. One child, placed in a residential facility, was last placed with a family for 5 days in September 2008.

All 8 children placed in either a residential facility or group home did not have an identified permanent foster family with whom they had a clearly established and documented significant relationship, as required by Virginia law. 4 Residential programs and group homes are not personal residences. This practice must be stopped immediately. Also according to VA Code 63.2-908, the LDSS shall petition the court to approve a Permanent Foster Care placement for a child. The roles and responsibilities of the LDSS, foster parents, birth parents or previous caretakers and, if appropriate, the child, are contained in a mutually developed and signed agreement. Five children were placed in treatment foster homes. One child had an approved Permanent Foster Care Agreement, another child had an approved agreement signed and approved by the court 18 months after the court had approved the goal, which should have been done 18 months earlier at the time of the court hearing and signing of the agreement, and 3 children who had approved goals of Permanent Foster Care did not have an approved Permanent Foster Care agreement. Three cases with the goal of Permanent Foster Care and with a Permanent Foster Care agreement approved by the court were moved to one or more placements without the original Permanent Foster Care agreement dissolved by the court as required by Virginia law (63.2-908). Only two of the 12 cases had one documented Family Partnership Meeting. Some cases included a notice of placement change letter sent to the birth family. No other cases had documented FPMs for a placement change, a goal change or to prevent disruption and to preserve a placement.
4 AccordingtotheVACode63.2908,achildwiththegoalofPermanentFosterCareistobeplacedintheresidenceofa person(s)whoisdeterminedtobeappropriateinmeetingthechildsneedsonalongtermbasis. 19

Service Plans, specifically Part B, were reviewed to determine the reasons given as to why the alternative goal of Permanent Foster Care was chosen and why the other permanency goals of return home, placement with relatives and adoption were ruled out. The following are examples of inappropriate, written statements submitted to the JDR courts by the local agency: Given the childs ongoing behavioral and mental health issues, it is the agencys recommendation that the childs goal be changed to permanent foster care. Adoption is not an option because of the childs age and emotional/behavioral needs. Due to elimination of Independent Living as a foster care goal, Permanent Foster Care is the most appropriate goal at the time for (Child), given his age and family situation. Other reasons included that the child was bonded to the birth parent, the parents could not be located, and the child did not want to be adopted. There was no documented evidence that the foster parents had been asked if they wish to adopt the child.

Other findings indicated that there was insufficient to no documentation in the OASIS cases or hard copies to support that thorough relative searches were completed or searches were continued for relatives and significant individuals or as permanent families throughout the childs involvement with the child welfare system. When a search was conducted either the paternal side or maternal side were researched at least to grandparents, but not beyond.

Cases with goal of Independent Living Five cases with the goal of Independent Living were reviewed. Since this alternative goal has been eliminated, the youths permanency goal was approved by the court prior to July 1, 2011. The similar findings of these cases were that the youth had several goals and placement changes, and even if the previous goal was a permanent goal, at age 16 the goal was immediately changed to Independent Living. None of the cases had documented family partnership meetings and there was lack of documentation of continued relative searches while the youth remained in long term care. Two children were placed in congregate care (residential, group home) and 3 children were currently placed in treatment foster care homes, but all had at least one residential placement. Another noted similarity is that the agency has a tendency to use larger therapeutic homes supervised by one set of house parents and refer to these group homes as either family foster homes or therapeutic foster homes. In one case the youth wanted to be adopted by the same family who had adopted his sister and the family was also requesting to adopt the youth. There was no FPM to determine if this was possible or what services the family would need for support. The youth was placed with the family as a treatment foster care placement with the goal of IL. Although the family had demonstrated their commitment to the youth over several years there was no documentation of a discussion with the foster parents to adopt the youth.
20

In another case, a sibling group of two was separated in different placements. The older sibling expressed her wishes to be placed with her sister and have contact with her brother, but the record indicates that youths wishes were not recognized. Nor did the agency discuss with the other childs foster parents the possibility of also caring for the older youth or for the other siblings to have more involvement with their older sister. The agency had team meetings but the child, family members or foster parents were not included.

Cases with goal of Another Planned Permanency Living Arrangement The selection of another planned permanent living arrangement is appropriate only if the child has a severe chronic emotional, physical, or neurological disabling condition for which the child requires longterm residential treatment of six (6) months or longer ( 16.1-282.1 A). Selection of this goal requires that all permanency and other alternative goals have been ruled out as not being in the best interest of the child. Opportunities to change the goal and facilitate reunification, adoption, or placement with and custody by a relative shall continue to be pursued. Five cases were reviewed with the goal of Another Planned Living Arrangement. With the exception of one child now placed in a foster home, 4 children were placed in a residential placement. Two of the children are placed out of state, and one child is 3 travel hours away from his parents. The common factors found in these cases were lack of FPMs and lack of documentation to indicate that efforts were being made to achieve permanency in seeking lifelong connections for the child. As also found with the Independent Living cases, the OASIS record did not describe or give details of the childs mental health diagnosis, and it could only be ascertained from the hard copy. The childrens ages ranged for 6 to 17 years with at least two residential placements. One child, who has been in care since age 6 and is now age 12, also has a concurrent goal of adoption. This child has since been placed in a foster home and the agency worker is preparing to place this child for adoption. Another child, age 7, placed in residential care with no plans to return home due to safety issues for the younger siblings according to the parents, is being considered for placement with an aunt via completion of the home study. In one case, the youth was placed in care at age 13 and is now age 15. He has experienced 8 placements, 5 of those placements in residential placements. He is currently placed out of state. There is no documentation that shows efforts being made to find a permanent placement or to seek lifetime family connections for this youth. Another youth who has been in care since age 8 and is now age 17 has lived in 13 different placements. She is currently placed in an out of state residential treatment center. She has had two goals: Permanent Foster Care and Another Planned Permanency Living Arrangement. The youth was last placed with a foster family at age 10. She has been in her current placement for 2 and half years. This youth will soon
21

be age 18 and will graduate from high school. She wants to live with her family who she has only had limited phone contact. The child has lived in institutional care for the last 7 years. The agencys plan is for the youth to be transitioned to a group home where she can also receive Independent Living services, but the youth wants emancipation. Managing by Data: Since 2009, the VDSS has had a contract with the Childrens Research Center and has acquired SafeMeasures, a comprehensive reporting and quality improvement data system that allows for drill down data analysis and report publishing. All 120 Local Departments of Social Services are able to use SafeMeasures to view current performance on specific measures and the agencys performance over time. The VBDHS has had this tool since 2009 to assist them in taking corrective action to improve both data and service delivery. Statewide improved results have been observed around the majority of Transformation outcomes: Reducing the number of children in group care placements Increasing exits to permanency Increasing the number of children in family based care

The January 2012 SafeMeasures report shows the VBDHS had a total of 248 children in agency custody. The VBDHS is one of seven Level 3 (largest size) agencies in the Eastern region and one of 26 Level 3 agencies in Virginia. In January 2012, VBDHS had the highest number of children (248) in agency custody compared to the other 22 local agencies in the Eastern region. It was second in the state for the highest number of children in foster care, exceeded only by Fairfax County, the largest local agency in Virginia, having a total number of 338 children in foster care. The data below shows the total number of children in care as of January 31, 2012 is 248, with 57 (23%) of the children in congregate care.
PlacementCategoriesforChildreninCareVirginiaBeachDepartmentofHumanServicesasof1/31/12(rundate2/7/12) (Source:SafeMeasures) TypeofPlacement No.ofchildren % FamilyHomeNonRelative CongregateCareresidential/group Placedinnonfinalizedadoptivehome FosterHomeRelative IndependentLiving TrialHomeVisit Other 160 57 6 2 10 11 2 64.5% 23.0% 2.4% 0.8% 4.0% 4.4% 0.8%

22

TypeofPlacementforChildreninCareVBDHS
2 6 2 10 11

FamilyHome NonRelative CongregateCare residential/group Placedinnonfinalizedadoptive home FosterHome Relative IndependentLiving

57 160

TrialHomeVisit Other

(Source:SafeMeasures)

VBDHS had the highest number of children in congregate care among all 23 agencies in the Eastern Region and the largest number of children in congregate care among all 120 agencies in the state. The agency also had the lowest percentage of children placed in non-finalized adoptive homes among the Level 3 Eastern region agencies, but a higher percentage of children placed in non-finalized adoptive placements than five agencies of the 26 statewide Level 3 agencies.

VBDHS Child and Family Service Review (CFSR) Critical Outcome Reports Time period: August 2011 through December 2011 The Critical Outcomes Scorecard for all 120 local agencies statewide is published in a VDSS data base known as SafeMeasures. The scorecard uses federal criteria and measures the local agencies based on the following criteria: Number and percentage of children discharged to permanency Number of children placed in congregate care, family based care and kinship care Percentage of Foster Care worker monthly visits with children in care Amount of time the children have been in care Number of children reunifications within 12 months Number of children who re-enter foster case within 12 months of discharge Number of children adopted within 24 months of original custody date Placement stability two or less placements within first 12 months of custody No abuse within the last year while in Foster Care No reoccurrence of founded abuse or neglect (maltreatment) within the last six months

23

Comparison of the VBDHS CFSR Critical Outcome Scores to the 23 local agencies in the Eastern Region

The chart below indicates the composite scores of the VBDHS compared to the composite scores of the other 22 local agencies in the Eastern region. As shown, from August 2011 to December 2011, the VBDHS consistently ranked last among the 23 local agencies in the Eastern region.

CFSRCriticalOutcomesScorecardfor23LocalAgenciesintheEasternRegion
90 80 78.6 70 60 50 40
35.7

85.7 78.6 78.6

64.3
50.0 42.9 50.0 50.0

P e r c e n t

30 28.6 20 10 0 Aug.2011 Sept.2011 Oct.2011 Nov.2011 Dec.2011 VBDHSScore AllOther22EasternRegionAgencies,lowesttohighestscores 28.6 21.4 21.4 28.6

(Source:SafeMeasuresrundate3/5/12)

Comparison of the VBDHS CFSR Critical Outcome Scores to all 120 Local Agencies Statewide

During the five month period August 2011 to December 2011, the VBDHS ranked at or near the bottom in composite scoring compared to all of the 120 local agencies statewide. The following ranking information of the VBDHS compared to all 120 local agencies statewide is provided:

August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011

Tied with another agency for next-to-last statewide ranking in 118th place Ranked 119th out of 120 Ranked 120th - lowest in the state Ranked 118th out of 120 Ranked 117th out of 120
24

(Source:SafeMeasuresrundate5/24/12)

The table below is based on the quarterly reports provided by SafeMeasures beginning with the 4th quarter of 2008, which is the baseline year, through the last quarter of 2011. Data extracted is from the seven Level 3 Eastern Region agencies. The table shows that from the baseline year, 4th quarter of 2008, when SafeMeasures was in full operation and accessible to all state agencies, that five of the seven Eastern Region agencies decreased the number of foster children significantly. Only Virginia Beach and Chesapeake agencies show an increase in the number of children in foster care from 2008 through December 2011.
Eastern Region Quarterly Reports: Level 3 Agencies 4th Qtr 2008 thru 4th Qtr 2011 (Oct. 1st thru Dec. 31st) Year Total#of Childrenin Care 233 253 254 245 302 265 258 240 89 79 79 99 165 146 159 125 104 72 44 41 54 56 49 37 230 169 167 131 17 6 6 2 7 5 7 8 7% 4% 4% 2% 1 2 3 0 13% 9% 14% 22% 28 19 5 2 1% 3% 7% 0% 10 9 6 2 17% 13% 3% 2% 49 36 27 22 11% 11% 8% 2% #ofChildrenin CongregateCare 45 44 51 58 16% 14% 10% 9% CongregateCare % 19% 17% 20% 24%

VirginiaBeach 2008 2009 2010 2011 Norfolk 2008 2009 2010 2011 Chesapeake 2008 2009 2010 2011 Portsmouth 2008 2009 2010 2011 Hampton 2008 2009 2010 2011 Suffolk 2008 2009 2010 2011 NewportNews 2008 2009 2010 2011 (Source:SafeMeasuresrundate3/5/12)

25

350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2008 (Source:SafeMeasures) 2009

Totalnumberofchildrenincare Level3EasternRegionagencies 2008to2011

VirginiaBeach Norfolk Chesapeake Portsmouth Hampton Suffolk NewportNews

2010

2011

The greater significant changes were noted in the number of children placed in residential and group home settings. Five of the seven agencies (Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Portsmouth and Norfolk) showed a decrease in the number of children placed in congregate care settings. VBDHS figures indicate that from 2008 through the 4th quarter of 2011, three out of four recorded years show that the number of children placed in congregate care increased significantly.
Numberofchildrenincongregatecare 2008to2011
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 49 45

58 VirginiaBeach Norfolk Chesapeake Portsmouth 28 22 17 10 7 1 2008 2009 2010 8 2 0 2011 Hampton Suffolk NewportNews

26

The data provided below shows that the largest Level 3 agencies in each of the other four regions in the state have experienced significant improvements in not just reducing the number of children in care but also the percentage of children in congregate care settings.
Other Regions Quarterly Reports: Level 3 Agencies 4th Qtr 2008 thru 4th Qtr 2011 (Oct. 1st thru Dec. 31st) Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2008 2009 2010 2011 2008 2009 2010 2011 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total#of Children inCare 423 335 301 232 365 343 332 323 368 294 256 228 160 167 143 155 CongregateCare% 27% 22% 23% 19% 23% 19% 18% 14% 10% 11% 9% 12% 6% 5% 2% 3%

Richmond Fairfax/FallsChurch Roanoke WiseCounty

#ofChildrenin CongregateCare 118 75 70 46 82 65 60 47 35 31 23 27 9 8 3 5

(Source:SafeMeasures3/5/12) 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2008 (Source:SafeMeasures) 2009 2010 2011

Totalnumberofchildrenincare LargestLevel3agenciesinotherregions 20082011

Richmond Fairfax/FallsChurch Roanoke Wise VirginiaBeach

27

Numberofchildrenincongregatecare LargestLevel3agenciesinotherregions 20082011

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2008 (Source:SafeMeasures) 2009 2010 2011 Richmond Fairfax/FallsChurch Roanoke Wise VirginiaBeach

Family Partnership Meetings engage family and other significant members involved in the childs life, recognizing that family members should be heard, valued, and considered in the decision-making regarding safety, permanency and well-being. As the chart below shows, VBDHS has the lowest percentage (18%) of FPMs compared to the total number of children in care when compared to the other six Level 3 agencies in the Eastern Region.

300 FamilyPartnershipMeetingscomparedtotheNumberofChildreninCarein2011 250 200 150 100

46% 173% 18% 32% 27% 98% 46%

50 0 Chesapeake Hampton #ofFPMs #ofchildrenincare 46 99 71 41 Newport News 129 131

Norfolk 110 240

Portsmouth 40 125

Suffolk 10 37

Virginia Beach 44 245

(Source:DivisionofFamilyServices) 28

Agency strengths found from case readings and staff interviews: Permanency Workers are committed to the belief that all children and youth deserve a safe environment and that a childs safety comes first. This was demonstrated by agency workers taking immediate action responding to children who reportedly receive alleged abuse or neglect by caregivers. When the needs of children in foster care are identified, appropriate services referrals are immediately initiated. When the childrens goal was adoption, the agency made efforts to place siblings together. Of the 12 adoption cases reviewed, six of 12 cases contained sibling groups. Of the six sibling group cases, four sibling groups were placed in the same resource home. Social Workers take pictures of children on a regular basis regardless of age or goal. The pictures are placed in the hard case record or in the childs life book. Permanency Workers are committed to compliance as demonstrated in making timely face to face visits with children, timeliness for submitting court documents, timeliness of court hearings, and ensuring children have regular and routine physical and dental check-ups. When a placement change occurs, a letter of notification is sent to the parents. PERM Finding-01: VBDHS has not fully embraced nor do they practice the beliefs of the Virginia Childrens Services Practice Model. They ensure safety for the child in a collaborative effort with agency staff and the community but they do not fully and deliberately engage the childs family or practice the other tenets of the Practice Model. Recommendation: The agency needs strong leadership which understands and embraces the importance of Family Engagement which is the primary door through which we help families make positive changes. Management needs to require accountability and incorporation of Family Partnership Meetings (FPMs) as an expected and regular practice of engagement for every child and family. Management needs to provide adequate staff and support assistance to implement a successful program to ensure positive outcomes for children. PERM Finding-02: Cases reviewed and social workers interviewed revealed that most permanency workers do not understand or are aware of the principles of the Practice Model. Workers stated that CPS workers conduct FPM. Several Permanency workers stated that they had never observed or been a participant in the meetings. Few had requested a FPM and the majority interviewed did not know that a FPM was required for critical case point decisions. Foster care residential workers stated that they do not have FPMs because they do not work with the childrens families although they do notify them about treatment team meetings.
29

Recommendation: Family Partnership Meetings should be held at every critical case point decision and specifically within the Permanency Program when there is change of placement, change of goal, prior to reunification, prior to a childs 18th birthday and at the request of the child, family, resource parent or social worker. FPMs should be documented in OASIS not only for accountability but also for state incentive funding. Incentive awards are provided as incentive to support the continuation and improvement of agency engagement activities. FPMs should be conducted for all children in foster care including children who are placed in residential treatment facilities and in group home settings. Diligent searches for relatives must be ongoing and even if without successful results. FPMs should include significant and important relationships which the youth or others identify. PERM Finding-03: Because the agency does not have an organized and solely identified Engagement Program, FPM is not an expectation for all critical decision points and therefore the FPMs occur on an irregular basis. Recommendation: The FPM needs to be a strong program recognized by all staff as a required component to all case practice. The agency needs to re-structure and re-organize the FPM process from intake to on-going requirements of scheduling, follow-up and review of outcomes. Other state agencies similar in size or smaller than VBDHS have several trained and qualified facilitators and support staff which provides needed facilitators for FPMs on a daily basis. Also, the agency needs more qualified and well trained facilitators who understand the differences among engagement, mediation, and service planning meetings. To ensure that the agency is correctly conducting FPMs to produce the most optimal outcomes for children and families, it is recommended that a third party reviewer, such as a trained and experienced facilitator from another local agency, observe meetings and evaluate the VBDHS FPM process. PERM Finding-04: Training transcripts showed that only two of the 27 permanency workers had attended Family Partnership Trainings (CWS 4010 and CWS 4020) which were introduced in the Spring of 2010 and is on-going. One Permanency Supervisor attended (CWS 4030) but their transcript did not include the two prerequisite FPM courses (CWS 4010 and 4020). Only one worker had attended all three trainings which also included CWS 4030, yet the agency management still has not required Child Welfare supervisors and staff to attend these trainings. Recommendation: All VBDHS Child Welfare staff should be required by Management to attend Family Engagement courses 4010 (on-line) and 4020 (instructor lead) as strongly recommended by VDSS Broadcast #6142, dated March 16, 2010. Family Engagement and Family Partnership Meetings can only be effective if both facilitators and agency staff understand the process and their critical roles.
30

Moreover, due to size of the agency and the number of families they serve, more qualified and trained facilitators are needed to be available for FPM on a daily basis including Emergency Removals and critical case point decision meetings. VBDHS management should identify more staff members as facilitators with the requirement of attending all state Family Engagement trainings including Facilitator Training (CWS 4030). Facilitators and staff need to be flexible in scheduling FPM to adjust to the needs and schedules of family members. PERM Finding-05: There was a lack of documentation describing engagement and interaction between the agency social workers and the family at the first contact. Permanency workers receiving transferred cases from CPS do the immediate child related intake activities and case opening requirements. The meetings with parents or prior custodians are held to discuss the information of foster care expectations and to gather information about relatives who may be possible placement options for the child. Although this information is vital and important, there is no documentation that indicates a sense of engagement by the use of a social history, family background, or conversation in getting to know the individual on a meaningful level. Recommendation: Based on the belief that family members are the experts about their own families, it is the agencys responsibility to understand children, youth, and families within the context of their own family rules, traditions, history, and culture. Therefore, agency expectations should include the process of engaging families with the first contact by listening attentively and gathering information about the family in a safe and non-judgmental setting. This information should be clearly documented in the OASIS record. PERM Finding-06: Service plans are developed but case record documentation does not show evidence that the family is involved. Workers expressed that with the few FPMs held, the social worker discussed the service plan, which is not the intent or purpose of a FPM. Required services are listed but service plans do not detail as to when, where and who will make the referrals or who will provide the services. Service Plans are generalized which does not clearly identify and individualize the circumstances or needs and strengths of the child and the parents or the prior custodian. OASIS court screens are incomplete and the narratives do not include details of court hearings. Recommendation: Service Plans should be individualized for the uniqueness of every child and family. Service plans should be developed through collaboration with families, to implement creative, individual solutions that build on their strengths to meet their needs. Service plans should detail where, when and what services are required and who will provide the services. The OASIS court screen should be completed and the case narrative should describe who attended the court hearing and the outcomes including details of any court orders.
31

VBDHS workers should be available to assist the family in accessing services by removing any barriers that may prolong successful service completion. Workers should be partnering with providers by keeping abreast of the familys attendance and participation. Regular face to face visits and phone contacts must be documented in the case record to indicate the workers continued involvement in assisting and encouraging the family to ultimately reunite with their children in the least amount of time. The agency should consider creating Parent Specialist positions working directly with biological parents which have proven successful in other local agencies in achieving reunification in the least amount of time.

PERM Finding-07: Relative searches were completed inconsistently. Those relatives who were contacted were usually grandparents but other adult family members were rarely contacted. The agency only contacted family members suggested by the parents. There was insufficient to no documentation in the OASIS cases or hard copy case records to support that thorough relative searches were completed or searches were continued for relatives and significant individuals to serve as permanent families throughout the childs involvement with the child welfare system. Copies of letters notifying relatives within 30 calendar days after the childs removal from their parents or prior custodians home were not found in hard copy files. Recommendation: In accordance with (Social Security Act, Title IV, 471 (a) (29) [42 USC 671]), the VBDHS shall document diligent efforts to notify in writing all grandparents and other adult relatives, both maternal and paternal, when the child is being removed or has been removed. Parents and relatives should be actively engaged in decision making for the child through a Family Partnership Meeting prior to removing the child whenever possible. This written notice shall occur within 30 calendar days after removing a child from the custody of the parent(s) (Social Security Act, Title IV, 471 (a) (29) [42 USC 671]). LDSS may contact relatives without the familys consent, written release, or court order when the LDSS determines that disclosure of information is in the childs best interests and the person has a legitimate interest. The LDSS has authority to contact parents, grandparents, or any other individuals that the LDSS considers a potential caretaker for the child who is involved with child protective services, if the child has to be removed from the parent or custodian ( 63.2-105; 22 VAC 40-705-160 B; 22 VAC 40-705-10).

PERM Finding-08: After the termination of their parental rights ordered by the Virginia Beach Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court (JDRC), parents often file an appeal with the Circuit Court. The resolution of appeals often takes several months to years therefore delaying permanency for the child.

32

Recommendation: As the agency incorporates and integrates the concepts of engagement and the Practice Model, the possibility of adversarial relationships between the agency and parents should decrease, thus resulting with parents agreeing to sign Permanent Entrustments and developing Post Adoption Contact and Communication Agreements with adoptive parents. Also, the agency and their legal teams should routinely communicate concerning issues which may be resolved from the first contact, prior to the first foster care hearing, and throughout the familys involvement with the judicial process. PERM Finding-09 Adoption home studies for already approved resource parents were delayed and placed on a waiting list, thus delaying permanency for children. Recommendation: Dual approved resource families have already been approved as both foster and adoptive families. Other than updating to ensure that the home study is current, when the child is free for adoption and has lived with the family for six consecutive months, the finalization of adoption should be initiated immediately. PERM Finding-10: There were no child specific recruitment campaigns for special needs children with severe disabilities and multiple placements. Recommendation: The agency did register the child with the Adoption Resource Exchange of VA, and made some efforts to place children, but more diligent efforts are needed. VBDHS does not contract with Child Placing Agencies which are awarded grants by the VDSS to create and develop child specific recruitment activities at no cost to local agencies. Therefore, it is recommended that the agency partner with one or more of the contracted agencies to make diligent efforts for the children who need this service. PERM Finding-11: A childs goal was changed from adoption to permanent foster care and it was stated in the service plan that the child did not want to be adopted. Recommendation: The agency needs to educate children and families of the benefits of permanency which adoption provides. Both children and parents often believe, incorrectly, that it means a complete break from all family members. The agency needs to solicit the services of therapists and counselors who can provide the level of understanding for children and their families. The agency also can partner with Project Life
33

staff to provide direct training to the youth regarding adoption whose parents parental rights have been terminated. PERM Finding-12: In several of the reviewed cases, Permanent Foster Care was the selected foster care goal after several permanency planning hearings and when parents or prior custodians did not make significant progress to be reunited with their children. Compelling reasons given did not meet the criteria for not petitioning the court for termination of parental rights. Recommendation: The agency needs to follow the federal law, PL 105-89 (Adoptions and Safe Families Act of 1997) which requires that the LDSS petition for TPR by the end of the 15th month of placement for children adjudicated abused and neglected, who have been in care 15 of the last 22 months and by the end of the 15th month of placement for all other children who have been in care 15 out of the last 22 months unless an exception cited above exists. Although in some cases exceptions may exist, the goal of permanency achieved in the least amount of time should be the ultimate standard to include legitimate, documented efforts and any reasons why permanency is being delayed. PERM Finding-13: Permanent Foster Care goal was submitted to and approved by the VA Beach Juvenile Domestic Relations Court when the child and the foster parent did not have a well established and significant relationship nor did the court approve a Permanent Foster Care Agreement signed by both the youth and the foster parent. Youth placed in residential and group home settings had approved Permanent Foster Care Goals. Recommendation: According to VA Code 63.2-908, a child with the goal of Permanent Foster Care is to be placed in the residence of a person(s) who is determined to be appropriate in meeting the child's needs on a long-term basis. Residential programs and group homes are not personal residences. VBDHS should only submit the Permanent Foster Care goal in accordance with VA Code 63.2-908. Prior to the selection of Permanent Foster Care, the agency must document all diligent efforts made to rule out all permanency goals. If parental rights have been terminated, the agency should document discussions of adoption with the youth and the foster parent. Consider residential placements for short term, temporary placements when the child requires crisis stabilization or intensive treatment that cannot be safely or effectively provided in a family setting. Begin immediately developing and implementing a plan for returning the child home safely, to a relative's home, or to a family-like setting at the earliest appropriate time consistent with the childs needs ( 2.2-5208 5).

34

PERM Finding-14: Twenty one cases were reviewed where the child was placed in residential facility or group home settings. Fifteen of the 21 cases had alternative goals of Permanent Foster Care, Independent Living and Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement. Most children had been in care for long time periods with multiple placements. There was no evidence documented that efforts were being made to continue the search for relatives or to seek support systems for lifelong connections for the youth. There were no Family Partnership meetings for placement or goal changes. Workers stated that they do not have time for FPM since children are moved on an emergency basis and the children they serve do not have family members to contact for a FPM. There were no meetings documented to prevent or preserve placements. Youth were moved from one congregate care placement to another. Few of the reviewed cases documented efforts to transition the youth to a family like setting. Recommendation: Placements in non-family settings should be temporary, focus on individual childrens needs, and prepare them for return to family and community life. According to VA Code 63.2-908, youth in congregate care environments with no identified foster family to whom they will return, should not have the goal of Permanent Foster Care. Children with any of the alternative goals require diligent efforts for the possibility of being returned home to parents or relatives or for adoption. For children with the goal of adoption, the agency should enlist the assistance of private contracted child placing agencies to create and develop child specific recruitment campaigns. The agency should meet routinely with the residential treatment facility or group home staff and discuss the process of a transition to a step-down plan which includes the possibility of family members, if not for placement, for taking an active role in the childs life with visits, phone and email contacts. Family members should be invited to attend a Family Partnership Meeting arranged by the agency. Continued efforts to achieve permanency should be clearly documented in the OASIS record and stated clearly in the childs Service Plan to the Court. PERM Finding-15: The VBDHS has not embraced the states transformation initiatives and from the evidence of case readings and supporting data the VBDHS lags behind the successful outcomes which the majority of Virginia agencies have experienced. Recommendation: The VBDHS would greatly benefit by networking with other agencies within the state with similar characteristics, with large numbers of children in care and with diverse populations who have fully embraced Transformation and the Practice Model and have experienced positive outcomes for families and children. This was suggested to the local agency by VDSS Regional staff several times since 2010 but each time was rejected by the division Director. It is strongly recommended that staff increase their participation in state and local regional meetings in the spirit of improving outcomes for the departments children in foster care. It is also recommended that agency staff increase participation in the Eastern Regional Family Partnership Quarterly Roundtable meetings which have been on-going since 2010. In
35

addition, the Practice Model should not only guide the work of the VBDHS staff but the entire community of city stakeholders and service providers in a joint effort to improve outcomes for children. Communication should be clear and often in communicating the belief that children and youth belong in family and community settings and that resources must be allocated in a manner consistent with that belief. PERM Finding-16: Two Permanency social workers and one Permanency Supervisor attended the Family Partnership Meeting trainings. However, only one permanency worker had completed the required three courses. One supervisor who is an agency facilitator only attended (CWS 4030) the facilitator training. During interviews with staff, some workers stated that they would like to attend more training but are unable to do so due to their high workload and emergencies. Recommendations: The Family Partnership Meeting trainings for all Child Welfare staff are required. Family Engagement and Family Partnership Meetings can only be effective if properly implemented based on the knowledge and skills of the familys worker, the workers supervisor, and the facilitator. Families deserve trained and skilled professionals to engage and assist them. In September 2011, the VBDHS sponsored training from Kevin Campbell, a nationally renowned expert in finding families for youth who have been in foster care for several years and without significant relationships. The case reviews during this review revealed that the agency has many children of this status in their custody. Transference of learning from the Kevin Campbell training in 2011 did not result in agency changes in their case practice. Therefore, it is recommended that similar trainings be repeated with a mandate from management that all child welfare staff attend and some form of a work group or committee develop procedures which will require the skills of finding families for the children be incorporated into the local departments required standards of practice.

36

Individual Interviews with Permanency Workers Five members of the VDSS Review Team conducted individual, one-on-one interviews with all members of the VBDHS Permanency staff. The following is a summary of the results of the individual interviews:

Morale of the Agency On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the best, the overall average score for staff morale was 4.5. Social workers stated they are not respected by VBDHS administration or the community. There is no communication with management. The Director of the Adult and Family Services division has stated there is no open door policy. The Director of the VBDHS says he has an open door policy but rarely is available to staff due to his many other responsibilities. The Administration is not open or transparent. Extra work is expected from social workers. There is confusion and conflict between federal policy and state guidance (policy) and the agency practice. As a result of an infant child fatality in 2010, more documentation is expected to be provided to support our practices. Morale is low, in part, because workers do not feel that they did everything they could have done.

Supervision The majority of the Permanency workers rated the quality of supervision as either a 9 or 10 (with 10 being the highest score). Five workers rated their supervision from 2 to 5 (with10 being the highest score) due to no formal structure and lack of foster care program knowledge by the supervisor. Some workers commented that they were supported and received much communication from their supervisor. Supervisors were described as being the buffers within the unit regarding issues with other units in the agency. Most staff stated that they are able to express their opinions and concerns which are noted and addressed. Two workers commented that suggestions are not recognized or considered by their supervisor.

Top Work-related Concerns Expressed by Staff

Workers need more agency structure, organization and communication, lower caseloads, better access to city cars and better IT tools (laptops could not access OASIS at the time of the review). Morale in the unit and division needs to improve. Staff would like more training but identified time constraints and redundant paperwork as barriers. Staff questioned the use of ARVON part-time workers instead of having full time workers. Staff stated that the people who make the laws do not understand what social workers do.
37

There is a lack of cooperation/coordination among courts, schools and mental health agencies. The agencys perspective and focus is to minimize liability instead of practicing good social work. No one spoke to workers about how to respond to the media or to the community about the infant child fatality in 2010 which was heavily covered by the local press in 2011 and 2012. There is no formal process or methodology regarding how we do our work. (State) policy and guidance requires you to do one thing but agency practice requires you to do something different. The VDSS Permanency Regional Consultant cannot be contacted by staff for advice or to answer policy questions without the permission of the supervisor or the division Director. The resource family home studies read like parenting capacities are sufficient. However, staff do not know how some homes were approved given the knowledge and other information they have about the resource family. The workers do not feel that their concerns are heard by supervisors and management. The social workers want to comply with federal and state policy/guidance but the agency does not want to change its practices. There is a lack of professional courtesy and respect from supervisors and management. The response in the agency is more reactive than proactive. The workers suggestions are not taken into account by supervisors and management despite the workers education and experience. The court process/practice results in children lingering in foster care.

Agency Process/Practice in Locating Relatives Staff were asked to describe the local department process/practice used to locate family members of children who come into care and the efforts made to continue to locate family members throughout the life of the case. Staff responses are summarized below: CPS workers do family searches and foster care workers continue to search. Birth parents are asked for relative names and Accurint searches are completed. The worker tries to contact family members by phone and from family partnership meetings. When the residential worker receives a new case the relative search has already been done. I have never found a family member who could handle the child. I do not do a search because the child does not have a family. When I have the first contact with the child, I sometimes contact other family members. I start with the child and also use a family tree or genogram to locate family members. If the birth parents do not give us the names of relatives we do not use Accurint to search for family members. The Accurint form is given to an identified social worker who does the search for family members. I search benefit records, retail merchants and DMV records trying to locate other family members. I ask parents and family members about other relatives.
38

Staff responses to the use and knowledge of agency and Permanency workers Family Engagement Strategies I observe the child and the family together. Contact is made with the family as soon as the child comes into foster care and visits are arranged. I inform the family that the goal is to return the child to their home. I pick up clues from the family, are they depressed, do they have a support system, etc.? I first let them talk and tell me what they want and what they do not want. Some children want to talk with their families, but others do not. I do not force them to talk. I keep the family informed by calling them and reminding them of meetings and visits and offer transportation if they need it. A residential worker stated that she does very little work with families due to the high caseload. With the child, I do not make promises I cannot keep and I show them an example. I will conduct a family partnership meeting if needed. Worker visits, listening skills, assessment of needs and encouraging the parents are used as engagement strategies. I am open about expectations of the parents, use of FPMs, which are very informal, and review the service plan. I provide visitation with the child and family. When a case is transferred to the worker, the child has already established a relationship with the foster family. I have monthly visits with children but if the child is under 5 and is seen weekly, I believe the local agency practice of stripping the child of clothing is unethical and may provide mental harm, especially if the child is a victim of sexual abuse. Social workers accommodate families by meeting them where it is convenient for the family.

Knowledge of and participation in Family Partnership Meetings (FPMs) The staff interviewed provided the following responses:

I do not participate in and have not attended a FPM. The last Family Partnership Meeting I attended was in the fall of last year. I have not attended a FPM for placement of child or for a goal change. I do not conduct a FPM when a child moves because they are all emergency moves. I arranged a FPM but the parents were not invited to attend since the child was in a group home. I have conducted a FPM for a goal change but not for a placement change but the parents were notified. I have not conducted a FPM because the child does not have family and is in a group home. I have meetings when the family is available, but it is not a structured FPM. Foster care has a FPM prior to the 75 day dispositional hearing or prior to a child returning home. If a request is made for a FPM, it is usually held within the week.
39

FPMs are done prior to child coming into foster care and when aging out. I think they are done within 30 days of a child entering foster care. Sometimes parents bring their attorneys to the meeting. The few permanency workers who had attended and participated in FPMs stated that the meetings were positive and they helped the family to understand the goals and gave them direction.

Staff responses to the initiation of team relationships with birth parents and resource parents Some foster parents do not feel comfortable because of potential safety issues with birth parents. Social workers will not encourage the relationship if foster parents are not comfortable with it. Some social workers try to create these relationships on a case-by-case basis. We really do not integrate birth parents and foster parents. Social workers are the go-between. I do not allow birth and foster parents to be in the same room at the same time because of potential hostility and jealousy from the birth parents. I will initiate a relationship only if I get a good feeling about the birth parent(s). The agency practice is to ingrain in foster parents that they do not have to meet or communicate with the birth parents and the foster parents believe they are not supposed to be around the birth parents. Many staff believe it is a good thing if the birth and foster parents communicate with each other. From my experience in working with a private agency, foster parents are eager to meet and help the birth parents. Trying to build a relationship between birth and foster parents does not work with the families. Most children I work with have Termination of Parental Rights or the parent is incarcerated. I will try to build a relationship between birth and foster parent(s) only if there are no potential or actual safety issues and as long as it is positive and effective. I believe that foster parents do not want to meet or have any contact with the birth parents. I believe when foster parents and birth parents meet it is very helpful. My foster parents often help with visits for the child and birth parents and making life books with the children. The agency practice is the foster parents can make the choice to meet or not meet the birth parents. From my experience, foster and birth parents do not meet. This is an agency-wide practice. However, I do not believe this is a good practice. I believe that most foster parents do not want a relationship with birth parents because they may want to adopt the child or children.

40

Child Protective Services Program Gail Heath-Davidson, Child Protective Services Program Consultant, CPS Team Leader The Virginia Beach CPS program includes five investigative units and three ongoing service units with a total of thirty (30) full time positions and nineteen (19) in ongoing. Four of these positions are considered temporary as they are hired through the Arvon temp agency. One investigative unit covers the night call rotation; one unit is assigned to Intake and the Intake staff is responsible for answering calls to the CPS hotline during the day. Eight supervisors manage this program under the direction of the Director of Adult and Family Services. At the time of the review two staff vacancies exist in the investigative units and the ongoing units were fully staffed. The CPS Quality Management Review (QMR) consisted of VDSS CPS program consultants reviewing a total of 100 cases: 68 ongoing records (20% of those opened in Fiscal Year 2011) and 32 referrals from June and November 2011 (20% of those accepted in those months). The referrals reflect casework before and after statewide implementation of Structured Decision Making (SDM) in August 2011. SDM is designed to assist the CPS staff in assessing safety and risk. All 32 hard copy files for the referrals were examined during the on-site week of the review. The CPS QMR included information from unit interviews with CPS staff, individual supervisor interviews, the Self Assessment completed by supervisory staff and the results of a confidential Employee Survey sent electronically to all child welfare staff. Strengths: The CPS program is staffed by dedicated, competent staff and the internal support evident in the units. The staffing log, an initial assessment in ongoing cases and the practice of merging and associating referrals are practices worthy of mention. The Fathers in Training program supports the Virginia Practice Model and Virginias Transformation of child welfare. Findings and recommendations will be delineated by four areas: Intake, Family Assessments (FA) and Investigations (INV), Night Call and Ongoing. General Observations/Comments: Staff consistently spoke of the hostile, punitive work environment and the fear of retaliation by the division Director and upper management for speaking up. They stated decisions are made without their input very much like the agency makes decisions regarding families without their involvement. Staff also stated they are directed by supervisors to, in their words, harass clients with demands put on staff to make home visits once the investigation/family assessment is complete because of the what if attitude that something could happen. This may be a factor in the 70+% overall turnover rate in the CPS program in the last twenty four (24) months as reported in staff interviews and the Self-Assessment completed by supervisors. While Virginia Beach has been a CORE agency since 2007, few staff knew of the Practice Model and the Transformation initiatives. This is reflected in the lack of family engagement practices, the absence of the number and quality of family partnership meetings and minimal efforts to identify family/supports/protective factors when a child is at risk of coming out of the home.
41

Staff overwhelmingly expressed concern around a lack of communication between units, programs and administration. Recommendations adopted from an earlier Quality Management Review reflect improvements in response time. VB has a 24 hour response time requirement; state policy recommends response time frames of 24 hours, 48 hours or 5 business days. Of the referrals reviewed, not all met the agency response timeline but all were within times recommended in state policy. Reviewers noted the Family Assessments are incorrectly incident focused rather than fully engaging in an assessment of their strengths and needs. Regardless of what the family says, most safety assessments were incorrectly stated as conditionally safe. Few FAs had documentation in the Interview and Interaction (I and I) screens; most contacts were noted on the assessment screen even for those with 2030 contacts. Reviewers found confusion in assessing for safety and risk. Errors were noted in completing the mandated Structured Decision Making risk tool. No Family Partnership meetings (FPMs) were documented in the FA and INV referrals. At least two referrals involved children being taken into protective custody; this is one of the decision points when a FPM is to be held. This is consistent with the agency not embracing and implementing Transformation and the Practice Model. Currently there are only seven facilitators for FPMs. In comparison, Chesapeake DHS implemented the practice of all Social Worker IIs and IIIs being trained in facilitation. Staff indicated the policy of holding FPMs only began around August or September of 2011. In 2007 Virginia Beach was one of the CORE agencies in the state that received additional support and training through the Casey Foundation. Richmond City DSS, another agency of similar size, also was a CORE agency and now conducts an average of 12-15 FPMs per month.

Family Assessments and Investigations: VBDHS CPS responded to 1,496 reports in FY 2011. In the first quarter of FY 2012 this total was 366, or an average of 124 per month/6 per business day. This does not include a screen out rate of 57% which mirrors the regional rate. Per worker this equals approximately 8 new referrals per month. (While night call workers do respond to new referrals, the referrals typically get reassigned to day staff workers the next day.) This is well below the Child Welfare League recommended standard of 12-14 new referrals per month, per worker. During the onsite interviews staff indicated they get at least one new report each day they are on call. The Administration instituted a monthly standard of no more than 7 overdue referrals for each worker with reprimands for non-compliance. Currently, nineteen (19) staff exceed this limit which is a violation of Virginia Code, section 63.2-1505 and 1506. Staff stated this is too strict; especially when no similar standard exists for supervisors who routinely send referrals back to staff for additional work/documentation which slows the referral closing process. A suggestion was made that once the referrals are submitted to the supervisor for closure, they remain in the supervisors box until closed.

42

Recommendation: The number of overdue referrals is too high and must be reduced and minimized going forward. Some supervisors need to complete a thorough review of the referrals within 5 days of submission for closure and prior to returning the referrals to staff. Making multiple reviews and returning the referrals several times to staff during the process is a major contributing factor to the high number of overdue referrals. CPS Night Call: Five of the seven staff in this unit provide after hours coverage for the program. Two staff were recently promoted to SWIII with duties specifically to develop an in house training program for CPS. To date one SWIII still handles investigations/FA; the other one is on extended leave. The reviewers were given a copy of the in house training for CPS. During staff interviews staff indicated this training program has not been offered for some time. While there is a supervisor for the night call unit, the other four supervisors rotate after-hours coverage, each handling a week. Their work shift for this coverage week begins at 3:00 pm. They are not required to be in the office during the day. Staff mentioned this negatively impacts the work flow and the supervisor is not immediately available in the office. Recommendation: Management should assess the current Night Call program to include other options, such as rotation by all CW staff and placing more experienced staff to the day shift to assist with the volume and caseloads on this shift. Ongoing Services: Three units for a total of nineteen (19) staff provide ongoing CPS services. Two units expressed being supported by their supervisor. Staff in the third unit expressed extreme stress and the supervisors management style affecting morale, the work environment and overall job performance. SafeMeasures data shows caseloads ranging from seven (7) to fourteen (14). A SafeMeasures report, (run date -March 4th) for the February 2012 period, shows mandated monthly contacts were made in 78% of the cases. The sample reviewed from Fiscal Year 2011 was opened prior to implementing SDM. Practice issues include: cases opened not based on risk, the introductory letter stating family has to accept services lacks an engaging tone, service plan development without the familys input, cookie cutter service plans which lack behaviorally specific measurable tasks/goals, no FPMs held on high risk cases within 30 days of transfer for ongoing services, and vague risk re-assessments and service plan reviews.

When identified, a good documentation of initial family assessment included: the dispositional assessment from the Investigation/Family Assessment, quarterly reviews, and the closing assessment, taking pictures of children at each visit, and offering a wide array of services including Fathers in Training and classes on child safety offered at the agency.
43

CPS Finding-01: Intake is currently staffed by four social workers. This is a recent change in response to complaints of dropped calls and long waiting periods for callers. Staff expressed concerns that no coverage schedule for Intake means staff cannot take lunch or breaks unless they can secure their own coverage. A problem with the current system is no way of tracking how many calls are waiting to be answered. Staff shared the DSS phone system is the same as the police use yet the feature of a screen showing calls waiting are not available to DSS. Recommendation: 1. Complete an analysis of the intake process to include validation of referrals. 2. Consider the feasibility of adding phone software to alert Intake staff that calls are waiting. 3. Design a process for coverage when staff takes a break or is at lunch. CPS Finding-02: Staff are documenting Family Assessments (FAs) with many contacts on the Assessment Screen. Recommendation: Family Assessments (FAs) with many contacts need to be documented on the Interview and Interaction (I and I) screen. For those FAs where what was reported is clearly wrong and only one or two contacts are made, using the Assessment Screen is sufficient and allowable for this information. CPS Finding-03: FPMs are not held when children are placed in protective custody. FPMs are not held in those high risk cases within 30 days of the case being opened to services. This reflects an overall lack of engagement with families. Staff reported a lack of time to do their work impacts decisions to not hold a FPM. Additionally, only two CPS staff have completed any Family Engagement training.

Recommendation: 1. Assess the implementation of the Practice Model to include FPM and SDM. 2. Ensure that all CPS staff and supervisors complete the recommended Family Engagement/FPM training. 3. Assess the need for additional trained facilitators to conduct FPMs in CPS.

44

CPS Finding-04: Based on the data in OASIS and review of the case records, reports of abuse/neglect in foster homes are not reported to CPS. Allegations in at least five different foster care situations were never taken as valid reports and investigated. The agency practice may be to move the alleged victim child or close the foster home.

Recommendation: All allegations of abuse and neglect in resource family homes are mandated to be reported and investigated and must be reported to CPS. The agency needs to provide training to foster care staff in mandated reporting requirements. Ensure reports are followed up on when validated. CPS Finding-05: During staff interviews, CPS staff indicated the in-house training program for new CPS workers has not been offered for some time. Management has responded that experienced workers mentor, shadow and train new hires while the in-house training program is being reestablished. Recommendation: Task the newly promoted SWIIIs with updating and implementing the in house training program for new CPS staff. CPS Finding -06: Service plans are not targeted to the needs of the family and lack family input in development and reassessment of progress. Recommendation: 1. Assess the need for additional CPS ongoing staff training. 2. Determine if the SWIIIs can develop and offer an in house training for ongoing staff. 3. The state offers two courses, CWS 1061 and 1071 which include information and activities on assessment and service planning. CWS 5011 contains exercises on these topics as well. Other Recommendations: Adopt a leadership model that embraces the receipt of input from all levels of staff and communicates both expectations and accomplishments. While unit meetings are held, staff indicated program and child welfare meetings attended by all staff are rare to the point where many could not recall ever attending such a meeting.
45

The Virginia Code, section 63.2-1503 and 22 VAC 40-705-10, states CPS investigations are to be conducted by employees of the local department. VBDHS must immediately replace the four Arvon temporary agency staff positions currently assigned to CPS investigation/FA units with full time, city employees.

CPS Staff Concerns: Staff rated their top concerns as lack of communication between units, lack of resources, wanting more accessibility to technology ( air cards and after-hours ), after-hours access to the VBDHS building, no formal training program for ongoing CPS and the lack of availability of agency vehicles needed for home visits, etc.

46

RESOURCE FAMILY PROGRAM Flora Harris, Resource Family Consultant, Resource Family Team Leader Definitions: Resource parent - an approved provider parent who is committed both to support reunification and also to be prepared to adopt the child if the child and family do not reunify. The provider parent has completed the dual approval process for foster care and adoption. Kinship Care - The full-time care, nurturing and protection of children by relatives. CRAFFT - an acronym for Community Resource, Adoptive and Foster Family Training. This contracted training service is available for prospective resource families in order to increase the pool of viable family-based placements. CRAFFT also delivers in-service training for currentlyapproved families and conducts assessments specific to training needs of prospective resource families. The Resource Family review consisted of the following: Review of the Resource Family Training model compared to the requirements in the Provider Regulations Assessment of the resource families knowledge and participation in Family Partnership Meetings Review of the Mutual Family Assessments (home studies) case records Determination of whether assessments of families are appropriately documented in case record Determination of how additional training needs of resource families are assessed Determination of whether appropriate training is being offered to address specific needs of children and resource families Review the strategies being used for child-specific recruiting efforts for children in residential placements Determination of whether the amount and type of training provided for Family Engagement for both staff and resource families is appropriate.

Methodology: The Virginia Beach Department of Human Services currently has one hundred approved resource families in OASIS as of March 1, 2012. Thirty-eight cases were selected for review. There are eleven staff members in this unit. All eleven staff members were individually interviewed. Sixteen of the 100 resource families were interviewed (16%); one kinship family, six therapeutic families, eight traditional families and one private agency parent. One of the eight traditional parents had an allegation of abuse and neglect. Six cases were reviewed with allegations of abuse and neglect by resource families (according to the childs foster care records).
47

In addition to reviewing the SafeMeasures data base, OASIS software case information and hard copy case records for these cases were reviewed. RF Finding-01: OASIS The review of the cases revealed documentation of casework and utilization of OASIS is lacking and not in compliance with policy. There was insufficient or no documentation entered in OASIS. Of the 45 cases reviewed, only 11 cases had information documented in the resource contact screen in OASIS. When contacts and visits were entered, there was limited documentation. There was no documentation of CPS allegations in OASIS for four of the six cases with allegations of abuse or neglect noted in the childs foster care records. One of these cases indicated the abuser was unknown. None of the hardcopy records contained documentation regarding the allegations. One case had a letter indicating the case was being closed because of CPS allegations, but contained no documentation of the allegations. Recommendation: All contacts with resource families or contacts that affect resource families should be entered into OASIS within five days. Supervisors should check OASIS on a monthly basis to ensure contacts are entered. All case files should be reviewed and updated according to the Provider Regulations. RF Finding-02: Review of Hard Copy Records Most of the records reviewed did not contain the required and recommended forms per Provider Regulations. There were three cases out of compliance due to re-approvals made after the expiration dates. For the lapse in time, these homes were out of compliance and should not be funded using Title IV-E funds during the lapsed period. There was limited information documented during the monitoring visits. The information entered did not provide assessment information regarding the family and placement. In three of the cases, the number of children residing in the house had changed since the last visit and there was no discussion documented at the time of the visit regarding the additional children living in the house with the resource parents. The Certificate of Approval forms indicated approval for more placements or different ages of children than documented in the mutual family assessment and/or requested by the family. A majority of the hard copy cases indicated a capacity of four or eight children. In one case, one of the two primary caretakers died. This information was provided by the remaining resource parent to the interviewer. There is no documentation in the case record regarding the death of one of the resource parents or reassessment of the household as a single parent household following the death of the other resource parent.

48

Recommendation: Detailed information should be documented regarding the family including strengths, needs, change in household composition and services provided during the monitoring visits and the new information must be contained in the case record. The compliance worker should receive OASIS training and be required to provide more detailed information. The certificates should only indicate the number and ages of children as determined by the mutual family assessment. The agency is using out-of-date forms which should be replaced immediately with current, state-approved forms. RF Finding-03: Mutual Family Assessments (Home Studies) The mutual family assessments contained detailed documentation regarding the potential parent, but there was limited documentation to confirm the families competencies to meet the needs of the children who potentially would be placed in their home. The agency has a team staffing to determine the approval or denial of prospective resource families. However, staff indicated that input from other members of the staffing team regarding the resource family under consideration is not considered in the decision of approval or denial. The final decision is determined by the supervisor. There is no documentation added to the mutual family assessment when families are transferred to the internal therapeutic foster care program known as TAFY. Recommendation: 1. The supervisor should receive training in supervision and team building. 2. A more detailed assessment of the families skills and abilities (competencies) should be provided in the mutual family assessments. 3. An addendum should be added to the mutual family assessment when families are transferred to the internal therapeutic foster care program (TAFY).

RF Finding-04: Working with Biological Families and FPMs The agency does not make diligent efforts to engage resource families in working with biological families. Working with biological families is included in pre-service training. In reviewing the training curriculum, this is expressed in an informative, general presentation. However, it was observed in the Orientation training session attended by the reviewer, potential resource families were told that they would not have to talk to the biological families. During the observation of the last session of training, this was expressed again by the instructor who stated that families had a choice in whether they wanted to work with the biological families. Interviews with resource parents indicated that they were not encouraged to work with the biological families; however, they stated that they were willing to work with families. Independently, two families who were interviewed stated that they have developed a relationship

49

on their own with the biological families of their placements without the direction of the agency staff. Only two of the families interviewed have participated in a family partnership meeting. None of the families interviewed have received training in family partnership meetings except for the limited information provided in pre-service training. The agency presented their first in-service class on working with the biological family in January, 2012.

Recommendation: All families should receive training in working with the biological family members. Additionally, all families should receive training in Family Partnership Meetings. Both trainings should be provided by trainers with an outside vendor, such as CRAFFT, and not by the VBDHS staff. RF Finding-05: Support, Respect and Value of Resource Families All of the sixteen families interviewed indicated that families were supported, respected and valued by the unit members. Ten families felt supported by the agency as a whole. While most families interviewed felt supported and valued by VBDHS staff, two families indicated that they did not feel respected and valued by the supervisor. If complaints were made, the two families interviewed stated their complaint affected future placement decisions by the supervisor. One resource parent stated that she felt she had been treated with respect but other resource parents expressed that they were not. One family stated to the interviewer that they were intimidated by the agency and afraid or concerned about bringing issues to the agencys attention. The agency provides pre-service training presented by a strong, knowledgeable trainer. There are many opportunities for the families to attend training on a monthly basis. Training is offered inside and outside of the agency. The agency has a monthly support group for resource families. Families are provided surveys/questionnaires regarding training they might want or need to attend. Although surveys were used to assess the needs of the families, there was no documented information to determine if the training offered met the needs of the families. Three families expressed great concern regarding the conduct of a foster care supervisor. In reviewing the documentation and information provided, one of the complaints was found to be not valid. One family expressed concern regarding how reimbursement for damages was handled by local agency management. Two families expressed concern regarding the agencys recent decision/practice to body check children under the age of 5 years old by removing their clothing.

50

Recommendation: 1. The agency should continue to build on the relationship with resource families by providing training that supports best practices. Families should be assessed to determine if training met their needs and it should be documented in the case record. 2. The removal of children and the reasons for the removal should be documented in more detail in the resource family hard copy case record and in OASIS. 3. The agency should receive training regarding the use of contingency funds when damages have occurred in the home. 4. The agency should evaluate the effectiveness and potential concerns of the harm of the continued long term use of removing all of the clothing of children 5 years and younger during weekly home visits. None of the other 22 local agencies in the Eastern region follow this practice. RF Finding-06: TAFY UNIT The TAFY program is a therapeutic foster parent program providing 24-hour specialized foster care for children and adolescents residing in the community who have emotional and/or behavioral issues. Currently the TAFY unit has one supervisor and eleven staff members. One staff member in this unit has received family partnership facilitation training. Staff expressed there is a lack of appreciation and recognition from management. Staff expressed there is a lack of appreciation or recognition for their work by the supervisor and management. Full time staff expressed that additional support needed would include lower caseloads, additional staff and the need for division and agency-wide staff meetings. Staff interviews revealed that the TAFY Unit is in need of management support to build team morale. Staff stated that they are micro-managed by the supervisor. Feedback is requested but not considered or respected. It was openly communicated that decisions are made at the sole discretion of the supervisor. The staff stated they believe that the citizens in the Virginia Beach community are not accepting of the behaviors of some of the children in residential facility and group home placements. Opportunities are made available for out of agency training for personal and professional growth and development. However, staff would like more time to attend additional training. Staff participated in the Regional Learning Cooperative. Staff members are committed to families, the agency and are supportive of each other. The majority of staff attended Family Search and Special Family Engagement training provided by the Casey Foundation and the VDSS Regional Consultant. This unit has two types of homes: traditional (regular) resource homes and therapeutic homes under the supervision of one person. All recruitments and trainings are processed through one direct supervisor with some limited supervisory responsibilities provided by a Social Worker III assigned to the therapeutic foster care program.

51

Recommendations: The TAFY Unit should be separated into two units, creating a new supervisors position. When this new position is created, the new supervisor should attend Guidance Training, Family Engagement, Family Partnership Meeting training and Diligent Family Search training. The person selected should have experience in foster care policy, training, recruitment, family assessment and experience in working with residential youth. With two supervisors in the TAFY Unit, it is recommended that one supervisor (with five staff) supervise regular placements and the second supervisor (with five staff) supervise therapeutic placements. There currently is one administrative staff person who should be able to provide support for both supervisors. Even though staff has received training in family search and family engagement, the tools provided in training are not demonstrated in daily practice and case management. The current supervisor should receive some immediate, additional training in proper supervision, team building and staff morale building. A protocol should be developed between the TAFY Unit and the Residential Unit to recruit families for foster youth currently in residential facilities or group homes. Recruitment and Training: Only general recruitment is done in the traditional home unit. Limited, child specific recruitment is done in the TAFY unit. The in-house, pre-service curriculum was reviewed and the reviewers attended the Orientation session and Session 9 of the pre-service training. A copy of the in-house pre-service curriculum was difficult to review because it did not have a script. It appears to meet all the PRIDE competencies. However, the first two sessions described and showed very graphic pictures of child abuse and neglect, very detailed information regarding CPS and negative profiles of families. The training was not presented with a family-centered perspective and is not strength based. The training does not support best practices for children and families. The training provided extensive information on trauma and its impact on children. One handout used during the training was titled Toxic Families. Another flyer provided to the attendees stated Foster Care is not a lifelong commitment and another flyer indicated Permanent Foster Care as a goal. All of these handouts should be removed immediately and no longer used in training.

52

Recommendations: 1. Community trainings should be provided to educate the community in best practices for families and youth, including family engagement, family partnership meetings and working with the biological families. 2. The local agency should begin pre-service training for resource families with an overview of foster care, an introduction to family engagement and local department information. 3. The current training curriculum for resource families, developed in-house, should be stopped immediately and should no longer be used. 4. The agency must use standardized, copyrighted curriculum such as that offered locally by PRIDE, MAPP or PATH. 5. Pre-service training should be observed in its entirety. New flyers for recruitment need to be developed and approved by the VDSS Regional Consultant prior to use. Based on the number of children in residential placements, the agency should conduct more child-specific and targeted recruitment.

53

INTERVIEWS WITH CHILD WELFARE SUPERVISORS and CITY ATTORNEYS Therese Wolf and Vernon Simmons, VDSS Interviewers Agency Strengths Reported by Supervisors: Child Protective Services (CPS) Supervisors all praised the skills and commitment of their staff for getting a quality job done. Mention also was made of using trainers from across the agency to do some in-service trainings in specialized areas that supervisors felt were helpful. Members of the child welfare administrative support team bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to their respective jobs, including new ideas from other states and localities.

Safety: VBDHS has made it a practice to give all valid CPS reports an R1 (within 24 hour response time) to a high emphasis on safety planning with the aim of any needed placements being with family identified resources (relatives) whenever possible.

Family Partnership Meetings: Several CPS Supervisors mentioned that Family Partnership Meetings (FPMs) have started in earnest within the previous six months. One supervisor commented that these meetings need to increase in frequency and that more decisions need to be in FPMs and fewer in agency staffing. Multiple CPS Supervisors mentioned that moving the FPM to before the 5 day hearing has resulted in helpful and positive results. Foster care and adoption (Permanency) Supervisors identified Family Partnership Meetings as a best practice and spoke highly of the results achieved with the limited number of FPMs conducted.

Data: SafeMeasures data is used to monitor compliance with such things as monthly worker visits with children and timely Termination of Parental Rights. Virginia Beach Division of Family Services has a position that is dedicated to producing data outcome measures for staff to use. There is a strong commitment to the use of data to ensure compliance with all mandates.

Working Conditions: Multiple CPS Supervisors commented the workloads in CPS Assessments and Investigations are at a level that makes them not possible to achieve. One stated that it took at least 50 to 60 hours of work every week to get the job done and there didnt seem to be any relief in sight to that level of work. Other comments regarding the caseload were that the emphasis in the units was on quantity or work getting done with less regard for its effectiveness.

54

Concern was expressed that with workers putting in over 200 hours per month, there are increased incidents of stress related illness and documented cases where workers were not able to attend to their own families appropriately. In multiple instances concern was expressed related to the agency policy to make reports valid that did not meet validity standards; the supervisors apply a what if? approach to the facts and work to make reports valid using conjecture about facts rather than what is actually reported. This results in an artificially inflated number of valid referrals. Another example of emphasis on numbers is the requirement that only a certain number of CPS Assessments/Investigations in any one workers caseload may remain open in OASIS at the beginning of each month (this number has changed over time from 10 to 7). The discipline for exceeding this number is a write up that is seen as the first step in a process of termination. This has pushed staff to work extremely long hours toward the end of each month. Several Supervisors referred to an incident in recent history where one or more staff stayed at the office until 4 a.m. to get the proper number of closures, went home long enough to get cleaned up and eat breakfast and then came back to work their normal day shift. Permanency supervisors did not identify caseloads as a problem per se but did note that work hours have increased with the advent of Family Partnership Meetings. Planning for and documenting FPMs was identified as increasing worker time spent after hours with no remuneration.

Supervision: Several Supervisors expressed concerns that staff experience broad differences in policy interpretation and documentation requirements from one supervisor to another. These inconsistencies range from standards for validity to the required elements for documenting a disposition. Another area of inconsistency between units and supervisors is the degree that families in the On-going Units are required to adhere to or complete Service Plans and are closed sometimes before this is done.

Technology: Several CPS and Permanency Supervisors mentioned the need for portable computers, i.e. laptops or Tough Books that workers would be allowed to use in the field to reduce the need to rewrite narrative information in OASIS. The provision of laptops several years ago does not have the intended impact in that staff are forbidden to take laptops in the field, based on information gathered during staff interviews.

Staff Turnover: Several of the supervisors interviewed reported to the interviewers that, within two Investigation Units, there had been over a 70% turnover in staff in the last 24 months. In addition to the added work of having to hire and train replacement staff, these departures always meant that the already high caseloads went even higher for the staff that remained.
55

Permanency supervisors noted that there are always positions vacant and that although this does not have the same impact as CPS vacancies, it does create more work for current staff.

Morale: Morale has suffered because of a child fatality, the resulting negative publicity and the feeling that it could have been me in that case workers position, given the current heavy workload. Morale also is low because of various issues already mentioned - high caseloads, the threat for CPS workers of being written up around case closure requirements and inconsistencies between various supervisors about how the job is to be accomplished. There is a pervasive conviction that this agency regularly assigns what are considered invalid CPS reports on the basis of what if something additional happens in the family, rather than according to generally held interpretation of guidance and law. Multiple supervisors from both CPS and Permanency mentioned that morale was high when the staff in their unit was pulling together and helping each other get the job done. Permanency Supervisors noted morale suffers due to long work hours and a sense that no matter what a worker does, there is a lack of support from the court system. Supervisors believe workers also do not feel heard by the division Director and the Director of the VBDHS, commonly referred to as the Administration. Safety of staff and lack of assistance (e.g. technology or case aides) to make documentation easier is creating low morale as well.

Community Relationships/Partners: Legal System: A significant number of CPS and Permanency Supervisors expressed concern that their workers opinions were not respected in Court and that far too often the Court and the City Attorney would converse on the petition being heard and come up with dispositions of the hearing that had no resemblance to what the Agency was seeking with the petition. Others described similar concerns that the workers lacked respect and credibility in Court. Permanency Supervisors had a sense that the Administration has tried to address this problem through a number of bridging activities with the court (e.g., work with Casey Family Services; use of a court checklist for childrens educational progress) and through the Best Practice Courts Meetings but to no avail. The problem with the courts is not seen as one particular judge or in a particular situation but rather is seen as more pervasive. The Supervisors described an improving relationship with the Police Department. The Permanency Supervisors expressed concern that the community is not tolerant of foster care children and that they (VBDHS) need increased resources to change this attitude (i.e., more homes in the community, greater funding and recognition and support from city council of these children needing to be in their community). The fact that Virginia Beach is a resort city is believed to affect how social services and foster children are seen.
56

Interviews with Staff at the City Attorneys Office: Discussions with staff at the Office of the City Attorney turned up several concerns about CPS. The top concern was described as a disconnect between line staff and supervisors. With regularity, the line staff brings cases they dont actually believe meet the criteria for legal action but the supervisors do and the worker has no choice. Workers were described as being more in tune with the totality of evidence where supervisors react (overly) to prima facie evidence despite questions of credibility. Supervisors were said to regularly over react and act out of fear of possibilities rather than on current facts.

Administration (VBDHS Director and Division Director): The Administration was described by supervisors as being out of touch with the work done at the line level and that this results in those in charge having little idea about the impact of their decisions. It was reported that the administration seems more concerned about numbers than about workers welfare or at times, best practice. The Administration is also reported as being distant and unresponsive. This is reported to result in lack of clarity about the agencys goals and direction. It was stated that the position of Director for Adult and Family Services is spread over too broad an area and this detracts from her effectiveness. The division Director is described as not being engaged in the work of line staff and has not been accessible despite commitments to attend Unit Meetings. Supervisors reported that the Division of Adult and Family Services never meets as a Division.

DATA and Outcomes: The use of data to measure compliance in all areas is both strength and an area of concern for VBDHS. Both CPS and Permanency supervisors noted that data is used to measure compliance with such things as monthly worker visits and time to Termination of Parental Rights. While data as a compliance measure is a valid use of the numbers, no one has identified using data to consider program effectiveness, to develop program improvements or to track program outcomes related to safety, permanency and well-being. One supervisor noted that despite the data showing poor outcomes in some areas such as permanency, the fact that older youth stay in touch with their social workers is indicative of the permanent connections that some youth have developed. It is significant that in no supervisor interview did a supervisor discuss how they use the data of SafeMeasures to manage their programs to increase success for clients.

57

Major Concerns: It appears that there is discord in the Administrative team and it affects the vision and direction of the agency. There is a disconnect between how the Director of the VBDHS understands certain relationships in the agency and how staff see those relationships. As an example, the Director stated he believed the relationship with the JDR Judges was strong and that they are supportive of staff. This is the opposite of the feedback received from the child welfare supervisors who articulated a lack of judicial support and a sense of staff being treated as less than professional. The Director of the Adult and Family Services division has 18 direct reports far too many. The perception by the agency, both staff and some supervisors, is that the agency is not perceived well by the community which has serious implications for community collaborations and resources. Supervisors and staff who acknowledged this perception also did not voice a plan for the agency to address this perception and make improvements. There is a sense that this perception, real or imagined, cannot be changed. The focus of the child welfare division is less on permanency for older youth and more on selfsufficiency. When asked about the outcomes that show less than expected movement of children to permanency, one supervisor stated that more than one-half of the children in foster care are over the age of 13 and it is not possible to recruit homes to take older kids. This attitude is consistent with the supervisors comment that social work staff often are the permanent connection for older youth who have left care. Almost all CPS Supervisors identified high caseloads as the number one concern of their staff. Concerns regarding the impact of the high caseloads ranged from high turnover to staff actually experiencing traumatic stress related to the job and a clear inability to balance work and home life. A number of concerns were noted by the Permanency Supervisors but the relationship with the court and the lack of support for the agencys planning for children in care was the most noted concern. How this relationship negatively affects workers sense of the value of their work and their profession was highlighted repeatedly. The second most noted concern was the lack of communication with the Administration and a sense of secrecy around issues such as sharing information about a child fatality case. While recognizing that all information cannot be shared, the lack of sharing any information at all breeds a sense of low morale.

58

INTERVIEW WITH THE CHIEF JUDGE, VIRGINIA BEACH JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT Rita Katzman and Therese Wolf, VDSS Interviewers Chief Judge Randall Blow indicated that, from his perspective, the working relationship with the VBDHS is excellent. Quarterly meetings are held with the Director of the Adult and Family Services Division and the city attorney to discuss issues that come up. The meetings were said to be very productive. When asked for areas needing improvement related to VBDHS staffs work or their professional relationship with the Court, the Judge responded that workers strive to do what is in the best interest of the child and want to move toward adoption if a child placed in foster care is doing well in the placement. The law stresses reunification and the court wants to give the parents every chance. This may be a source of frustration for the workers, who truly believe that their recommendation is in the best interest of the child. Permanency planning hearings are held timely through the help of the city attorney. Exceptions occur due to the scheduling or availability of the various attorneys representing various parties the agency, GAL, mother, father, etc. Judge Blow felt that residential facility placements are only used when there are no alternatives for the child. When a TFC placement is unable to handle or care for the child, a residential setting could provide the child with more structure. He stated that he believes the child welfare staff share this philosophy and only suggest residential facility placement as a last resort. When asked about local agency workers submitting recommendations of permanent foster care to be approved by the Court without having an identified family which has agreed to be a permanent foster care parent for the child, and that permanent foster care also has been recommended and approved for children placed in residential facilities/group home, the Judge did not see this as a problem (although this practice is contrary to state Code requirements) and stated that he would question workers if this was the case. He indicated that he does not rubber stamp the decision/recommendation of the worker. If the agency, GAL, city attorney and CASA agree, it is usually a better outcome for the family. Overall, the Judge believes that the social workers are doing a good job, the best they can within the resources they have. When asked to provide suggestions to improve outcomes for the families and children that come before the Court, the Judge thought more social workers and lower caseloads could improve outcomes by providing workers with more time to spend with each child.

59

INTERVIEWS WITH CITY MANAGER, VBDHS DIRECTOR, VBDHS DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CHILD WELFARE DIVISION DIRECTOR and IT MANAGER Therese Wolf and Vernon Simmons, VDSS Interviewers This is a summary of the results of the interviews of the above noted persons and it addresses specific themes that emerged in the interviews.

Agency Morale: VBDHS has gone through significant changes in the last several years. Two city agencies were merged into one large agency and this required resolving massive differences in technology and agency functioning. Two individuals interviewed noted that there continues to be resistance at the agency in moving to a performance management model and quality improvement culture of management. The lack of agreement makes such resistance problematic for the VBDHS. All individuals interviewed noted that there is divisiveness in the agency. Some of the individuals were more open about discussing the details of this aspect of the local agency than others. Although one individual interviewed opted not to discuss the professional relationship between upper level administrators in detail, that person did note that staff do not feel supported by most of the upper level administrators and that staff are aware of the tension that exists between the VBDHS Director and the Director of the Adult and Family Services division. It was expressed that this tension appears to be interfering with making organizational decisions (see the Work Force section that follows).

Practice and Data Issues: Agency administrators interviewed identified problems in recruiting foster homes. It was expressed that this is one reason why the VBDHS has such a high number of youth in congregate care settings. Another reason given was a lack of homes that want to take teenagers and a third reason given was the increase in the numbers of people coming to the VBDHS for services. No plans for addressing these problems with foster home recruitment were identified. It is clear from those interviewed that the VBDHS has an extensive program of services for older youth that is focused on developing skills to achieve independence. Note: As important as such programming is, without a plan to recruit foster homes for older youth these independent living services are inadequate as they do not include the necessary emphasis on permanent adult connections. The VBDHS has a staff position devoted to data. However, the data is used to assess compliance with required outcomes (e.g., monthly worker visits with children in foster care) and there is no mention of how the data is or can be used to assess quality of service delivery or performance. Two people interviewed discussed the need to look at quality outcomes. The use of data to guide performance needs improvement. Note: The VBDHS Director needs to make management by data a more critical component of practice at the VBDHS.
60

Work Force/ Work Loads: Staff workload, relationships, available resources and reallocation of staff resources were all mentioned as critical areas for improving performance at the VBDHS. It was noted that some units have very small caseloads (6-7 cases were mentioned) and others carry much higher case loads (CPS was mentioned). In addition, the staff in the adoption unit is seen by some staff as mistrusting of the local agency as they believe that their files should be kept confidential from everyone. The Director of the Adult and Families division has 18 direct reports and approximately 105 staff under her purview. Although this structure was discussed as being unrealistic, no changes have been made and none were offered. Two individuals interviewed noted the importance of breaking out the responsibilities of this one administrator into more manageable units. Note: The needed changes in organizational structure of the Child Welfare division is a necessary prerequisite to assessing and developing equitable caseload standards and determining how staff can be reallocated among units.

Community Relationships: Three people interviewed stated that the VBDHS has good relationships with the community including the Judges, legal representatives and community boards. Several people interviewed stated that the VBDHS has a perception that their community is litigious and this concern, in large measure, guides how the staff at the VBDHS makes decisions and communicates/deals with the community at large.

61

EMPLOYEE SURVEY

Content and Methodology: The Eastern Regional Office of the VDSS sent an employee survey to 105 employees of the Virginia Beach Department of Human Services Child Welfare Division. Seventy-nine out of one hundred five employees (75%) responded to the electronic survey. The electronic survey included 41 specific questions and targeted the following major areas: Culture and Work Environment Staffing in Your Work Area Work Performance Leadership Training and Development

Employees were asked to rate each question based on the following rating scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Somewhat Disagree 3 = Somewhat Agree 4 = Strongly Agree 0 = No answer (these responses were not included in the averages)

Staff were also asked to identify three strengths of the agency and three suggestions to improve agency operations. Staff were able to provide additional comments or suggestions. All respondents were guaranteed confidentiality. Therefore, the actual responses are not included in this report. For informational and management purposes, we have included summaries of responses not linked to individual staff members.

The employees responses to the 41 survey questions were averaged. The average total score of survey questions 1 through 41 is 2.84 out of a possible 4.0.

Responses below a 3 rating should be considered as needing immediate attention and/or improvement and should be part of an overall improvement/corrective action plan to be developed by the Director of the local agency.

62

Survey Reponses listed in Question Number Order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Our working atmosphere is friendly and professional. There is healthy, two-way communication here. I receive enough information to make decisions and perform my job. Management supports the changes for overall performance improvement. Employees support overall performance improvement. I am trusted to perform the work that is assigned to me. My coworkers are cooperative and willing to help with the work. Our facility is safe. I have the tools I need to perform my job. Morale in the office is generally high. There are a sufficient number of employees to perform the work. Employees I deal with perform effectively in their positions. Managers/supervisors I deal with perform effectively in their positions. There is a back-up plan for emergencies, vacancies, and absences. I understand my job/position. I have a copy of my position description. I am formally evaluated on a regular basis. I am provided an opportunity to improve my performance problems/challenges. I am provided an opportunity to work through relationship issue with my coworkers. I am rewarded and recognized when I meet or exceed my performance expectations. I am given the responsibility and the authority to successfully complete the job. I have enough time to complete my workload in accordance with timeframes allocated. I have enough time to take on additional responsibilities. My performance is evaluated against criteria that make sense for my job responsibilities. I know what our mission or purpose is for this agency. Management established clear goals and objectives for our agency. Management makes an effort to create a positive & motivational working environment. Management works with employees to streamline processes and procedures. I have a good working relationship with my supervisor. I feel comfortable talking with my supervisor about any work related issues. My supervisor provides the guidance, resources, and tools that I need to do my work. My supervisor considers my input on decisions being made for my work area. State DSS employees are helpful and professional when I call them for help. I receive the training I need to do my job and to keep up with changes. The training I have participated in was organized, practical, and worthwhile. I am pleased with the career opportunities here. The management team is provided with leadership training I developed a learning plan with my supervisor to enhance my development. I am cross-trained in other areas of the agency. My supervisor and I maintain a record on my training history. Employees have an equal opportunity for training and development.

Average Score

Count

2.88 2.60 3.14 2.58 2.78 3.34 3.46 2.77 3.05 1.94 1.67 2.94 2.92 2.28 3.71 3.51 3.22 3.27 2.99 2.38 3.21 2.34 1.91 2.79 3.58 2.83 2.27 2.12 3.32 3.20 3.13 3.24 3.31 2.91 3.06 2.23 2.59 2.69 2.17 3.21 2.78

78 78 78 71 74 79 78 78 75 78 78 72 73 74 79 75 74 73 69 74 78 76 76 75 79 78 79 78 79 79 79 76 61 77 78 74 51 68 72 75 74

63

Average Score by Employee

4.00 3.75 3.50 3.25 3.00 2.75 2.50 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.50 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00

Average=2.84

Average

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79

Employee Employee Survey Questions Receiving the Ten Highest Scores: I understand my job/position. I know what our mission or purpose is for this agency. I have a copy of my position description. My coworkers are cooperative and willing to help with the work. I am trusted to perform the work that is assigned to me. I have a good working relationship with my supervisor. State DSS employees are helpful and professional when I call them for help. I am provided an opportunity to improve my performance problems/challenges. My supervisor considers my input on decisions being made for my work area. I am formally evaluated on a regular basis.

Avg

Count

3.71 3.58 3.51 3.46 3.34 3.32 3.31 3.27 3.24 3.22
Avg

79 79 75 78 79 79 61 73 76 74
Count

Employee Survey Questions Receiving the Ten Lowest Scores:

There are a sufficient number of employees to perform the work. I have enough time to take on additional responsibilities. Morale in the office is generally high. Management works with the employees to streamline processes and procedures. I am cross-trained in other areas of the agency. I am pleased with the career opportunities here. Management makes an effort to create a positive & motivational working environment. There is a back-up plan for emergencies, vacancies and absences. I have enough time to complete my workload in accordance with timeframes allocated I am rewarded and recognized when I meet or exceed my performance expectations.

1.67 1.91 1.94 2.12 2.17 2.23 2.27 2.28 2.34 2.38

78 76 78 78 72 74 79 74 76 74

64

Average Survey Reponses by Category

Average Score

Count

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Culture and Work Environment Our working atmosphere is friendly and professional. There is healthy, two-way communication here. I receive enough information to make decisions and perform my job. Management supports the changes for overall performance improvement. Employees support overall performance improvement. I am trusted to perform the work that is assigned to me. My coworkers are cooperative and willing to help with the work. Our facility is safe. I have the tools I need to perform my job. Morale in the office is generally high. Category Average Score Staffing in your Work Area

2.88 2.60 3.14 2.58 2.78 3.34 3.46 2.77 3.05 1.94 2.86

78 78 78 71 74 79 78 78 75 78

11 12 13 14

There are a sufficient number of employees to perform the work. Employees I deal with perform effectively in their positions. Managers/supervisors I deal with perform effectively in their positions. There is a back-up plan for emergencies, vacancies, and absences. Category Average Score Work Performance

1.67 2.94 2.92 2.28 2.44

78 72 73 74

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

I understand my job/position. I have a copy of my position description. I am formally evaluated on a regular basis. I am provided an opportunity to improve my performance problems/challenges. I am provided an opportunity to work through relationship issue with my coworkers. I am rewarded and recognized when I meet or exceed my performance expectations. I am given the responsibility and the authority to successfully complete the job. I have enough time to complete my workload in accordance with timeframes allocated. I have enough time to take on additional responsibilities. My performance is evaluated against criteria that make sense for my job responsibilities. Category Average Score

3.71 3.51 3.22 3.27 2.99 2.38 3.21 2.34 1.91 2.79 2.93

79 75 74 73 69 74 78 76 76 75

65

Leadership 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 I know what our mission or purpose is for this agency. Management established clear goals and objectives for our agency. Management makes an effort to create a positive & motivational working environment. Management works with employees to streamline processes and procedures. I have a good working relationship with my supervisor. I feel comfortable talking with my supervisor about any work related issues. My supervisor provides the guidance, resources, and tools that I need to do my work. My supervisor considers my input on decisions being made for my work area. State DSS employees are helpful and professional when I call them for help. Category Average Score Training and Development 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 I receive the training I need to do my job and to keep up with changes. The training I have participated in was organized, practical, and worthwhile. I am pleased with the career opportunities here. The management team is provided with leadership training I developed a learning plan with my supervisor to enhance my development. I am cross-trained in other areas of the agency. My supervisor and I maintain a record on my training history. Employees have an equal opportunity for training and development. Category Average Score

Average Score

Count

3.58 2.83 2.27 2.12 3.32 3.20 3.13 3.24 3.31 2.99

79 78 79 78 79 79 79 76 61

2.91 3.06 2.23 2.59 2.69 2.17 3.21 2.78 2.72

77 78 74 51 68 72 75 74

66

QUESTION # 42 IDENTIFY THREE STRENGTHS OF THE AGENCY

67 staff responding to the employee survey provided responses to this question. Not all of those responding provided 3 strengths. The following listing identifies and provides some of the employee comments made for the top four areas receiving comments, listed in order of greatest number of comments: 1. The overall work environment: Comments included: friendly; co-operative; supportive staff; teamwork; flexible; understanding and helpful to one another; resources and tools are abundant; encouragement; commitment to work; manage large volume of work; camaraderie; willing to help; adequate work space; high standards; communication; new computers (64 comments) 2. Employees of the agency: dedicated; motivated; professional; excellent workers; dependable; educated; experienced; knowledgeable; quality; caring; well organized (30 comments) 3. Leadership: effective; management; delegating; clear chain of command; available; reliable; helpful; understanding; encouraging; trustworthy; constructive criticism; does not micromanaged; strong relationships; advocates; open. (28 comments) 4. Commitment to the safety of families, goals, and job responsibilities: welfare of the child; make appropriate safety plans; diligent in efforts to protect children; committed to helping children; opportunity to empower families; goal of keeping children safe and preserving families is clear; concern for families; ensure safety of children; work hard to re-unify families; invested in the mission of the agency; go above and beyond to protect children and help families improve functioning; commitment to their work to meet the needs; ensure children are safe in their home (22 comments)

QUESTION # 43 IDENTIFY THREE THINGS TO IMPROVE AGENCY OPERATION AND/OR SERVICE DELIVERY 68 out of 79 staff responding to the employee survey provided responses to this question. The following listing identifies the top five areas receiving comments, listed in order of greatest number of comments. Wording was taken from the employees comments: 1. Process Improvements: Staying organized; potential position re-alignments; improved technological access; improved screening of CPS cases; respond to valid complaints of abuse/neglect meeting definition in policy/guidelines; changes made in how we transfer cases in prevention and ongoing units; more consistency needed with policies and procedures; more realistic approach to managing caseloads efficiently; incorporate ways to minimize pressures to prevent predictable performance issues; deadlines are not able to be met; refrain from assigning invalid cases; focus should not be on numbers; intrudes upon families with investigations/assessments that should be invalid; clearly define referral validation procedures; allow remote access; quickly staff cases; inconsistent workloads; streamline paperwork; eliminate redundancy; ensure services are completed before transferring case; discontinue overdue policy; incorporate new ideas and action to run smoother (44 comments)
67

2. Need for additional workers: need more line workers; smaller caseloads; additional staff to manage cases (29 comments) 3. Leadership: Supervisors need to be more available, more supportive of workers, look at ways to assist in job demands, trust workers, set realistic expectations, advocate for staff, be less punitive, have unified policies; administration needs to be visible; does not care that CPS has a huge turnover; more understanding regarding work deadlines; CPS supervisors need to be more available at the office; abide by policy and not make up their own; less punitive and hinder the families; need a climate of guidance through Child Welfare Policy and State code; eliminate favoritism (20 comments) 4. Training: Social work training for employees and supervisors; take advantage of training; Family Engagement training learning plan; formal supervisory training; practical training; train administrators in how to speak to staff; cross training; training for case managers; development of curriculum for a degree in CPS Investigations and Assessments; require a writing skills course; development of a training program; in-house mandatory training in casework practice relevant to service planning and delivery; how to manage difficult situations and clients (16 comments) 5. Communication: increase communication between Foster Care and CPS regarding transfer of cases; have regular joint meetings to share information between programs areas and units; open communication at all levels of staff; constant change and never clear as to current protocol; workers kept out of the loop; decisions need to be informed and agreed upon; need to be an agency united; open forum when discussing cases; have team building exercise; improve communication between staff and administration (15 comments)

68

QUESTION # 44- OTHER COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS 45 out of 79 staff responded to this question. Several of the comments/suggestions were very lengthy. Similar themes were consolidated and four or more similar responses are categorized below:

Needadditionalstaff ExpectationsforCPSworkersareunrealistic Supervisorsneedtoclosecasestimely HighTurnover Punishedforlatecases AmountofstressinCPS AssignValidCases OvertimeIssues #ofcasesaretoohigh PoorLeadership/Management Documentationstandardsarenotconsistentamongsupvr Workersaremadetoforcefamiliestoacceptservices Needtocommittochange/bestpractice Issueswith2CPStrainers LowMorale Noinputfromworkers Payraises/promotions/positiveaffirmation Fearofretaliation NeedTraining/Trainers/Timetoattendtraining Decisionsaremadebasedonsupervisorsbias CommunicationbyDirector/Administrationisminimal NeedsupportfromSupervisors Needrecognitionfromsupervisors Directorisnotinvolved 0% 5%

AdditionalComments

29% 27% 27% 22% 22% 22% 20% 20% 18% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 11% 11% 9% 9% 10% 15% 20% 25% Percentofstaffresponses 30% 35%

69

Appendix1

Virginia Childrens Services Practice Model

TheVirginiaChildren'sServicesSystemPracticeModelsetsforthavisionfortheservicesthataredelivered byallchildservingagenciesacrosstheCommonwealth,especiallytheDepartmentsofSocialServices, JuvenileJustice,Education,BehavioralHealthandDevelopmentalServicesandtheOfficeofComprehensive Services.Thepracticemodeliscentraltoourdecisionmaking;presentinallofourmeetings;andinevery interactionthatwehavewithachildorfamily.Decisionsthatarebasedonthepracticemodelwillbe supportedandchampioned.Guidedbythismodel,ourprocesstocontinuouslyimproveservicesforchildren andfamilieswillberootedinthebestofpractices,themostaccurateandcurrentdataavailable,andwiththe safetyandwellbeingofchildrenandfamiliesasthefixedcenterofourwork.

We believe that all children and communities deserve to be safe.

1.Safetycomesfirst.Everychildhastherighttoliveinasafehome,attendasafeschoolandliveina safecommunity.Ensuringsafetyrequiresacollaborativeeffortamongfamily,agencystaff,andthe community. 2.Wevaluefamilystrengths,perspectives,goals,andplansascentraltocreatingandmaintainingchild safety,andrecognizethatremovalfromhomeisnottheonlywaytoensurechildorcommunity safety. 3.Inourresponsetosafetyandriskconcerns,wereachfactuallysupportedconclusionsinatimelyand thoroughmanner. 4.Participationofparents,children,extendedfamily,andcommunitystakeholdersisanecessary componentinassuringsafety. 5.Weseparatecaregiverswhopresentathreattosafetyfromchildreninneedofprotection.Whencourt actionisnecessarytomakeachildsafe,weuseourauthoritywithrespectandsensitivity.

We believe in family, child, and youth-driven practice.

1.Childrenandfamilieshavetherighttohaveasayinwhathappenstothemandwillbetreatedwith dignityandrespect.Thevoicesofchildren,youthandparentsareheard,valued,andconsideredinthe decisionmakingregardingsafety,permanency,wellbeingaswellasinserviceandeducational planningandinplacementdecisions.. 2.Eachindividualsrighttoselfdeterminationwillberespectedwithinthelimitsofestablished communitystandardsandlaws. 3.Werecognizethatfamilymembersaretheexpertsabouttheirownfamilies.Itisourresponsibilityto understandchildren,youth,andfamilieswithinthecontextoftheirownfamilyrules,traditions, history,andculture. 4.Childrenhavearighttoconnectionswiththeirbiologicalfamilyandothercaringadultswithwhom theyhavedevelopedemotionalties. 5.Weengagefamiliesinadeliberatemanner.Throughcollaborationwithfamilies,wedevelopand implementcreative,individualsolutionsthatbuildontheirstrengthstomeettheirneeds. Engagementistheprimarydoorthroughwhichwehelpyouthandfamiliesmakepositivechanges.

70

We believe that children do best when raised in families.

1.Childrenshouldberearedbytheirfamilieswheneverpossible. 2.Keepingchildrenandfamiliestogetherandpreventingentryintoanytypeofoutofhomeplacement isthebestpossibleuseofresources. 3.Childrenarebestservedwhenweprovidetheirfamilieswiththesupportsnecessarytoraisethem safely.Servicestopreservethefamilyunitandpreventfamilydisruptionarefamilyfocused,childcentered, andcommunitybased. 4.Peoplecananddomakepositivechanges.Thepastdoesnotnecessarilylimittheirpotential. 5.Whenchildrencannotlivesafelywiththeirfamilies,thefirstconsiderationforplacementwillbewith kinshipconnectionscapableofprovidingasafeandnurturinghome.Wevaluetheresourceswithin extendedfamilynetworksandarecommittedtoseekingthemout. 6.Whenplacementoutsidetheextendedfamilyisnecessary,weencouragehealthysocialdevelopment bysupportingplacementsthatpromotefamily,siblingandcommunityconnections. 7.Childrensneedsarebestservedinafamilythatiscommittedtothechild. 8.Placementsinnonfamilysettingsshouldbetemporary,shouldfocusonindividualchildrensneeds, andshouldpreparethemforreturntofamilyandcommunitylife.

We believe that all children and youth need and deserve a permanent family.
1.Lifelongfamilyconnectionsarecrucialforchildrenandadults.Itisourresponsibilitytopromoteand preservekinship,siblingandcommunityconnectionsforeachchild.Wevaluepast,present,and futurerelationshipsthatconsiderthechildshopesandwishes. 2.Permanencyisbestachievedthroughalegalrelationshipsuchasparentalcustody,adoption,kinship careorguardianship.Placementstabilityisnotpermanency. 3.Planningforchildrenisfocusedonthegoalofpreservingtheirfamily,reunifyingtheirfamily,or achievingpermanencywithanotherfamily. 4.Permanencyplanningforchildrenbeginsatthefirstcontactwiththechildrensservicessystem.We proceedwithasenseofurgencyuntilpermanencyisachieved.Wesupportfamiliesafterpermanency toensurethatfamilyconnectionsarestable.

We believe in partnering with others to support child and family success in a system that is family focused, child-centered, and community-based.
1.Wearecommittedtoaligningoursystemwithwhatisbestforchildren,youth,andfamilies. - Ourorganizations,consistentwiththispractice model,arefocusedonprovidingsupportstofamilies inraisingchildren.Thepractice model shouldguidealloftheworkthatwedo.Inadditionto practicealignment,infrastructureandresourcesmustbealignedwiththemodel.Forexample, training,policy,technicalassistanceandothersupportsmustreinforcethemodel. - Wetakeresponsibilityforopencommunication,accountability,andtransparencyatalllevelsof oursystemandacrossallagencies.Wesharesuccessstoriesandbestpracticestopromote learningwithinandacrosscommunitiesandsharechallengesandlessonslearnedtomakebetter decisions. - Communitysupportiscrucialforfamiliesinraisingchildren.
71

2.Wearecommittedtoworkingacrossagencies,stakeholdergroups,andcommunitiestoimproveoutcomesfor thechildren,youth,andfamiliesweserve. - Servicestofamiliesmustbedeliveredaspartofatotalsystemwithcooperation,coordination,and collaborationoccurringamongfamilies,serviceprovidersandcommunitystakeholders. - Allstakeholdersshareresponsibilityforchildsafety,permanenceandwellbeing.Asasystem,we willidentifyandengagestakeholdersandcommunitymembersaroundourpractice model tohelp childrenandfamiliesachievesuccessinlife;safety;lifeinthecommunity;familybased placements;andlifelongfamilyconnections. - Wewillcommunicateclearlyandoftenwithstakeholdersandcommunitymembers.Our communicationmustreinforcethebeliefthatchildrenandyouthbelonginfamilyandcommunity settingsandthatsystemresourcesmustbeallocatedinamannerconsistentwiththatbelief. 3. Wearecommittedtoworkingcollaborativelytoensurethatchildrenwithdisabilitiesreceivethe supportsnecessarytoenablethemtoreceivetheirspecialeducationserviceswithinthepublicschools. Wewillcollaborativelyplanforchildrenwithdisabilitieswhoarestrugglinginpublicschoolsettings toidentifyservicesthatmaypreventtheneedforprivateschoolplacements,recognizingthatthe provisionofsuchserviceswillmaximizethepotentialforthesechildrentoremainwiththeirfamilies andwithintheircommunities.

We believe that how we do our work is as important as the work we do.

1.Thepeoplewhodothisworkareourmostimportantasset.Childrenandfamiliesdeservetrained, skillfulprofessionalstoengageandassistthem.Westrivetobuildaworkforcethatworksin alignmentwithourpractice model.Theyaresupportedinthiseffortthroughopendialogue,clear policy,excellenttrainingandsupervision,formalandinformalperformanceevaluationand appropriateresourceallocation. 2.Aswithfamilies,welookforstrengthsinourorganization.Weareresponsibleforcreatingand maintainingasupportiveworkingandlearningenvironmentandforopen,respectful communication,collaboration,andaccountabilityatalllevels. 3.Ourorganizationsarefocusedonprovidinghighquality,timely,efficient,andeffectiveservices. 4.Relationshipsandcommunicationamongstaff,children,families,andcommunityprovidersare conductedwithgenuineness,empathy,andrespect. 5.Thepracticeofcollectingandsharingdataandinformationisanonnegotiablepartofhowwe continuallylearnandimprove.Wewillusedatatoinformmanagement,improvepractice,measure effectivenessandguidepolicydecisions.Wemuststrivetoalignourlawssothatcollaborationand sharingofdatacanbeachievedtobettersupportourchildrenandfamilies 6.Asweworkwithchildren,families,andtheirteams,weclearlysharewiththemourpurpose,role, concerns,decisions,andresponsibility.
72

73