How well are states doing in achieving safety,permanency and well being for the children andfamilies served by their child welfare programs?How well are the systems that promote betteroutcomes-such as case review systems and qual-ity assurance systems-functioning? These arethe questions to be examined through the newchild and family services review process.

These new reviews will focus on assessing boththe outcomes achieved for children and familiesand the systems that support improved out-comes. This emphasis on results is a majordeparture from previous federal review process-es, which focused on whether states were in com-pliance with certain procedural requirements asevidenced by complete and accurate case docu-mentation.

The outcomes focus of the new reviews is pairedwith an emphasis on involving states as partnersin a continuous quality improvement process.States assess their own strengths and weaknessesat each stage of the review process. And unlikeprevious review processes, when weaknesses areidentified, states have the opportunity to makeimprovements before they are penalized.

In designing the new review process, theAdministration on Children and Families (ACF)engaged in extensive consultation with nationalorganizations, and piloted the process in 14states. Comments were received on proposedregulations, which were published in theFederal Register in September of 1998.

The content of the final rule, published onJanuary 25, 2000, reflected the commentsreceived on the proposed rule and the lessonslearned from the pilots and the consultationprocess. The new rule calls for all states toundergo a review within four years from theeffective date, March 25, 2000.

The Focus of ReviewsThe new reviews will focus on seven outcomes-divided among the broad areas of safety, perma-nency and well-being as well as seven systemicfactors. The seven outcomes are as follows:

Safetyn Children are, first and foremost, protected

from abuse and neglect.n Children are safely maintained in their own

homes whenever possible.

Permanencyn Children have permanency and stability in

their living situations.n The continuity of family relationships and

connections are preserved for children.

Child & Family Well Beingn Families have enhanced capacity to provide

for their children's needs.n Children receive appropriate services to meet

their educational needs.n Children receive adequate services to meet

their physical and mental health needs.

Systemic factors are related to state agencies'capacity to deliver services leading to improvedoutcomes for children and families. Since allseven areas are State Plan requirements, thereview process focuses on whether these systemsare in place and functioning as required by fed-eral regulations and statutes. The seven sys-temic factors are:

n Statewide information systemn Case review systemn Quality assurance systemn Staff trainingn Service arrayn Agency responsiveness to the communityn Foster and adoptive parent

recruitment, licensing and retention

IN THIS ISSUE:Child and Family Services Reviews ...... 1A Note From the New Director .......... 3Upcoming Events .............................. 4Dual License–An Evolving Best Practice? ................ 5Team Work That Meets theChallenges of Permanency ................. 8Family Group Decision Making as aTime Limited Reunification Service ..... 10Renewing Our Commitmentto Permanency for Children ...............11Child Welfare Agencies:Developing Working Connectionswith the Community ......................... 14Where We Have Been:Training & Technical Assistance byNRCFCPP Consultants & Staff ........... 15New Publications ..............................19

New Childand FamilyServicesReviewsReprinted from National Child WelfareResource Center for Organizational ImprovementNewsletter Volume 3, Number 2 (Winter 2001)

1

The Review ProcessChild and family service reviews will beconducted in two stages – a statewideassessment and a subsequent on site review.Six months prior to the on-site review, ACFwill transmit to a state its data profile show-ing its performance on indicators of safetyand permanency. During the statewideassessment, states and external partnerswork together to analyze the outcomesachieved and to examine the systems inplace within the state.

This analysis will be an opportunity forstates to look behind the numbers to exam-ine what is happening to children and fam-ilies in the state. Reports will be due 60 daysbefore the on-site review is scheduled.

To prepare for the on-site review, ACFreviews the statewide assessment and pre-pares their own preliminary assessment.ACF personnel will also work with states toidentify state-specific issues. In addition,ACF and states will work together to deter-mine the location of review sites and the sizeand composition of the sample for the on-site review.

During the on-site review, a joint federal andstate team, including external stakeholders,will conduct intensive reviews of 30-50 casesat three locations in the state, including thelargest metropolitan area. The team will alsoconduct stakeholder interviews in variouslocations to obtain input on outcomes and toevaluate system performance. The reviewteam presents preliminary findings at an exitconference, and a final report is sent to thestate within 30 days that identifies which ofthe seven outcomes and seven systemic fac-tors are in or out of substantial conformitywith applicable requirements.

A critical aspect of the new review process isthe next step. If a state is not in substantialconformity on any of the fourteen outcomesand systemic factors, penalties will be deter-mined. However, these penalties will be sus-pended if the state develops and implementsa program improvement plan designed tocorrect the areas of non-conformity.

Substantial ConformityFor each of the outcomes and systemic fac-tors, a number of performance indicatorswill be evaluated. Performance on theseindicators will be used to determine whetherStates are in substantial conformity on eachoutcome and systemic factor.

On Outcomes...There are two types of indicators for each ofthe seven outcomes:n statewide data indicators, which will

compare state performance to nationalstandards

n on-site indicators, which will be exam-ined in individual cases on site andrated as a "strength" or an "area need-ing improvement"

ACF has identified six statewide data indi-cators that will be used to assess substantialconformity on safety and permanency out-comes.

These indicators are:n recurrence of maltreatmentn child abuse or neglect by foster care

providern foster care reentriesn stability of foster care placementsn length of time to achieve permanency

goal of adoptionn length of time to achieve permanency

goal of reunification

To assess substantial conformity, state per-formance on these indicators will be com-pared to a national standard. Standardswill be developed through a process thatinvolves compiling data from each of 51jurisdictions for multiple time periods andarraying those data to identify the 75th per-centile of performance. That number will beestablished as the national standard andwill be held steady through the first roundof reviews.

All of the statewide data indicators for anygiven outcome must meet the national stan-dard in order for the state to be in substan-tial conformity on that outcome.

Use of on-site indicators to assess substan-tial conformity is somewhat more complex:❑ Four of the seven outcomes have only

one or two associated on-site indica-tors. In these cases, all of the indica-tors must be rated as "strengths" forthe outcome to be considered "substan-tially achieved".

❑ Three outcomes have three or more onsite indicators. For these outcomes tobe "substantially achieved" no morethan one of the indicators can be ratedan "area needing improvement".

❑ In the first round of reviews, 90% ofthe cases must be judged to have sub-stantially achieved an outcome for thestate to be in substantial conformity onthat outcome. In subsequent reviews,that figure increases to 95%.

On systemic factors...The seven systemic factors will be reviewedon site and through the statewide assess-ment. Between one and five State IV-B planrequirements will be assessed for each sys-temic factor.

For the systemic factors with one State planrequirement, that requirement must be inplace and functioning as described.Systemic factors with two to five State planrequirements will be determined to be insubstantial conformity if no more than oneof the requirements fails to function at thelevel described in the requirement.

A complete list of the indicators for eachoutcome and systemic factor is available inthe Child and Family Service ReviewProcedures Manual at the Children'sBureau website, www.acf.dhhs.gov/pro-grams/cb.

Program Improvement PlansACF will work with states that find that theyare not in substantial conformity on the out-comes or systemic factors to develop a pro-gram improvement plan. According to fed-eral regulations, program improvementplans must set forth the action steps that willbe taken to correct identified weaknesses.In addition, program improvement plansmust also establish benchmarks that will beused to measure the State's progress inimplementing the steps in the plan, andmeans of evaluating their effectiveness.

For example, one of the pilot states identi-fied high levels of repeat maltreatment as aconcern. In response, the state has devel-oped a safety assessment tool and conduct-ed intensive training in its use throughoutthe state. The pilot state is working withtheir federal regional office and withresource centers to develop a means ofmeasuring the impact of the new assessmenttool on safety outcomes.

If a state's data indicators do not meet thenational standard, its program improve-ment plan must define the percentageincrease towards the national standard thatthe state will achieve. The programimprovement plans must also address thestate's need for federal technical assistance,which will be provided through federalregional offices and federally fundedResource Centers, or through other sourcesidentified by the state. If the state imple-ments the plan as agreed and successfullycompletes the plan, penalties will berescinded.

The new review process provides an oppor-tunity for states to examine their outcomesand their systems and to make improve-ments over time. Their aim is to spur con-tinual effort to assess and improve perform-ance, resulting in state systems that aremore effective in meeting the needs of chil-dren and families.

2

In this issue of “Permanency Planning Today”–our semi-annual newsletter – we approach some of the criticalthemes intrinsic to Promising Best Practices in PermanencyPlanning. This is also my first edition of the Newsletter as the newDirector of the National Resource Center for Foster Care andPermanency Planning. I would be remiss in beginning my tenureas Director if I did not acknowledge the significant contributionsmade to the National Resource Center for Foster Care andPermanency Planning by our former Director, Sarah Greenblatt.Sarah, the NRC Director for the past five years, resigned inMarch to relocate out of New York. Sarah’s dedication and com-mitment to children, youth, and families is obvious to anyone whohas known and worked with her. Under her watch, the NationalResource Center for Foster Care and Permanency Planning grewand became recognized for its high quality of training and techni-cal assistance to states and tribal regions and for promoting highquality standards of practice to insure permanency for all chil-dren. Sarah’s energy and commitment to Permanency has beena tremendous asset to the Center. We will miss her, we thank herfor all of her hard work and commitment, and we wish her well inher new role at Casey Family Services in Connecticut.

As the National Resource Center for Foster Care andPermanency Planning at the Hunter College School of SocialWork moves forward, I hope as Director to creatively address theemerging issues and concerns related to the provision of qualityfoster care services and effective permanency planning for chil-dren, youth, and families. The Center has as its mission to assistStates and Tribe in building child welfare capacity and to worktoward implementation of federal legislation and policies. We willfocus on disseminating information about model programs, bestpractices, and innovative strategies to serve children, youth, andfamilies, which reflect culturally, competent, family-centered,and community-based child welfare practices. We promise also toconvene multiple opportunities for diverse perspectives to beheard.

In examining “best practices” we have selected a mix of articlesfor this issue of “Permanency Planning Today” related to prom-ising best practices in a changing environment. Our first article,which is re-printed from a recent Newsletter from our colleaguesat the National Child Welfare Resource Center for OrganizationalImprovement at the Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Serviceat the University of Southern Maine, focuses on the Child andFamily Services Review process initiated by the Administrationon Children and Families this year.

Our second feature by Lorrie Lutz, one of our NRCFCPP con-sultants, provides a comprehensive overview of the importantand emerging discussion on Dual Licensure for foster and adop-tive parents.

Joy Bailey highlights the innovation of a Task Centered TeamApproach to Service Delivery and offers advice and recommen-dations for organizational transformation toward a task-centeredteam approach to service delivery.

Bernadette Blount and Catherine Nelson, two parents who havebeen involved in the child welfare system provide tips for involv-ing parents in agency operations.

Sara McNeely, from Minnesota offers recommendations andshares her state's efforts to move toward a philosophy of FamilyGroup Decision Making.

Judy Blunt, our Center's Assistant Director, shares with readersan overview of her collaborative work with CWLA in writingabout Permanency Practice Strategic Action Planning Forums.

Professor Hilda Rivera reflects on developing working connec-tions with the community, offering some practical guidelines forimplementation.

This issue of Permanency Planning Today is rounded out with areview of States, Tribes, and Regions where we have providedtechnical assistance and training and a article by MyrnaLumbsden, Information Specialist at the Center which highlightsnew publications which may be of interest to our readers.

We hope that our readers will let us know what you think of thisissue. This issue has a new look, a new logo, and hope in the nextfew months to share some new ideas with our constituents. Wewelcome your comments, your suggestions for future issues, andyour own ideas and articles for submission.

I will personally look forward to working with and getting to knoweach of you in my new role at the center and urge you to let usknow how we can be most helpful to you and the work that youdo with children, youth, and families.

Gerald P. Mallon, DSWNRCFCPP Director

A Notefrom the New

Director...

3

Child & FamilyServices Reviews

The National Resource Center for Foster Care& Permanency Planning is available to assistStates as they are developing their ProgramImprovement Plans. The National ResourceCenter can provide support with technicalassistance and training in areas where theState has identified the most need.

Several States have already completed theirCFSR:

ArkansasDelaware

District of ColumbiaGeorgia

MinnesotaNew York

North CarolinaOregonVermont

Several others will have completed the CFSRby the end of the summer:

FloridaIndianaKansasNevada

New MexicoNorth DakotaSouth Dakota

In 2002, fifteen additional States will be reviewed:AlabamaAlaska

CaliforniaColorado

ConnecticutMontanaMichiganNebraska

OhioPennsylvania

TennesseeTexas

West VirginiaWyoming

The National Resource Center for Foster Care& Permanency Planning is here to help you tohelp children, youth and families Ð please feelfree to call us!

UpcomingEvents

Unless otherwise noted, for more information please contact Karyn Leevia e-mail: karyn.lee@hunter.cuny.edu

or by phone: (212/452-7433).

September 13, 2001Reception & LectureNRCFCPP, with the Child Welfare Fund and the Hite Foundationwill host a reception and lecture on September 13, 2001. The guestspeaker will be Nina Bernstein, reporter for the New York Timesand author of The Lost Children of Wilder: The Epic Struggle toChange Foster Care.

October 24-26, 2001National Association of State Foster CareManagers' Annual MeetingThe purpose of the National Association of State Foster CareManagers is to provide an opportunity for state foster care managersto pool their expertise for the progressive improvement of the qual-ity of care to children and families serviced in the foster care andfamily support systems. The Association meets annually inWashington, DC with presentations from representatives from theChildren's Bureau as well as national and professional organiza-tions/advocacy groups. Legislative, policy, program and practiceissues are addressed.

June 2-5, 2002Family Group Decision-Making Round TableThe American Humane Association’s National Center on FamilyGroup Decision Making is pleased to announce the 2002 FamilyGroup Decision Making Roundtable and Skills-Building Institutesto be held June 2-5, 2002, in Monterey, California. In 2001, over350 individuals from the United States, Canada, and Europe gath-ered in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, to discuss the practice of fam-ily group decision making. As we continue to widen the circle, weare structuring the 2002 Roundtable as the opportunity for fami-lies, practitioners, policy-makers, administrators, researchers, andjuvenile and family court professionals to engage in thought-pro-voking, planful discussionsabout the implementation ofFGDM. Collaboratively, wewill develop local, state, andnational strategies to main-tain, grow, and bolsterFGDM practice, withoutcompromising the inherentphilosophies of this innova-tive approach. The deadlinefor the Call for Abstracts isSeptember 28, 2001. Formore information, pleasevisit the AHA website atwww.ahafgdm.org or callLisa Merkel-Holguin at202/925-9421.

4

The BackgroundHistorical child welfare practice did not allow foster parentsto adopt or strongly discouraged them from doing sothrough written and unwritten rules. As recently as theearly 1970's, most public adoption agencies had policiesagainst practice of foster parent adoption. Some of the con-cerns historically expressed by public agency staff aboutfoster parents adopting children in their care included:

◆ Fear of losing their valuable cadre of foster families.◆ Fear that foster families hoping to adopt, would under-

mine attempts to attain the primary goal of familyreunification.

◆ Historical licensure processes based on a foster fami-lies' ability to provide temporary care, not a lifetimecommitment.

◆ Decisions to place a child in a particular foster homefrequently were based on available space and notbecause a foster family was determined to be the bestpossible match for a particular child. (1)

For these reasons and others, a child who became freedfor adoption and who was doing well living with a fosterfamily would have in the past been moved to anotherfamily - without allowing the foster parent to have anyinput into the process of selection of the adoptive familyor even continued contact with the child, thus exacerbat-ing the child's experiences with loss, lack of continuityand permanent relationships.

Today, child welfare practice reflects a very different pic-ture. The increasing reality is that foster parents, andnot newly recruited adoptive parents, have come to serveas the most consistent and viable option for permanencefor children in care. Children are entering our child wel-fare systems with complex, long-term special needs. As aresult, child welfare agencies have found it increasingly difficult to recruit adoptive parents who could meet the needs of children in their custody. The system is count-ing on foster parents to fill the gap. According to theChildren's Bureau Express, 64% of children adoptedfrom the child welfare system are adopted by their fosterparents (2) (although not necessarily the families withwhom they were first placed). Not only are foster par-ents adopting children in their care, but also according tothe National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, these

adoptive place-ments are verysuccessful…with94% remainingintact through-out the life of thechild (3). Thus,we are beginningto learn that thepromise of per-manency forchildren in thechild welfare sys-tem who are un-able to return totheir birth par-ents lies in manyinstances withtheir foster par-ents - relatives ornon-relatives.

In this new conceptualization, some child welfare agen-cies are beginning to explore the development of "duallicensure" which means that foster parents and adoptiveparents walk through the same screening and interview,home study, training and background check process andin the end receive the same "approval" to provide fosterand/or adoptive care. Dual licensure allows for a fosterparent who has cared for a child for some length of time,to naturally and easily change their role from that of afoster parent to an adoptive parent, without having to gothrough an entirely new home study and trainingprocess.

Patsy Buida, the Foster Care Specialist at the Children'sBureau ACF/DHHS suggests "It (dual licensure) is a toolto maximize use of resource families in a flexible way thatlets them decide how to interface with the system andwhat type of parenting fits their lifestyle-short-term fos-ter care or long term adoption. If a family has commit-ted to and bonded to a child, it makes no sense to searchany longer… We need to get more comfortable in doingthe best we can with the information we have. Timelypermanence is as important, if not more importantas a "perfect match". (4)

Dual Licensure ÐAn Evolving Best Practice?

Lorrie L. Lutz, MPPSr. Partner L3P Associates, LLC

The National Resource Center for Foster Care and Permanency Planning in partnership with the Casey National Center forResource Family Support, conducted a survey and in-depth follow up telephone interviews with State Foster Care and/orAdoption Managers, consulting experts, as well as foster adoptive families aimed at capturing information about "dual licen-sure" in the states: who is planning/doing it; what does it involve; and what are some key "lessons learned"? The intent ofthis article is to inform readers about best or promising practices occurring in states based on the results of this survey.

5

Emerging Implementation Issues LearnedFrom Dual Licensure Experiences

As in most new processes, there are "lessons to be learned" from those who "led the charge". While every state will havetheir own struggles and unique experiences, our survey taught us that most states will have to address the following keypractice, policy and legislative issues during the implementation of dual licensure.

Pra

cti

ce

Issu

es

Child and Family MatchingBecomes an Earlier ConcernA consistent theme that arose in discussions with fostercare and adoption staff was the difficulty in finding/mak-ing the "right" placement match between children andfamilies, if the first placement is truly to be the last/best.Dual licensure encourages earlier placements withresource families who can support the reunificationprocess and also serve as permanency resources if chil-dren cannot return to their parents. We learned it maymean that staff will need to become more comfortablemaking placements with resource families without thesame amount of information about the child and the fam-ily as was common practice when adoptive or even pre-adoptive placements were made at a later point in the casehistory.

Family-Centered Practice &Reunification Continue to be aCritically Important FocusWhile talking to many survey participants, it became clearthat the practice framework for dual licensure needs to berooted in family-centered principles and strategies - aframework that seeks to preserve children's ties to theirfamilies of origin by involving other related or non-relatedfamily resources to support that process and serve asbackup permanency resources if needed. A family-cen-tered approach with ongoing supervision would assurethat dual licensure and placement with resource familieswould not compromise the reunification process - whichwas a fear expressed by some survey participants. Surveyparticipants commented that this is both a training andbasic values discussion. Many suggested that staff willneed to be provided a 'toolbox of resources to support thisapproach to practice, such as: family-centered assessmentinstruments, consistent and frequent supervision, a poolof resource families who understand their role as mentorto the birth parents, systems that support open and inclu-sive case planning with parents and resource families.

Systems Re-organization SupportsDual Licensure and Enhances Continuityof Relationships for Children withFamilies & StaffMany states and counties that believe they have been'successful' in implementing a dual licensure model havefound it helpful to reorganize their systems in ways thatsupport earlier planning and decision-making aboutpermanency for children (i.e. Texas, Missouri, Oregon,Colorado and more recently Utah). Rather than havingseparate foster care and adoptive units, many have com-bined these units and integrated practice so that a singleworker stays with the child regardless of the outcomes ofthe case, i.e. reunification, guardianship or adoption.

Resource Family Understanding & Supportof the Permanency Planning Processis CriticalWe learned through our survey that dual licensure islikely to be successfully implemented when resource fam-ilies understand and can support the process ofPermanency Planning - a process which is grounded inthe belief that whenever safely possible, reasonableefforts should be made to help children remain with orbe returned to their birth families; and that parents, fos-ter parents and agencies must work together to achievethe range of permanency outcomes that may emerge.Many of the issues around implementing dual licensureled survey participants to reiterate that dual licensuremust be rooted in open and inclusive practice.

This means several things: 1) That resource families support and even facilitate fre-

quent visitation between the child and their biologicalfamily. The more birth parents visit their removedchildren, the greater chance for successful reunifica-tion. (5) However, if the visitation opportunities do notresult in successful reunification, the child and parentcan be provided the opportunity to shift their relation-ship through a supervised and healthy process.

2) That resource families see themselves as a support sys-tem to the birth family. The way in which the fosterparents work with the birth family and support reuni-fication is fundamental to successful reunification oralternative permanency placement. It is critical for thechild protection staff be available to help the resourcefamilies address the ambiguity and conflict that natu-rally exists between helping the birth parents succeedand wanting to adopt the child. Social workers alsoneed to be supported in addressing their own ambigui-ty. (6)

3) That full disclosure is a part of every discussion. Fulldisclosure encourages open and honest dialogue withbiological parents and resource parents, where therights and responsibilities of each are clearly described.It honors the integrity of the permanency planningprocess and ensures that birth families and resourcefamilies have the same information, thereby allowingthem to make informed decisions.

Keep the pool growing:Ongoing recruitment is urgently neededMost individuals surveyed believe that timely permanen-cy for children is worth the extra demands it places onthe system to continually recruit and train new fosterparents as resources for children and families. Duallicensure will require intensive efforts on the part ofpublic and private agencies to expand their recruitmentefforts and may require a shift in the message about therole of a diverse pool of families who can meet the com-plex needs of children and families.

6

Next Steps:What Does All This Mean

to the Field ofChild Welfare?

Over the past twenty years the child welfare systemhas been working rigorously to define best practice.Many child welfare agencies across the countryhave embraced family-centered, strengths focused,culturally responsive work as being the best andmost effective way to serve children and families.More recently through the work of Linda Katz (7),the field has added concurrent planning and theuse of full disclosure to the list of best practicestrategies for child welfare workers. Based on thelessons learned from this survey, it appears thatdual licensure may be the next addition to the tool-box of "best practices" for the child welfare system.

(1) Promising Practices: States Streamline Foster andAdoptive Home Approval Process. (November, 2000).Children's Bureau Express Volume 1 No. 7.

(2) Promising Practices; States Streamline Foster andAdoptive Home Approval Process. (November, 2000).Children's Bureau Express Volume 1 No. 7.

(3) Foster Parent Adoption: What Professionals ShouldKnow. (December, 2000 Downloaded) National AdoptionInformation Clearinghouse Website.

(4 An excerpt from an interview by Lorrie Lutz with PatsyBuida. (December, 2000). Foster Care Specialist, TheChildren's Bureau/ACF/DHHS.

(5) Davis, I. Landverk J., Newton, R., Ganger, W. (1996).Parental Visiting and Foster Care Reunification Childrenand Youth Services Review. Children and Youth ServicesReview. (pp. 363-382). Mech, E. (1985) Parental Visitingand Foster Care Placement. Child Welfare (pp.67-72).

(6) Ford, Mary (1998). Three Concurrent PlanningPrograms How They Benefit Children and SupportPermanency Planning Families. North American Councilon Adoptable Children.

(7) Katz, L. (1990). Linda Katz has profoundly impacted thefield of child welfare with her work on ConcurrentPlanning for children involved in the child welfare system.Her contributions to the filed include but are not limitedto: Effective Permanency Planning for Children in FosterCare. Social Work Journal Volume 35. Foster Care Drift:A Risk Assessment Matrix. Child Welfare. Volume 70.Concurrent Planning; From permanency planning to per-manency action. Mountlake Terrace, WA. LSS ofWashington and Idaho. Preparing permanency planningfor foster parents: A foster parent training manual.Mountlake Terrace, WA. LSS of Washington and Idaho.

For copies of our survey, please see the NRCFCPP orCasey Websites.

Po

licy I

ssu

es

Equity in Regulatory Standards& Due Process for Foster& Pre-Adoptive FamiliesOur discussions with survey participants highlighted thedifferential treatment of foster and adoptive families. Ifwe are expecting that children placed in both foster andadoptive homes be equally safe, then we need to affordthem equal protections. If we are asking foster and pre-adoptive parents to take on similar roles, they need tohave similar rights and equal preparation. Today theydo not. Foster parents go through a rigorous home studyand training process to become licensed. Once licensedthey are afforded protections and rights under the fairhearing and grievance processes. Adoptive parents arecertified or approved-not licensed. While the physicalhome study and criminal background checks may becomprehensive, many pre-adoptive parents are offeredlittle training or educational support. If their efforts toadopt are denied, they have no access to the appeal orgrievance process.

Equity in Post AdoptionFinancial Support is NeededAn issue that frequently arose during interviews is thatsome states provide lower adoption subsidy rates thanfoster care rates, which poses barriers to adoption forsome families. Several foster parents shared duringinterviews that the only reason they did not pursue for-mal adoption was the loss of public support that wasequal to the foster care payment. A family that relies onthe foster care payment and Medicaid coverage to meetthe child's health care needs will struggle with a reductionin these resources. This may impact the stability of theadoptive placement.

Examining Whether Or NotDual Licensure Enhances or ImpedesRelative Caregivers' OptionsUnder the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, relativeand non-relative foster care requires the same licensingrigor. During the survey, many respondents raised con-cern about how this mandate will impact the practice ofdual licensure. Should relatives who are willing to care fora member of their family be asked to go through theprocess of dual licensure? Does this ultimately serve as adeterrent to relative's willingness to take on this compli-cated and difficult care-giving role? If as a result of theimplementation of dual licensure, we see a decrease in thenumber of relatives willing to provide care, the applicabil-ity of this model for relatives may need to be reevaluated.

Positive Youth Development & Independent Living Online TrainingWith support from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Child Welfare League of America, in partnership with ConcordiaUniversity, St. Paul, is pleased to offer distance learning-based training for youth workers in the philosophy of positive youth development.

The goal of the Positive Youth Development and Independent Living Online Training Initiative is to build the capacity of child welfare and juvenilejustice direct service professionals to prepare youth in out-of-home care for adulthood. The development and online dissemination of resourcematerials, training, and technical assistance can increase participants' ability to promote the positive development of the youth with whom theywork. The four-week seminar is designed to help workers understand the basic philosophy and principles of positive youth development. To pro-mote the integration of concepts into practice, participants will engage in online discussion, assessment, planning, and reflection.

Youth workers, social workers, program managers, and training staff are encouraged to participate.For questions regarding registration or course content, please call Maria Garin Jones at 202/662-4287.

7

Team Work ThatMeets the Challenge

of Permanency:Task-Centered

Team Approach toService Delivery

Joy BaileyExecutive Director, Forestdale, Inc.

BackgroundForestdale, Inc. is a multi-service, not-for-prof-it foster care and adoption organization.Located in Forest Hills, Queens, an outer bor-ough of New York City. The agency has workedwith families for over 146 years. For manyyears the agency used the traditional model ofDirector overseeing several Supervisors whosupervised several Caseworkers. Each case-worker carried total responsibility for a case.That meant working with a birth family, fosterfamily, child/children, courts, schools, medicalservices, and coordination of community basedlinkages. This required a skill base includingassessment, engagement, knowledge of develop-mental milestones, addiction issues, domesticviolence, special medical populations, City andState regulations, plus testifying in court, han-dling a myriad of phone calls, correspondence,computers, data entry, paperwork and compli-ance issues … and if you have been in this field,you know what I am talking about. All theabove needed to be done while making a rapiddecision that would return a child home ormove into an adoption track with ever shorten-ing timeframes (this was pre-ASFA). In addi-tion, the workforce crisis and high staffturnover rates were a nightmare. Staffturnover meant every family had to start overwith a new worker who frequently came onto anuncovered caseload. Crisis cases frequentlyreceived first attention. The length of stay forchildren was increasing rather than decreasing.New workers felt ill prepared, isolated, inse-cure. Supervisors needed to help workers withcase decisions based on information that wasnot always the most informed. The decision tochange Forestdale's service delivery approachwas an involved process, but we knew thatdoing so, would help children and families movetoward permanency.

Change in StructureIn an attempt to address the internal and external pressuresand the labor intensive nature of this process, Forestdaledeveloped the Task-Centered Team Approach. This teamwould be assigned 50-60 children, (approximately the samenumber as 20 children per worker), but would only handle apotion of each case. The team would be comprised of a SocialWork Manager who had an MSW; a Field Worker with aBachelor's degree; and an Office Expediter, who had aBachelor's degree plus child welfare experience in this system.

The Field WorkerThe Field Worker in thisproject, was frequently theleast seasoned professionalon the team members. TheField Worker works with thechild and foster family andcoordinates the communityresources that surround thechild. The belief that muchof the help available to achild is provided by the fos-ter family plus schools, ther-apists, tutors and otherresources that could be pro-vided without the directworker delivery led to thisdecision. (It would be prefer-able to have skilled MSW's atboth positions.)

The SocialWork Manager

leads the team toward permanency,coaches and mentors the other members ofthe team but primarily works with the birth

parents. This decision was made because the keyto returning a child to his/her family is work,

which is done, and the partnership, which is form-ed with the family. The most experienced, skilledworker is necessary to carry out these functionsbecause families can be quite isolated. Highlyskilled assessment and engagement skills areessential, as resources are more difficult to

secure and timeframes are short. TheManager also represents the

agency and testifiesin court.

The team works together in the same office, their desks are sit-uated in close proximity to one another, they share informationand are supervised weekly as a team by the Director ofPermanency (who acts as the Administrative Supervisor of thisproject). Families have the benefit of availability to all 3 work-ers, all of whom are familiar with them and no family in 5+ yearshas had to start over with a totally new worker. This model pro-vides a level of security in sharing casework decisions and safe-ty in dealing with families where aggression is a problem.

The Office ExpediterThe Office Expediter position is primarily an office based situation.

The worker is there to field phone calls and crisis (a frequent complaintof all families is the unavailability of their worker) and is responsible forall paperwork coordination, timely completion of reports and correspon-

dence. This is also a key swing position in the event of vacancies.

8

Recommendations for the FieldWe have found that Task-Centered Team Approach to service delivery has improved our responsiveness to families– andparticularly families in crisis (birth families and foster families alike). The shift has also boosted the morale of our staff–helping them to feel more "on top of" their complex caseloads, providing them with a feeling of shared responsibility. Thetask-centered team approach has benefits for public and private child welfare agencies.

Advantages to the Task-CenteredTeam Approach:

✪ A worker is not pulled in several directions; forced to constantlyto re-prioritize

✪ A career ladder is possible as Field Worker moves to OfficeExpediter

✪ It is easier to ask questions of teammates✪ Team members can travel in pairs when issues of safety arise✪ Team members can not be left feeling responsible for sole decision

making ✪ This approach builds camaraderie amongst workers

What it Takes to Make a Team:✪ Commitment to overcoming organizational inertia and changing organizational

culture at all levels of the organization from the Board to line workers.✪ Taking a risk of not succeeding and discarding that which has not been working.✪ Preparation of workers, families and the rest of the agency.✪ Clear job descriptions, constant clarification, clear boundaries when necessary.✪ Training and supervision as a team not individuals.✪ Team trust and respect – relying on each other's judgments.✪ Transfer of supervisory power.✪ MSWs coaching and mentoring colleagues in team.✪ Inclusion of birth families and foster families on the team.

Last Words of CautionThis is an approach that may not work for everyone. The task centered team approach to service delivery is not apanacea but it is presented to encourage agencies to throw out models that no longer work efficiently and create moreeffective ways to function. Any change is high risk and requires patience for transitional chaos. We have found how-ever that the alternative of staying with something that no longer serves the families or the staff is much riskier.

Hold workers to the same stand-ards of accountability as parents.

Hire parents to workwith other parents

Work with parents to understandthe importance of their involvementin Service Planning & Case Reviews

Ask parents what they needto be more involved

& follow through.

Advocate for parents.

Help establish bonds betweenfoster parents, parents

& agencies.

Enhance parent participationin their children's lives &

the agency through visitation.Create space for parents.

Train staff and parentsabout their rights

& responsibilities.

9

Hiring parents promotes parent involvement in agency operations on policy and practice levels and demonstrates a commit-ment to clients and the community. Parents who have been involved in the child welfare system can offer important advocacyand support for parents currently in the system. Parents and families are empowered when they work together. The parentadvocate acts as a 'voice' of his/her community, as a liaison between the agency and the clients, as an organizer for change.Engaging parent advocates in organizing and in service delivery opens up another avenue for interaction with parents.

By promoting ongoing communication between workers and parents, parents have a better chance of understanding and beinginformed of their participation in Service Planning and Case Reviews. Parents need to know ahead of time how to participatefully and what to expect from the reviews. They also need follow up contact and information.

Respect parents' time by training workers to be accountable to parents. If a parent does not show up for a court hearing or avisit, s/he is held accountable. Do the same with workers.

Let parents know what their rights are regarding quality and quantity of visitation. For example, support a parent who wants tocelebrate a child's birthday with a party. Provide support for extra activities like group trips. The agency often becomes a "homeaway from home". Make it feel that way for families. Healthy participation in the child's life will promote more meaningful par-ticipation in agency life too.

Facilitating these relationships can help to break down barriers between parents, foster parents and agencies. Parents canoffer valuable information about their children and foster parents can ask questions and provide feedback about children theyare caring for. There should be ongoing support for these relationships.

Ongoing training and information should be available to staff and parents. Educated parents will be more involved in their chil-dren's lives and agency operations if they understand their rights, responsibilities and expectations. Staff needs up-to-dateinformation to work meaningfully with parents and to be a resource for families.

Helping parents to maneuver various systems such as family court, housing subsidies and public assistance supports agencyefforts to reunite families and plan for permanency. Agencies should be resources to preserve and reunite families in any waya family needs.

Offer resources, time and support to work with parents. They are the best people to ask about their own family's needs. If youwant to involve them in the agency, ask them how they want to be involved. Real dialogue and follow through will make par-ents feel trusted and respected as an important part of the process.

Tips for Involving Parents in Agency OperationsThese tips are offered by Bernadette Blount and Catherine Nelson. Both are parents who have been involved in the child welfare system in New York City. They are involvedin an education and training curriculum with the Child Welfare Organizing Project, a New York City-based organization of parents who are working for reform of thechild welfare system through parent involvement.

FamilyGroup

Decision Makingas a

Time LimitedReunification

Serviceby Sara McNeely

Foster Care ConsultantMinnesota Department of Human Services,

Family and Children's Services

Worker and administrators are always looking for novelapproaches to working more effectively with children,youth, and families. In Minnesota, one approach, whichwe found to work was to increase our use of the FamilyGroup Decision Making (FGDM) Approach.

Utilizing the Title IV-B2 Time Limited ReunificationServices (TLRS) grants to states allowed Minnesota to trya new approach for working with families. The MinnesotaDepartment of Human Services solicited grant applica-tions from county and tribal social service agencies to useFamily Group Decision Making (FGDM) to plan for andsupport a child's return home from placement.

We issued eight grants to individual county agencies andto regional groups of counties and tribes. In all, 21 coun-ties and three tribes are represented. Family GroupDecision Making meetings are offered to the families ofchildren who are in placement because of maltreatment,delinquency, the child's mental health needs, or the child'sdevelopmental disability. Of the eight projects, one isfocusing on sibling groups in placement and two arefocused on recruiting bilingual facilitators.

The primary outcomes of this project* focus on threeareas:

Child SafetyReunification Permanency

Child Safety is measured by whether or not the childexperiences maltreatment after reunification or, for chil-dren who are not reunified, some other permanent homeis established.

Reunification measures the number of children whoreturn home (to either parent or the person who was pro-viding primary care), who subsequently live with anotherrelative, and those who move to non-relative care.

Permanency measures the number andlength of subsequent placements.

Each grantee was required to set additional goals and out-comes as a means of monitoring their practice with chil-dren and families. The evaluation process is just begin-ning and results will be available in September 2002.

The grantee projects were initiated the first half of 2000.Here are some of the things we have learned about start-up that could be useful to others:

◆Grantees are in various stages of implementation ranging fromfacilitators and workers being trained to workers regularly mak-ing referrals to FGDM. It is important for us to remain flexible toallow each agency to pace its implementation in the same way thatwe expect workers to be sensitive and flexible to a family's process.

◆We allowed for a three-month planning phase to bring stakeholderson board, to provide training for facilitators and referring workers,and to develop forms and procedures. Some grantees would havebenefited from an additional two or three months for planning.Although it's easy to get bogged down in the planning process anddelay the first FGDM meeting until everything and everyone isready, it's helpful to have ample time for the preparation and infor-mation sharing phases of implementing a new program.

We don't think it's necessary to have more than six monthsplanning process– at some point you just need to jump inand get started.

◆Every grantee has had families referred for FGDM, however refer-rals are lower than expected. One reason for this is the reticence ofservice providers and families about FGDM processes and results.For service providers, this reticence is to "change" and is importantto consider when implementing FGDM. FGDM requires a shift torelating to family members as team members and to trusting thefamily's abilities to successfully plan for their child's care. For fam-ilies, FGDM also requires a shift to relating to their family membersas team memberswho want to helpthem plan fortheir child's care,and to trustingthe service pro-vider's intentions.

In addit ion,some parentsand childrenare embaras-s e d t o t a l ka b o u t t h e i rproblems withother fami lymembers andhave not experi-enced a sup-portive familyenv ir o n m e n tin the past.

10

Training was one of our biggest needs, and the NationalResource Center for Foster Care and Permanency Planningat Hunter College School of Social Work supported our train-ing efforts by covering part of the cost of the training. We con-tracted with Jim Nice and Patricia Evans to provide trainingon FGDM basics (we call this FGDM orientation) for referringworkers, other agency staff and other stakeholders. SinceFebruary 2000 Patricia and Jim have trained about 500 peo-ple in Minnesota, including child protection and children'smental health workers, probation agents, community basedservice providers, county attorneys, facilitators, supervisorsand managers.

The Department also provided trainingfor facilitators and coordinators. FGDMfacilitators receive a total of five days oftraining. One day is the FGDM orienta-tion mentioned above. The other fourdays are based on mediation skills train-ing and include how to address issues ofchemical use, domestic violence, childabuse, data privacy, and mental healththat arise during the FGDM meeting andpreparation for the meeting. Minnesotanow has a pool of 175 community andagency based FGDM facilitators aroundthe state.

Both the FGDM orientation training and the facilitator train-ing will be incorporated onto our Minnesota Child WelfareTraining System (MCWTS) by the end of the year. TheMCWTS provides fundamental and advanced child welfaretraining to county and tribal agency workers.

This project has created a lot of excitement in Minnesota forFamily Group Decision Making and what it offers families andworkers. Although this grant money can be used only for timelimited reunification services, the effects of this project arebeing felt across the service continuum and in communities.Grantees are using local dollars to conduct FGDM meetings for

families who do not meet the criteria forthis grant, and counties who are not partof this grant process are also implementingFGDM. It is changing our work with fam-ilies and with each other. Grantees reportthat workers are approaching familieswith more confidence in the family's skillsand ability to change and care for theirchildren. Workers are seeing hope forsome families where they didn't before. Inaddition, families who hear about FGDMfrom others are now starting to refer them-selves to FGDM.* Please note that this project had specific outcomeswhich may not reflect the overall scope of the federal out-comes for children.

Renewing Our Commitment to Permanency for Children:

Permanency PracticeStrategic Action Planning Forums

by Judy Blunt, Assistant Director, NRCFCPP

History ...........................In many ways the key to moving chil-dren and families toward safety andpermanency is for child welfareagencies to institutionalize a safety-focused, family-centered, and com-munity-based approach as the cor-nerstone of service delivery. Qualityservices require a policy, fiscal andorganizational environments thatfacilitates effective practice.In an effort to keep the promise ofpermanency vital and strong, theChild Welfare League of America -CWLA and National ResourceCenter for Foster Care and

Permanency Planning at the HunterCollege School of Social Work haveformed a collaborative to offer hands-on assistance to state/local jurisdic-tions in planning to implement thepermanency provisions of theAdoption and Safe Families Act (P.L.,105-89). The purpose of the projectis to help public and private child wel-fare agencies, in collaboration withthe courts, legal professionals, andcommunity-based service providers,to meet the safety and permanencyprovisions of the new law, while main-taining the integrity of family-cen-tered, culturally competent, commu-nity-based child welfare practice.

This initiative grew out of a two-daylaunching conference, funded by theJohnson Foundation, NRCFCPP andCWLA, in October of 1998, at theWingspread Conference Center inRacine, Wisconsin. During this con-ference, the group revisited what hadbeen learned about permanencyplanning over the past two decadesand discussed current opportunitiesand challenges to achieving positivetimely permanency outcomes. Thisdiscussion shaped a report entitled:Renewing Our Commitment toPermanency for Children: Wings-pread Conference Summary Report:An Issue Brief (CWLA, 2000).

11

The participants of this first confer-ence agreed that effective permanen-cy planning required comprehensiveassessment and reasoned decisionmaking about the safety, permanency,and well-being of vulnerable children.They further stressed that it requiredindividualized, case by case assess-ments and interventions that balancethe time needed for continuity of rela-tionships, secure attachments, andthe child's ability to tolerate separa-tion and loss. Advocating for a bal-anced approach to casework and legalpractice in child welfare as the intentof both ASFA and the AdoptionAssistance and Child Welfare Act of1980, the participants of this seminalconference further agreed that thegoals of both these legal mandatescould best be met through family-cen-tered, culturally competent, commu-nity-based practice approaches thatare open, inclusive, and facilitate con-sideration of the range of permanencyoptions available to each child, youth,and family.

Using the metaphor of “The TeamRiver” to guide the flow of the discus-sion of permanency, the PermanencyPractice Strategic Action PlanningForum initiative took the shape of aseries of forums, which focused onimproving multi-agency planning anddecision making regarding permanen-cy practice on behalf of children inout-of-home care or who were at highrisk of entering care.

There have been five forums in geo-graphically strategic sites around thecountry to date. The first was heldApril 1999 in Washington, DC; thesecond in Austin, Texas on September13-15, 1999; the third in Denver, COon October 27-29, 1999; the fourth inPortland, OR on December 8-10,1999; and the fifth forum in Miami,FL on January 26-28, 2000..

The next two forums will be held inthe Fall of 2001.

Objectives .......................

There are several objectives in thiscollaboration:•To recognize the urgent need for timely

decision-making for children in out ofhome care and to renew our commitmentto achieving permanency for them.

•To build consensus regarding successfulpermanency outcomes and options for chil-dren and their families.

•To learn about best practice strategies forachieving successful permanency outcomesfor children.

•To build capacity for multi-agency, collab-orative planning and problem-solving.

•To leave the forum with a community-spe-cific plan and a clear strategy for improv-ing permanency planning for children.

•To identify the internal and externalresources and supports needed to accom-plish strategic action plans and goals.

12

Hot Topics inFoster Care &Permanency

Planning

Dual Licensure of Fosterand Adoptive Families

Recruitment and Retentionof Resource Families

Post-Permanency Services

Respite Care for ResourceFamily Providers

Issues in Youth Permanency

Family Visitation Issues

Over Representation ofChildren of Color in the

Foster Care System

Accessing Health andMental Health Servicesfor Children and Youth

Fathers in Child Welfare

Meeting the MultipleChallenges of Adolescence

Kinship Care

In the next few months,the National Resource Center

will be focusing on, orcollaborating with the following

organization on theseissues and many others:

Casey Family Programs

Child Welfare Leagueof America

National Associationof Foster Parents

ARCH

Institute for Families in Society

Please let us know about yourstate's interests and needs.

Contact:Gary Mallon

Center Director(212) 452-7043or via e-mail at

mrengmal@aol.com

Participants .......................Guided by a comprehensiveParticipant Handbook, the forumincludes participants from states,counties, and municipalities attendingas part of a jurisdictional team. Theteams are comprised of individualsrepresenting groups or organizationsthat play a key role in achieving per-manency for children. They cometogether to learn, discuss and planways to achieve permanency for chil-dren in their jurisdiction.

The public child welfare agency fromeach jurisdiction is invited to assem-ble a team to participate in the forum.Each jurisdiction may have a maxi-mum of eight team members.Directors have some flexibility inselecting their teams. For example,teams may be newly formed or may bedrawn from existing collaborativeefforts, such as court improvementprojects, state or citywide permanen-cy projects.

Prior to the Forum, each team isasked to complete a brief self-assess-ment survey questionnaire to see whatthe foster care demographics relatedto permanency outcomes and practicelooks like in each jurisdiction.

Format ..............................The format for the two-and-one-halfday forum includes learning activitiesand large and small group work forthe teams. Trainers with direct expe-rience with the highlighted methodsand strategies for achieving timelypermanency, guide participants indiscussions and action planning exer-cises. There are opportunities toengage in activities designed to applythe information to their individualjurisdiction's needs.

This forum is an active process and assuch every state team leaves the train-ing with a plan that identifies shortand long term steps that they can taketo achieve better permanency out-comes and meet the mandates ofASFA in their community.

Teams are matched with project con-sultants who act as facilitators, cata-lysts, and motivators for stakeholdersto continue their strategic action plan-ning and implementation process.

One of the end products to share withcolleagues is the creation of two'Toolboxes for Permanency': UsingVisitation to Support Permanency,and Expanding the Role of FosterParents in Achieving Permanency.These user friendly guides provideadditional information to administra-tors, program managers, supervisors,

and workers on a range of permanen-cy options and methods. Each guideincludes a revised and expanded defi-nition of permanency and a fullreview of a specific permanency prac-tice method.

We believe that as a result of ourRenewing Our Commitment project,states and counties will be better pre-pared to continue to plan for andimplement permanency programsand practices that both meet therequirements of the new law andaddress the needs and concerns ofindividual children, youth, and fami-lies.

For more information about the NRCFCPPand CWLA Permanency Practice Strategic

Action Planning Forums, contact:Judy Blunt at 212 452-7436 or via e-mail

at jblunt@shiva.hunter.cuny.eduor Millicent Williams at 202-942-0253

or via e-mail at mwillia@cwla.org

For copies of Renewing Our Commitmentto Permanency for Children:

Wingspread Conference Summary Report:An Issue Brief (CWLA, 2000), orToolboxes for Permanency (2001)

contact the CWLAvia the Internet at www.cwla.org

For copies of NRCFCPP's Tools forPermanency see our website at

http://guthrie.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp

The Child Welfare Fundand the Hite Foundation

have made generouscontributions to fundscholarship programsfor five students at theHunter College School

of Social Work.The Child Welfare Scholars

are focusing onSystemic Change

in Child Welfare, while theHite Fellows are committed

to Permanency Planningfor children.

WhatÕsNewat the

Center?

13

The NRCFCPP New Staff MembersCenter Director

Gerald P. Mallon D.S.W.212/452-7043

mrengmal@aol.com

Associate DirectorStephanie Boyd Serafin

212/452-7049stephanie.serafin@hunter.cuny.edu

...........................Assistant Director

Judy Blunt212/452-7436

jblunt@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu...........................

Information Services SpecialistMyrna Lumbsden

212/452-7431mlumbsde@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu

...........................

Events Planner/Technical Support Assistant

Karyn Lee212/452-7433

karyn.lee@hunter.cuny.edu...........................

Grants CoordinatorIrene Stater212/452-7432

istater@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu...........................Administrative Assistant

Joan Dikeman212/452-7053

...........................

A recent interim report by the Citizen's Committee forChildren (C.C.C.) (1) highlights the salient findings from astudy conducted on the neighborhood-based services planspearheaded by the Administration of Children's Servicesin New York City. Although the report focused solely ondata gathered from communities in the Bronx, the impli-cations for this community based initiative reach farbeyond the borders of this New York City borough.Whether we want to accept it or not, people in the com-munity have opinions, perceptions, and attitudes towardchild welfare agencies. Sometimes a solid wall between theagency and the community has been built, and nobodywins. Developing working community connections hasdeep implications for the manner in which child welfareagencies do their work. Working together, both the childwelfare agency and the community, gains by sharing theresponsibility and resources for their children and fami-lies. Undoubtedly, the development of working connec-tions with the community can bring tremendous benefits.

Some of these are: • Improvement of the child welfare agency's ability to

recruit, train, support, and retain neighborhood-based foster care which is culturally and linguisti-cally sensitive to the needs of the community.

• Enhancement of a community network of formaland informal services which is available to the chil-dren and families.

• Increase the community's understanding of thechild welfare agency's mission and role, thusimproving the agency's image.

• Development of collaborative relationships withdiverse community organizations.

How can child welfare agenciesdevelop working connections with the community?There is no question that the development of meaningfulconnections with the community is necessary to do ourwork efficiently and effectively. The question is how wecan put this into practice. Certainly, the process of devel-oping collaborative connections with members of the com-munity can be slow and challenging. Nevertheless, it is animportant and rewarding process. The following are somepractical guidelines on how your agency can develop suc-cessful and lasting connections with the community.

* Define the CommunityBe open to diverse communities within the agency'sneighborhood and take into account that a communitycan be defined as a group of people that share a commonlocation, interest, and/or identification.

* Get yourself and your agency known in the communityIt is important that you raise public visibility by pro-moting and practicing the agency's mission and com-mitment to children and families. Steady outreach andnetworking activities are vital. For example, organizean open house, bring agency brochures to neighbor-hood events, attend community board meetings, visitother agencies and meet with community leaders.

* Promote community involvementInvite community members to be active by taking a rolein your agency. Recognize that they bring unique expert-ise and that their work can make a difference for chil-dren in the community. Diverse community memberscan serve many important functions such as members ofadvisory boards, recruiters of foster parents, andbridges to other organizations in the neighborhood.

* Break down barriersIn order for your agency to connect genuinely with thecommunity, it is crucial to establish an on-going dia-logue and address any negative opinions and concernsthat are sometimes spread about child welfare agencies.The development of mechanisms such as surveys andfocus groups for obtaining honest feedback from thecommunity is very critical. It is equally important tocreate systems to effectively review the feedbackreceived from the community and to address questionsand concerns in a kindly and timely manner. Also,never forget to show appreciation.

What do child welfare agenciesneed to get started?

One of the most important things needed to begin devel-oping working and meaningful connections with the com-munity is the commitment of child welfare leadership(including administrators and workers). It is necessary to

Child Welfare Agencies:Developing Working

Connections with theCommunity

by Hilda Rivera, Assistant ProfessorHunter College School of Social Work

14

Where HaveWe Been:

Training & TechnicalAssistanceby NRCFCPPConsultants & Staff

The National Resource Center for Foster Care and Permanency Planning atthe Hunter College School of Social Work has as its mission to provide train-ing, technical assistance (TA) and information to increase the capacity ofchild welfare agencies to provide children with safe, permanent families insupportive communities.

Our Center staff and a national network of diverse consultants with varyinglevels of skill, professional and life experience, and perspectives on child wel-fare systems change, provide training and technical assistance to states andtribes all over the country.

We thought it might be interesting for our readers to see where and on whattopics have we trained since our last Newsletter:

We have worked with close to 20 states over the first 6 months our second pro-gram year - providing telephone technical assistance, planning efforts for workahead, and of course, numerous on-site training and technical assistanceevents. The majority of our requests have involved planning for and provisionof Training and Technical Assistance around concurrent permanency plan-ning, family group conferencing, recruitment and retention of foster/adoptiveresource parents, and policy review and development related to permanencyplanning and ASFA, MEPA, ICWA and relative care legislation. We have pro-vided TA with one state related to Child and Family Service Reviews and planto focus more attention on this critical area in the next six months.

The following is a summary of the Training and technical assistance (T/TA)requests we have received and provided during the first 6 months of our sec-ond program year.

have leadership that is willing totake risks and to change the "oldways of doing business". Realizingthe importance of involving thecommunity in our work with chil-dren and families is a crucial firststep. New skills and flexible roleswill have to be developed amongchild welfare administrators andworkers in order for them to becapable to reach out to the commu-nity in a positive and consistentmanner. Developing working com-munity connections also requiresthat those in child welfare leader-ship positions are prepared for lis-tening and taking action as well asfor sharing responsibilities andresources with the community. Ifthe community collaboration visionis to succeed, the focus should beon strengths (of the administra-tors, workers, families, and com-munity), dialogue, and inclusion.

Providing preventive and fostercare services to children and fami-lies in the neighborhoods wherethey live represents a positivemovement toward keeping childrensafe, increasing family stability,and keeping families together.Implementing neighborhood-basedservices reforms, suggests thatchild welfare organizations musttake bold and necessary steps toreduce length of stay in foster careand focus attention to services nec-essary to reunify children withtheir families. The success of theseefforts depend largely on the avail-ability of quality support servicesthat contribute to family well-being, including substance abuseservices, health and mental healthtreatment, job training andemployment, child care andaffordable housing. The success ofcommunity based approaches alsodepend on the commitment of suffi-cient funding that supports thiswork.

(1) Citizens' Committee for Children.(2001, April). Closer to home: Servingchildren and families in neighborhood swhere they live. New York: Author. Forcopies contact Citizens' Committee forChildren at infor@kfny.org

15

NRCFCPPwebsite

www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp

Puerto RicoSan Juan, PR

Elba Montalvo consultant to theNRCFCPP from the Committee for

Hispanic Children and Familiesprovided 2.5 days of technical

assistance to determine Training andTechnical Assistance needs of the

Department of Family Services andthe Judges who hear child welfare cases.

Dr. Hilda Rivera, Faculty at theHunter College School of Social Workand NRC Consultant will be focusingon extending our work in Puerto Rico

during the summer months.

District of ColumbiaWashington, DC

Robin Brown Manning conducted a two-day training for the Child andFamily Services Association on Concurrent Permanency Planning.

VirginiaFairfax County, VA

The Center is planning to provide 5 days of on-site T/TA with FairfaxCounty Department of Social Services to plan and implement an approachto concurrent permanency planning. The County will then contract with

the Center to provide an additional 12 days of on-site T/TA to assistsupervisors in developing a curriculum as well as targeted and on-goingtraining/support for casework staff. The project will include follow-up

TA to sustain the changes made through training. Laura Williamsconducted this training and technical assistance for the Center.

REGION III

MarylandBaltimore, MD

Dee Unterbach, Robin Brown-Manning, and our center's AssociateDirector, Stephanie Boyd Serafin provided a series of training in

Concurrent Permanency Planning for Caseworkers in Baltimore Maryland.

New YorkAlbany, NY

Sarah Greenblatt participated in the planning of 2 state-widevideo conferences, broadcasted from Albany on ConcurrentPermanency Planning. The video conferences involved an

on-site rehearsal the day before each presentation.Ms. Greenblatt prepared the annotated agenda and the

overhead power points with the guidance of the NY State Staff.Jan Flory from the Children's Aid Society in NYC

participated in both video-conferences as a consultant withthe NRC; during the second video conference two resource

families and a resource family trainer participated in the first half.

New YorkSyracuse, NY

Stephanie Boyd Serafinprovided one day of trainingand technical assistance with

the NY State Region IIOffice of Children and

Family Services and theSalvation Army, which received

a federal grant to implementa region-wide concurrent

planning initiative.

New YorkBuffalo, NY

Rose Alma Senatoreprovided twodays of on-site

training onConcurrentPermanencyPlanning forErie County

DSSSymposium.

REGION II

Rhode IslandProvidence, RI

Rose Alma Senatore continues toprovide technical assistance withthe Department of Children andFamilies in collaboration with theRegion I Office and the National

Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice. She is helping

with strategic planning forimplementation of family-centered,concurrent planning policy develop-

ment, and training of staff.

MaineAugusta, ME

Rose Alma Senatore has participated in 4 half-daymeetings to plan for their state's Child and Family

Services Review and a Concurrent Planning initiative.She has worked collaboratively with the Region I

Office and the NRC for Organizational Improvement.Ms. Senatore will continue to work with the Maine

Training Academy to design ASFA and PermanencyPlanning training for the non-profit agencies in

Maine; as well as working with the Child WelfareDirector and her staff to begin to develop Concurrent

Planning policy and practice expectations.

ConnecticutHartford, CT

Sarah Greenblatt facilitateda one-day on-site session withthe Department of Childrenand Families AdministrativeCase Reviewers on the ele-ments of Concurrent Plan-

ning and the special rolethe Administrative Case

Reviewers have in promotingtimely and meaningfulpermanency planning.

REGION I

16

North DakotaBismark & Minot, ND

TA and Concurrent Planning TrainingSarah Greenblatt provided 4 days of T/TA with the State of North Dakota to facilitate

discussions regarding planning with agency leadership for the Child and Family ServiceReviews and Training with supervisors and line staff related to Concurrent Planning.

WyomingCasper, Cheyenne, Rock Springs, & Riverton, WY

Concurrent Planning Training. Wyoming. Janyce Fenton represented the NRCFCPP at a series of 4 one-day, on-site

Concurrent Planning trainings throughout the state. She partnered with theAmerican Bar Association National Resource Center for Court and

Judicial Issues to provide this training.

REGION VIII

UtahSalt Lake City, UT

Integrated Service Planning Training with SupervisorsLorrie Lutz provided training related to Integrated Service Planning within

the practice context of Concurrent Planning for supervisors. She will providefollow-up training on April 26-27, 2001.

North CarolinaRaleigh, NC

Rose Alma Senatore conducteda training for administrators

and supervisors on ConcurrentPermanency Planning issues.

TennesseeNashville, TN

Stephanie Boyd Serafin provided oneday of on-site Technical Assistance todetermine what the State of Tennesseeneeds in the way of training related topermanency planning and concurrent

planning. Rose Alma Senatore alsoparticipated in the training.

REGION IV

MississippiPhiladelphia, MS

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.Gary Mallon and a co-facilitator from

Utah Children and Family Serviceswill provide training for new casemanagers who will be providingwrap-around services through a

SAMHSA contract for theChoctaw Tribe.

New MexicoAlbuquerque, NM

TA on Concurrent Planning.Rose Alma Senatore will work witha team that includes Patricia Evansand Rose Wentz to plan policy and

implement training related toConcurrent Planning and Family

Group Decision-Making.

TexasTeleconference calls

Sarah Greenblatt participated ina series of teleconference calls

aimed at continuing permanencyplanning initiatives.

New MexicoAlbuquerque, NM

Patricia Evans provided twoworkshops on Family GroupDecision-Making for a Court

Improvement and Departmentsponsored conference.

IllinoisTeleconference Call

on ConcurrentPlanning.

Sarah Greenblattjoined an all day

meeting in ChicagoIllinois by telephone

for two hours toprovide technical

assistance regardingthe State's plans for

Concurrent Planning.

17

REGION V REGION VI

Prognosis MeetingDenver, CO

Judy Blunt represented theCenter in a collaborative meetingwith the NRC Child Maltreatment

to examine with a group ofnational advisors the use ofPrognosis in Child Welfare

planning and decision-making.The group met for one dayto explore the benefits and

concerns about prognosis-basedpractice.

In all we have visited 20 states and theCommonwealth of Puerto Rico duringthese past six months. During the next sixmonths we plan on devoting a great deal ofour training and technical assistance ener-gies to helping states prepare for orrespond to Child and Family ServicesReviews, but we will also continue to assiststates and tribes by providing individualtraining and technical assistance in a vari-ety of areas.

Consult our website at:www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp

for a listing of these topical areas.

If we haven't been to your state, and youthink that would like for us to providetraining and technical assistance, pleasecontact:

Stephanie Boyd SerafinAssociate Director

by phone at 212 452-7049or via e-mail at:

stephanie.serafin@hunter.cuny.eduto explore the possibility.

We look forward to working with you andyour state to make the promise of perma-nency a reality for all children and youth.

CWLA ConferenceWashington, D.C.

Sarah Greenblatt provideda 1.5 hour workshop with

Debra Bass from Lee County,Florida on Implementing

Concurrent Planning.

Prognosis MeetingBethesda, Maryland.

Judy Blunt and Sarah Greenblattparticipated in the second

meeting examiningPrognosis-based planning and

decision-making in Child Welfare.

National Foster ParentAssociation Conference

Cincinnati, Ohio. Lorrie Lutz presented a

workshop with Kathy Barbellfrom the Casey Family Programs'

National Center for ResourceFamily Support. They discussed

the Dual Licensure surveyMs. Lutz conducted for the

Center as a consultantsupported by Casey funding.

Foster FamilyTreatment Association Conference

Atlanta, Georgia.Lorrie Lutz presented a workshop

with Kathy Barbell from theCasey Family Programs’

National Center for ResourceFamily Support. They willdiscuss the Dual Licensure

survey Ms. Lutz conducted forthe Center as a consultant

supported by Casey funding.

NationalConferences

ArizonaConference Call

Arizona Departmentof Economic Security

Sarah Greenblatt participatedin a conference call that

included the ArizonaDepartment of EconomicSecurity, the NRCFCPP

and the NRC forOrganizational Improvement

to plan for the NRC'spotential involvement in a

2 day meetingfor supervisors.

REGION IX

ArizonaTucson, Flagstaff & Phoenix, AZ

Arizona Department ofEconomic Security

Janyce Fenton and Jill Weltrepresented the NRCFCPP

at a series of 3 one dayon-site Concurrent Planning

trainings throughout thestate of Arizona during

the month of May.

HawaiiHonolulu. HITraining on

Concurrent PlanningSarah Greenblatt and

Laura Williams provided3 two-day sessions on

Concurrent PermanencyPlanning for Department

and Court personnel.

WashingtonTribal Technical Assistance NICWA

National Indian Child Welfare Associationhas provided TA with the following tribes

after they submitted request letters totheir respective Regions:Washington

Quinault Social, Health & EducationCommittee Orientation (SHE),

Taholah, WA:Members composed of community staff

and tribal council were given an overviewof Title IV-E. The Tribal Finance

Contracting, Social Services, as well asGwen Gua and Trudy Marcellay fromDCFS/DSHS participated. NICWA

consultant, Patti Elofson hasprovided this TA.

Quinault IV-E Overview,Ocean Shores, WA:

Overview of title IV-E for the newQuinault social service manager and the

IV-E team. The tribal IV-E team hasidentified a number of tribal IV-E

implementation tasks. NICWA consul-tant, Patti Elofson provided this TA.

REGION IX

18

New PublicationsMyrna Lumbsden

Information Specialist NRCFCPP

The National Resource Center for Foster Care and Permanency Planning at the Hunter College School of SocialWork has as part of its mission to disseminate information in the form of print publications (books, magazines,journals, special reports), videos, Power Point presentations, and other resources to increase the capacity ofchild welfare agencies to provide children with safe, permanent families in supportive communities.

Our Center staff receives numerous publications every week from all over the country and we thought it mightbe interesting for our readers to know what new publications have recently come out.

Building the Child Welfare Team“Promising Practices”

2001 Phone Poll ResultsPublished by University of Southern Maine,

Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Services,Institute for Child & Family PolicyFor copies call: (207) 780-5810or contact them via e-mail at

www.muskie.usm.maine.edu/asfaThis report highlights the results of a poll that shows

that child welfare managers, supervisors, and workersgenerally have some understanding of the intent of

ASFA and have received some training on its require-ments and implementation. The report provides some

interesting next step recommendations for states.

Child Protection: Building Community PartnershipsPublished by John F. Kennedy School of Government

For copies call: (617) 495-1461 or contact them via e-mailat ksgwww.harvard.edu/socpol

A report from a working group of public and private child welfareadministrators designed to craft a more effective approach for

keeping children safe from maltreatment.

Closer to Home: Serving Children and Families inNeighborhoods Where they Live: Interim Report

Published by the Citizen's Committee for ChildrenFor copies call: (212) 673-1800, or contact them

via e-mail at infor@kfny.org

A report outlining several of the preliminary findings from a study thatsurveyed neighborhood based approaches to working with

families in New York City.

Families in Society:The Journal of Contemporary

Human Services,May-June, 2001, Volume 82, Number 3.

Special Issue on theStrengths PerspectiveEdited by Dennis Saleebey

For copies contact the journal atfis@alliance.org

An excellent collection of articles which speak to theinherent strengths in individuals and families. Thesepapers present a melange of approaches to practice,

teaching, and scholarly inquiry, several provideactual case examples and assessment instruments.

Making Reasonable Efforts:A Permanent Home for Every Child

Published by the Youth Law CenterFor copies call: The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation

at (212) 551-9100 or contact them via e-mailat info@youthlawcenter.com

An updated and particularly excellent publication based on earlier workwhich provides guidelines for attorneys, judges, and social services

personnel to assist them in defining, providing, and enforcing reasonableefforts to enable children to safely remain at home or rejoin their families

if possible. The guidebook has three parts: Guidelines for Attorneys,Guidelines for Judges, and Guidelines for Child Welfare Agencies, a

discussion of principles follows each guideline.

Practice Manual for ConcurrentPermanency Planning:

From Resilience to ALERTto Permanency

Published by the Center for AdvancedStudies in Child Welfare, University of

Minnesota, School of Social WorkFor copies call: (612) 624-4231

or contact them via e-mailat cascw@che.umn.edu

A practice manual that supports decision-makingwith families using a resilience model.

Reflections: Narratives of Professional HelpingSpring, 2001, Volume 7, Number 2Special Issue on Grandparents

Raising GrandchildrenEdited by Catherine C. Goodman

For copies on the journal call: (562) 985-4626 orcontact them via e-mail at

www.csulb.edu/dept/socialwk/reflections

A wonderful medley of personal narratives that brings together manyvoices of grandparents and professionals. The first section represents

the voices of grandparents and their family members. The secondsection presents the voices of professionals in many roles:

administration, practice, research, and education.

19

Bridging the GapWorkday Proceedings:Permanency Planning

with Drug Affected FamiliesThis report was prepared by our AssistantDirector, Judy Blunt. It summarizes the proceed-ings, recommendations and supporting researchfrom a workday held at the Center to address col-laboration opportunities between child welfareand substance abuse treatment service systems.The report is available from the NRCFCPP for $8.

Listening to Youth ReportThe Listening to Youth Report captures the expe-riences of youth formerly in foster care and theirrecommendations about how to improve the sys-tem and strengthen services. This report describesthe projects’ goals and methodology, lists the inter-view questions and the moving, thought-provokingyouth responses, and provides recommendationsfor change offered by the former youth in care. Acopy of the report can be purchased fromNRCFCPP for $5.

ÒToolsÓ for PermanencyNRCFCPP “Tools” for Permanency practice andinformation sheets are available on ConcurrentPermanency Planning, Family Group DecisionMaking, and Child Welfare Mediation. A copy ofeach “Tool” can be purchased from NRCFCPPfor $3. each.

Permanency Planningand ASFA Handbook

Michael A. Neff, an attorney practicing in NewYork City and NRCFCPP advisor, developed ahandbook for child welfare specialists that can beused as a training tool in workshops on permanen-cy planning and ASFA. The handbook incorpo-rates legislative and judicial developments andstrategies for good social work practice, as well ascaseworker-attorney partnerships. A copy of thehandbook can be obtained from the NRCFCPPfor a shipping and handling charge of $3. or fromMichael Neff (212) 575-1365, maneffpc@aol.com

The Implementation ofManaged Care in Child Welfare:

The Legal PerspectiveThe purpose of this overview of the legal issuesraised by the implementation of managed careprinciples in child welfare during the early andmid-1990’s by Denise Winterberger McHugh, anattorney and NRCFCPP consultant, is to providea basic understanding of the legal aspect of man-aged care and a review of its challenges and poten-tial opportunities for child welfare leaders. Thereport can be purchased from NRCFCPP for $8.

NRCFCPP Dual Licensure SurveyThe NRCFCPP in collaboration with the CaseyNational Center for Resource Family Support islooking at the practice of dual licensure for fosterand adoptive parents. We would like to hear fromyour state or child welfare agency if you are usingor planning to use dual licensing or approval poli-cies/practices to expedite permanency planning forsome children. Please contact Myrna Lumbsden

(212) 452-7431,mlumbsde@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu

Where Can I Find More Information?The following is a listing of reports, summaries and materials available through the NRCFCPP, unless otherwise noted.

Copies can be obtained by contacting: Myrna Lumbsden, Information Specialist (212) 452-7431, e-mail: mlumbsde@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu