2004-2009 COMPREHENSIVE CHILD
AND FAMILY SERVICES PLAN
ANNUAL PROGRESS AND SERVICES
REPORT
JUNE 30, 2008
http://128.121.25.104:8080/awweb/pdfopener?md=1&did=24092
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Sunday, June 12, 2011
NH Protocols Relative to Abuse and Neglect Cases and Permanency
Protocols Relative to Abuse and Neglect Cases and Permanency
NEW HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COURT
COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
IN COOPERATION WITH
THE FAMILY DIVISION
AND
N.H. PROBATE COURT
Revised April 2003
INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Protocols Relative to Abuse and Neglect Cases and Permanency Planning were made possible through a federal grant received by the New Hampshire Administrative Office of the Courts from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.
This exciting grant opportunity allowed the New Hampshire District Court to develop and oversee the Court Improvement Project (CIP). Members of the CIP worked tirelessly on the creation of this manual, which began with a careful review of the Resource Guidelines for Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases produced by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
The Protocols are the result of a significant collaboration among the District Court, Family Division, Probate Court and Superior Court, as well as representatives from the Bar, Legislature, CASA, the Division for Children, Youth and Families, Judicial Council, law enforcement and the Attorney General's Office. Foster parents and service providers also contributed to this endeavor. We owe a debt of gratitude to members of the New Hampshire Court Improvement Project's Advisory Committee and Protocol Committees, who gave most generously of their time, knowledge and expertise in the development and review of these protocols.
Special thanks are also extended to Lauren Thorn, Pam Neville, Jim O'Neil, Diane Hufstader, Janice Boynton and Marge Therrien from the Office of the Administrative Judge of the District Court. Their steadfast efforts, and untold hours of drafting and redrafting, formatting and reformatting, are greatly appreciated.
Insofar as these protocols suggest any interpretation of the law, the reader should bear in mind that the interpretation of the law, as it applies to any given case, is within the sole province of the trial judge, subject to the ultimate review of the New Hampshire Supreme Court. The Protocols do not create substantive rights that do not currently exist and should not be considered as superseding any constitutional or statutory rights of parties to abuse and neglect proceedings.
We strongly encourage the use of the Protocols Relative to Abuse and Neglect Cases and Permanency Planning in the District Court, Family Division, and Probate Court and hope that each of us will improve, in some small way, our handling of these most important cases.
Edwin W. Kelly
Administrative Judge
District Court Susan B. Carbon
Supervisory Judge
Grafton County
Family Division John R. Maher
Administrative Judge
Probate Court
Read more at the above link
NEW HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COURT
COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
IN COOPERATION WITH
THE FAMILY DIVISION
AND
N.H. PROBATE COURT
Revised April 2003
INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Protocols Relative to Abuse and Neglect Cases and Permanency Planning were made possible through a federal grant received by the New Hampshire Administrative Office of the Courts from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.
This exciting grant opportunity allowed the New Hampshire District Court to develop and oversee the Court Improvement Project (CIP). Members of the CIP worked tirelessly on the creation of this manual, which began with a careful review of the Resource Guidelines for Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases produced by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
The Protocols are the result of a significant collaboration among the District Court, Family Division, Probate Court and Superior Court, as well as representatives from the Bar, Legislature, CASA, the Division for Children, Youth and Families, Judicial Council, law enforcement and the Attorney General's Office. Foster parents and service providers also contributed to this endeavor. We owe a debt of gratitude to members of the New Hampshire Court Improvement Project's Advisory Committee and Protocol Committees, who gave most generously of their time, knowledge and expertise in the development and review of these protocols.
Special thanks are also extended to Lauren Thorn, Pam Neville, Jim O'Neil, Diane Hufstader, Janice Boynton and Marge Therrien from the Office of the Administrative Judge of the District Court. Their steadfast efforts, and untold hours of drafting and redrafting, formatting and reformatting, are greatly appreciated.
Insofar as these protocols suggest any interpretation of the law, the reader should bear in mind that the interpretation of the law, as it applies to any given case, is within the sole province of the trial judge, subject to the ultimate review of the New Hampshire Supreme Court. The Protocols do not create substantive rights that do not currently exist and should not be considered as superseding any constitutional or statutory rights of parties to abuse and neglect proceedings.
We strongly encourage the use of the Protocols Relative to Abuse and Neglect Cases and Permanency Planning in the District Court, Family Division, and Probate Court and hope that each of us will improve, in some small way, our handling of these most important cases.
Edwin W. Kelly
Administrative Judge
District Court Susan B. Carbon
Supervisory Judge
Grafton County
Family Division John R. Maher
Administrative Judge
Probate Court
Read more at the above link
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Child Protective Services returns 7 Muslim kids to their mom, were to be put in non-Muslim home-Old article but worth the Read
Child Protective Services returns 7 Muslim kids to their mom, were to be put in non-Muslim homes - Albany CPS and Family Court | Examiner.com
Seven children removed by Child Protective Services from their home because their father allegedly molested an unrelated child, have been returned to their mother, Asha Gobana, according to the Assciated Press. One hundred East African Muslims staged an all day protest when they heard that the children were to be placed in non-Muslim homes. How much effect the protest had on the judge's decision is not known.
Continue reading on Examiner.com Child Protective Services returns 7 Muslim kids to their mom, were to be put in non-Muslim homes - Albany CPS and Family Court | Examiner.com
Seven children removed by Child Protective Services from their home because their father allegedly molested an unrelated child, have been returned to their mother, Asha Gobana, according to the Assciated Press. One hundred East African Muslims staged an all day protest when they heard that the children were to be placed in non-Muslim homes. How much effect the protest had on the judge's decision is not known.
Continue reading on Examiner.com Child Protective Services returns 7 Muslim kids to their mom, were to be put in non-Muslim homes - Albany CPS and Family Court | Examiner.com
NH DCYF Statewide Assessment's July 2010-Nashua only-Failed Again!
http://childwelfare.net/cfsreview/hhs_docs/statereports/NH/Statewideassessment2ndRoundCFSR.pdf
NH DCYF Statewide Assessment's July 2010-Nashua only
Item 1: Timeliness of initiating investigations of reports of child maltreatment
How effective is the agency in responding to incoming reports of child maltreatment in a timely manner?
Percent Rated as a Strength
Nashua
Aug-10
75
Item 2: Repeat Maltreatment
How effective is the agency in reducing the recurrence of maltreatment of children?
Nashua
Aug-09
No Answer
Item 3: Services to family to protect children in the home and prevent removal or re-entry into foster care
How effective is the agency in providing services, when appropriate, to prevent removal of children from their homes?
Nashua
Aug-10
83.3
Item 4: Risk assessment and safety management
How effective is the agency in reducing the risk of harm to children, including those in foster care and those who receive
services in their own homes?
Nashua
Aug-10
66.7
Item 5: Foster care re-entries
How effective is the agency in preventing multiple entries of children into foster care?
Nashua
Aug-10
No Answer
Item 6: Stability of foster care placement
How effective is the agency in providing placement stability for children in foster care?
Nashua
Aug-10
77.8
Item 7: Permanency goal for child
How effective is the agency in determining the appropriate permanency goals for children on a timely basis when
they enter foster care
Nashua
Aug-10
44.4
Item 8: Reunification, guardianship, or permanent placement with relatives
How effective is the agency in helping children in foster care return safely to their families when appropriate?
Nashua
Aug-10
66.7
Item 9: Adoption
How effective is the agency in achieving timely adoption when that is appropriate for the child?
Nashua
Aug-10
25
Item 10: Other permanent planned living arrangement
How effective is the agency in establishing planned permanent living arrangements for children in foster care,
who do not have the goal of reunification, adoption, guardianship, or permanent placement with relatives, and
providing services consistent with the goal?
Nashua
Aug-10
75
Item 11: Proximity of out of home placement
How effective is the agency in placing foster children close to their birth parents or their own communities or counties?
Nashua
Aug-10
88.9
Item 12: Placement with siblings
How effective is the agency in keeping brothers and sisters together in foster care?
Nashua
Aug-10
75
Item 13: Visiting with parents and siblings in foster care
How effective is the agency in planning and facilitating visitation between children in foster care and their parents and siblings
placed separately in foster care?
Nashua
Aug-10
55.6
Item 14: Preserving connections
How effective is the agency in preserving important connections for children in foster care, such as connections to neighborhood,
community, faith,family, tribe and friends?
Nashua
Aug-10
55.6
Item 15: Relative placement
How effective is the agency in identifying relatives who could care for children entering foster care, and using them as placement
resources when appropriate?
Nashua
Aug-10
33.3
Item 16: Relationship of child in care with parents
How effective is the agency in promoting or helping to maintain the parent-child relationship for children in foster care, when it is
appropriate to do so?
Nashua
Aug-10
55.6
Item 17: Needs and services of child, parents, foster parents.
How effective is the agency in assessing the needs of children, parents,
and foster parents, and in providing needed services to children in foster care,
to their parents and foster parents, and to children and families receiving
in-home services?
Nashua
Aug-10
33.3
Item 18: Child and family involvement in case planning.
Were concerted efforts made to involve parents and children
(if developmentally appropriate) in the case planning process on an
ongoing basis?
Nashua
Aug-10
50
Item 19: Caseworker visits with child.
How effective are agency workers in conducting faceto-face visits as often as needed
with children in foster care and those who receive services in their own homes?
Nashua
Aug-10
75
Item 20: Worker visits with parents.
How effective are agency workers in conducting faceto-face visits as often as needed with
parents of children in foster care and parents of children receiving in-home services?
Nashua
Aug-10
50
Item 21: Educational needs of the child.
How effective is the agency in addressing the educational needs of children in foster care
and those receiving services in their own home.
Nashua
Aug-10
81.8
Item 22: Physical health of the Child:
How effective is the agency in identifying and addressing the physical health and medical needs,
including dental needs, of children receiving in-home and foster care services?
Nashua
Aug-10
100
Item 23: Mental/behavioral health of the child.
How effective is the agency in identifying, assessing, and addressing the behavioral, emotional, and
mental health needs of children?
Nashua
Aug-10
63.6
NH DCYF Statewide Assessment's July 2010-Nashua only
Item 1: Timeliness of initiating investigations of reports of child maltreatment
How effective is the agency in responding to incoming reports of child maltreatment in a timely manner?
Percent Rated as a Strength
Nashua
Aug-10
75
Item 2: Repeat Maltreatment
How effective is the agency in reducing the recurrence of maltreatment of children?
Nashua
Aug-09
No Answer
Item 3: Services to family to protect children in the home and prevent removal or re-entry into foster care
How effective is the agency in providing services, when appropriate, to prevent removal of children from their homes?
Nashua
Aug-10
83.3
Item 4: Risk assessment and safety management
How effective is the agency in reducing the risk of harm to children, including those in foster care and those who receive
services in their own homes?
Nashua
Aug-10
66.7
Item 5: Foster care re-entries
How effective is the agency in preventing multiple entries of children into foster care?
Nashua
Aug-10
No Answer
Item 6: Stability of foster care placement
How effective is the agency in providing placement stability for children in foster care?
Nashua
Aug-10
77.8
Item 7: Permanency goal for child
How effective is the agency in determining the appropriate permanency goals for children on a timely basis when
they enter foster care
Nashua
Aug-10
44.4
Item 8: Reunification, guardianship, or permanent placement with relatives
How effective is the agency in helping children in foster care return safely to their families when appropriate?
Nashua
Aug-10
66.7
Item 9: Adoption
How effective is the agency in achieving timely adoption when that is appropriate for the child?
Nashua
Aug-10
25
Item 10: Other permanent planned living arrangement
How effective is the agency in establishing planned permanent living arrangements for children in foster care,
who do not have the goal of reunification, adoption, guardianship, or permanent placement with relatives, and
providing services consistent with the goal?
Nashua
Aug-10
75
Item 11: Proximity of out of home placement
How effective is the agency in placing foster children close to their birth parents or their own communities or counties?
Nashua
Aug-10
88.9
Item 12: Placement with siblings
How effective is the agency in keeping brothers and sisters together in foster care?
Nashua
Aug-10
75
Item 13: Visiting with parents and siblings in foster care
How effective is the agency in planning and facilitating visitation between children in foster care and their parents and siblings
placed separately in foster care?
Nashua
Aug-10
55.6
Item 14: Preserving connections
How effective is the agency in preserving important connections for children in foster care, such as connections to neighborhood,
community, faith,family, tribe and friends?
Nashua
Aug-10
55.6
Item 15: Relative placement
How effective is the agency in identifying relatives who could care for children entering foster care, and using them as placement
resources when appropriate?
Nashua
Aug-10
33.3
Item 16: Relationship of child in care with parents
How effective is the agency in promoting or helping to maintain the parent-child relationship for children in foster care, when it is
appropriate to do so?
Nashua
Aug-10
55.6
Item 17: Needs and services of child, parents, foster parents.
How effective is the agency in assessing the needs of children, parents,
and foster parents, and in providing needed services to children in foster care,
to their parents and foster parents, and to children and families receiving
in-home services?
Nashua
Aug-10
33.3
Item 18: Child and family involvement in case planning.
Were concerted efforts made to involve parents and children
(if developmentally appropriate) in the case planning process on an
ongoing basis?
Nashua
Aug-10
50
Item 19: Caseworker visits with child.
How effective are agency workers in conducting faceto-face visits as often as needed
with children in foster care and those who receive services in their own homes?
Nashua
Aug-10
75
Item 20: Worker visits with parents.
How effective are agency workers in conducting faceto-face visits as often as needed with
parents of children in foster care and parents of children receiving in-home services?
Nashua
Aug-10
50
Item 21: Educational needs of the child.
How effective is the agency in addressing the educational needs of children in foster care
and those receiving services in their own home.
Nashua
Aug-10
81.8
Item 22: Physical health of the Child:
How effective is the agency in identifying and addressing the physical health and medical needs,
including dental needs, of children receiving in-home and foster care services?
Nashua
Aug-10
100
Item 23: Mental/behavioral health of the child.
How effective is the agency in identifying, assessing, and addressing the behavioral, emotional, and
mental health needs of children?
Nashua
Aug-10
63.6
Division of Children, Youth and Families | New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services
Division of Children, Youth and Families | New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services
Do You See Anything Listed Here For Re-unification? I don't. There's plenty for Foster Stranger's though! Supposedly Reunification is the preferred permanency option. In your dreams!
Message from the Director
Welcome to the Division for Children Youth & Families (DCYF). DCYF is committed to being a responsive organization, providing up-to-date information on our services and programs.
Maggie Bishop
(603) 271-4440
mbishop@dhhs.state.nh.us
The Division for Children, Youth and Families manages protective programs on behalf of New Hampshire's children and youth and their families.
DCYF staff provide a wide range of family-centered services with the goal of meeting the needs of parents and their children and strengthening the family system. Services are designed to support families and children in their own homes and communities whenever possible. The major program areas of DCYF are:
Child Protection
The Bureau of Child Protection works to protect children from abuse and neglect while attempting to preserve the family unit. Child Protective Service Workers help prevent further harm to children from intentional physical or mental injury, sexual abuse, exploitation or neglect by a person responsible for a child's health or welfare.
Permanency
Permanency means that a child has a long term, safe, stable environment. This creates a lifelong relationship with a nurturing caregiver to establish the foundation for a child's health development. Permanency Workers are located in each District Office and are trained to assist children and their families to identify permanent, lifelong connections. Reunification is the preferred permanency option. When reunification is not possible, adoption, guardianship or another permanent living arrangement is sought.
Adolescents
The Adolescent program is designed to ensure that the current and former DCYF and DJJS youth obtain the preparation, resources and positive youth development they need to establish permanent connections and become healthy, self sufficient and successful adults. Adolescent workers with specialized training lead, educate and collaborate with youth, colleagues and the community to ensure the best practice for adolescents.
Foster Care
The Foster Care Program provides foster family homes and a family experience for children who cannot be safely cared for in their own homes. Specially trained Resource Workers in each DCYF District Office recruit, train and license foster families, and match children in need of out-of-home care with a foster family best suited to meet the specific needs of each child.
Foster Care Health Program (FCHP)
The Foster Care Health Program (FCHP) is committed to meeting the health care needs of children in out-of-home placement. Through healthcare coordination and consultation, children in DCYF out-of-home placements will receive the on-going care they need to achieve and maintain optimal physical, emotional and developmental health.
Adoption
The Adoption program provides an array of services to families who adopt children through DCYF. These services include:
Case management
Education
Information and referral
Financial assistance
Support groups
Assistance to adoptees searching for their birth families
Community and Family Supports
Community and Family Support Services provides services both to families in their communities, and to families that are involved with DCYF, including:
Funding for community-based programs that work to prevent child abuse and neglect, juvenile delinquency, and out-of-home placement of children and youth;
Clinical services and mental health support for children involved with DCYF;
Educational advocacy and support for children involved with DCYF.
Child Development Bureau
Provides technical assistance and support to early care and education programs
Provides consumer education and child care training programs to help develop and maintain child care programs
Maintains statistics on the supply and demand of child care throughout NH.
Develops policy for the NH child care scholarship program.
Through the scholarship program, parents may apply for payments to subsidize the cost of child care when needed to look for work, remain employed, or participate in training.
Head Start State Collaborative Office
The NH Head Start Collaboration Office fosters collaboration and teamwork among the Head Start community, and state and local public and private partners concerned with pregnant women and families of young children aged birth to five years. To improve long-term outcomes for income-eligible families, the Collaboration Office works closely with the NH Head Start Directors Association to support coordination of efforts in 10 priority areas:
Health care (mental health, oral health, physical health)
Child care
Family assistance (child welfare and family assistance)(two priority areas)
Early childhood education opportunities
Community services
Family literacy
Children with disabilities & their families
Education (transition & alignment with K- 12)
Services for children without homes
Program Information
Program Operations
Child Protection Services
Adolescent Program
Child Development
Clinical Services
Community & Family Support
Domestic Violence
Foster Care & Adoption
Incentive Fund Program
NH Child Care Advisory Council
Organizational Learning & Quality Improvement
Provider Services
Publications
Contact Children, Youth & Families
Related Resources
Child Protective Services Worker Realistic Job Preview Video
Do You See Anything Listed Here For Re-unification? I don't. There's plenty for Foster Stranger's though! Supposedly Reunification is the preferred permanency option. In your dreams!
Message from the Director
Welcome to the Division for Children Youth & Families (DCYF). DCYF is committed to being a responsive organization, providing up-to-date information on our services and programs.
Maggie Bishop
(603) 271-4440
mbishop@dhhs.state.nh.us
The Division for Children, Youth and Families manages protective programs on behalf of New Hampshire's children and youth and their families.
DCYF staff provide a wide range of family-centered services with the goal of meeting the needs of parents and their children and strengthening the family system. Services are designed to support families and children in their own homes and communities whenever possible. The major program areas of DCYF are:
Child Protection
The Bureau of Child Protection works to protect children from abuse and neglect while attempting to preserve the family unit. Child Protective Service Workers help prevent further harm to children from intentional physical or mental injury, sexual abuse, exploitation or neglect by a person responsible for a child's health or welfare.
Permanency
Permanency means that a child has a long term, safe, stable environment. This creates a lifelong relationship with a nurturing caregiver to establish the foundation for a child's health development. Permanency Workers are located in each District Office and are trained to assist children and their families to identify permanent, lifelong connections. Reunification is the preferred permanency option. When reunification is not possible, adoption, guardianship or another permanent living arrangement is sought.
Adolescents
The Adolescent program is designed to ensure that the current and former DCYF and DJJS youth obtain the preparation, resources and positive youth development they need to establish permanent connections and become healthy, self sufficient and successful adults. Adolescent workers with specialized training lead, educate and collaborate with youth, colleagues and the community to ensure the best practice for adolescents.
Foster Care
The Foster Care Program provides foster family homes and a family experience for children who cannot be safely cared for in their own homes. Specially trained Resource Workers in each DCYF District Office recruit, train and license foster families, and match children in need of out-of-home care with a foster family best suited to meet the specific needs of each child.
Foster Care Health Program (FCHP)
The Foster Care Health Program (FCHP) is committed to meeting the health care needs of children in out-of-home placement. Through healthcare coordination and consultation, children in DCYF out-of-home placements will receive the on-going care they need to achieve and maintain optimal physical, emotional and developmental health.
Adoption
The Adoption program provides an array of services to families who adopt children through DCYF. These services include:
Case management
Education
Information and referral
Financial assistance
Support groups
Assistance to adoptees searching for their birth families
Community and Family Supports
Community and Family Support Services provides services both to families in their communities, and to families that are involved with DCYF, including:
Funding for community-based programs that work to prevent child abuse and neglect, juvenile delinquency, and out-of-home placement of children and youth;
Clinical services and mental health support for children involved with DCYF;
Educational advocacy and support for children involved with DCYF.
Child Development Bureau
Provides technical assistance and support to early care and education programs
Provides consumer education and child care training programs to help develop and maintain child care programs
Maintains statistics on the supply and demand of child care throughout NH.
Develops policy for the NH child care scholarship program.
Through the scholarship program, parents may apply for payments to subsidize the cost of child care when needed to look for work, remain employed, or participate in training.
Head Start State Collaborative Office
The NH Head Start Collaboration Office fosters collaboration and teamwork among the Head Start community, and state and local public and private partners concerned with pregnant women and families of young children aged birth to five years. To improve long-term outcomes for income-eligible families, the Collaboration Office works closely with the NH Head Start Directors Association to support coordination of efforts in 10 priority areas:
Health care (mental health, oral health, physical health)
Child care
Family assistance (child welfare and family assistance)(two priority areas)
Early childhood education opportunities
Community services
Family literacy
Children with disabilities & their families
Education (transition & alignment with K- 12)
Services for children without homes
Program Information
Program Operations
Child Protection Services
Adolescent Program
Child Development
Clinical Services
Community & Family Support
Domestic Violence
Foster Care & Adoption
Incentive Fund Program
NH Child Care Advisory Council
Organizational Learning & Quality Improvement
Provider Services
Publications
Contact Children, Youth & Families
Related Resources
Child Protective Services Worker Realistic Job Preview Video
Reasonable Efforts to Reunify Families New Hampshire- Too Bad There Aren't Any!
Reasonable Efforts to Reunify Families New Hampshire -
What Are Reasonable Efforts
There are NO Reasonable Effort's afforded to parent's in NH and there is no such thing as preventing placement. Every child is considered by DCYF to be in IMMINENT danger, whether the report is true or false!
Statute: § 169-C:24-a
Services to the family that are accessible, available, and appropriate
When Reasonable Efforts Are Required
Statute: § 169-C:24-a
To prevent placement
To reunify the family
To make and finalize a new permanent home for the
child
advertisement
When Reasonable Efforts Are NOT Required
Statute:
Not addressed in statutes reviewed
What Are Reasonable Efforts
There are NO Reasonable Effort's afforded to parent's in NH and there is no such thing as preventing placement. Every child is considered by DCYF to be in IMMINENT danger, whether the report is true or false!
Statute: § 169-C:24-a
Services to the family that are accessible, available, and appropriate
When Reasonable Efforts Are Required
Statute: § 169-C:24-a
To prevent placement
To reunify the family
To make and finalize a new permanent home for the
child
advertisement
When Reasonable Efforts Are NOT Required
Statute:
Not addressed in statutes reviewed
The Child and Family Services Reviews and Family Reunification-NOT in NH!
The Child and Family Services Reviews and Family Reunification
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows
I don't know about the rest of the states, but everything stated in this report for New Hampshire is ALL Lies. Not only does NH DCYF falsify parent's paperwork, they falsify Government paperwork also. I have found NO statistic's on Re-unification in New Hampshire as yet and I doubt I ever will. Re-unification from what I
ve seen does NOT exist in NH!
The Child and Family Services Reviews and Family Reunification
Final Reports from the Federal Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) present results and discussion for each State regarding its conformance with child safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes.2 In the first full round of 52 reviews, 19 States met the national standard for reunification, which states, "76.2 percent of all children who were reunified went home in less than 12 months" (Children's Bureau, 2004c).
No State was found to be in conformance with the first permanency outcome, "Children have permanency and stability in their living situations." However, 12 States received a rating of Strength on the indicator related to achievement of a child's goal of reunification, guardianship, or placement with relatives.3 A Children's Bureau (2004c) summary and analysis of the 52 Final Reports found that the following factors had a significant association with a rating of Strength on this indicator:
The stability of foster care placement
Visiting with parents and siblings in foster care
The needs of and services for the child, parents, and foster parents
Child and family involvement in case planning
Worker visits with the child
Worker visits with the parents
Further review of the States' Final Reports yields additional details about these and other factors' relationships to the achievement of timely, stable family reunification. The factors related to family engagement, assessment and case planning, and service delivery, as well as a number of systemic issues, shed light on States' successes and challenges in this area.
Family Engagement
The CFSRs indicated that a number of family engagement activities contribute to the success of family reunification efforts. Effective family engagement activities include involving birth families in planning and decision-making, encouraging foster parent support of the birth parents, and facilitating visits between children in foster care with their parents. States' experiences in facilitating family engagement are summarized below:
At least eight Final Reports (IA, KY, NH, OH, OK, OR, RI, WY) mention the use of some type of family team meetings (e.g., Family Group Conferencing, Family Group Decision Making) to facilitate reunification efforts. These strategies promote active involvement of both birth parents, extended family, and others to achieve permanency for children.
At least nine Final Reports (KY, LA, MN, NH, NM, OH, OR, PA, SC) state that foster parents' support of contact between children and birth parents, and the foster parents' direct support of birth parents (e.g., mentoring), facilitates achievement of reunification goals.
At least six States' Final Reports (CA, KS, MI, NV, PA, SC) indicate that increasing the frequency of visits leading up to reunification helps to facilitate achievement of this goal and decreases re-entries to foster care.
Many States' Final Reports also address problems in these areas that negatively impact the achievement of timely, stable reunifications:
One of the most common issues is a lack of parent involvement in case planning and decision-making, including a lack of caseworker communication with birth parents regarding expectations.
The lack of involvement of fathers poses a distinct challenge, and States' Final Reports point to such possible causes as a lack of agency effort in identifying, locating, contacting, and attempting to involve fathers and paternal relatives. Sonenstein, Malm, and Billing (2002) report three reasons for lack of involvement of fathers, especially noncustodial fathers, in case planning: caseworker and systemic bias, mothers' gatekeeping, and the characteristics of noncustodial fathers, such as high rates of incarceration.
The Final Reports often cite a lack of caseworker support for and assistance to birth parents in their efforts to achieve the goal of reunification.
At least 17 percent of the Final Reports also indicate that visits between children in foster care and their birth parents were not sufficient to promote the goal of reunification. Reasons cited include foster care placements far from the birth families' homes and inadequate resources (such as transportation and supervision) to facilitate more frequent visits.
Assessment and Case Planning
Adequately assessing the strengths and needs of children and families, planning to build on those strengths and address specific needs, and finally, carrying out those plans are all critical activities to the achievement of a family's reunification goals. A summary of States' experiences in assessing the strengths and needs of families is below:
At least four Final Reports (KY, MI, NH, PR) specifically connect the implementation of initial assessments to the success of reunification efforts.
Twice that many States (MI, NH, NM, NV, PA, SC, VA, WA) report that risk or safety assessments conducted prior to reunification help ensure safe, timely reunification decisions and minimize both the risk of harm to children and re-entries to foster care.
However, challenges related to assessment and case planning are more commonly noted in the Final Reports than are successes:
At least 30 States were found to have had problems conducting adequate assessments to determine the needs of children, parents, and foster parents (Children's Bureau, 2004c).
A number of Final Reports also indicate that case plans often are "boiler plate" and do not address the individual needs of families, and that case plans often lack clear objectives.
A few Final Reports specifically mention that the lack of risk and safety assessments prior to reunification increases the risk of harm to children and subsequent re-entries to foster care.
Many Final Reports cite child and parent problems that impede reunification efforts and contribute to foster care re-entries. Parental substance abuse is the problem most often cited; other problems include child behavior problems, parental mental health concerns, and parents' lack of cooperation with service plans.
Service Delivery
Targeted services that meet the individualized needs of children and families are key to achieving family reunification and ensuring children's safety. Issues reported by States related to the delivery of appropriate services include the following:
At least 10 Final Reports (AZ, HI, IL, ND, NJ, OK, PR, RI, SC, WI) mention the availability and coordination of specific services as factors important to the achievement of reunification. These include in-home services, concrete services such as housing and food, mental health and substance abuse services, culturally competent services, comprehensive wraparound services, and coordination or collocation of service providers.
Many more Final Reports cite problems with service delivery, including a lack of specific services, a lack of transportation to services, long waiting lists, and inconsistent service accessibility in all jurisdictions, with rural areas having the most difficulties. Problems with housing and substance abuse, mental health, and culturally competent services were most often cited as specifically impeding efforts to reunify families.
Many States cite post-reunification services as particularly critical. For example:
At least half of the Final Reports (AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, GA, ID, IN, LA, MD, MI, MS, MT, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WI) specifically cite the provision of post-reunification services as a key to reducing the risk of harm to children, repeat maltreatment, and re-entries to foster care. A number of these reports discuss the length of time post-reunification services are provided (ranging from 3 months to as long as needed). Reports indicate that continued monitoring of families supports their participation in such services.
Specific post-reunification services that contribute to positive outcomes include in-home services, mental health or counseling services, substance abuse services, parenting support, child care, concrete services such as housing and financial assistance, and transportation.
Many Final Reports specifically tie poor post-reunification services to an increased risk of harm to children after reunification, repeat maltreatment, and higher numbers of re-entries to foster care. Common problems include service disruptions, the lack of availability of services in all areas, services not available at the intensity or duration that families need them, and the high costs of needed services.
Systemic Issues
The CFSR Final Reports mention a number of systemic issues that contribute both positively and negatively to the achievement of timely, stable reunifications. These include issues related to funding, courts, and staffing.
Funding. Positive contributions of various funding strategies are cited in at least seven Final Reports as supporting reunification efforts. These strategies include increased funding for reunification (IL), dedicated reunification funds (MI), flexibility in the use of funds (LA, UT), blended funding streams (PA, TX), and financial incentives for contractors (NY).
Courts. Positive contributions related to the courts are mentioned in three Final Reports. Louisiana reports on the success of cooperation between the courts and child welfare agencies. West Virginia reports that court tracking of permanency timeframes facilitates reunifications. Virginia reports that court monitoring of families after reunification helps ensure child safety. Court-related issues noted as impeding reunification efforts include continuances and crowded court dockets delaying reunification, judges extending the timeframe for reunification beyond the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) guidelines, and courts ordering reunifications in cases where agency staff do not feel the family is ready.
Staffing. Staffing problems that reportedly impede reunification efforts include high rates of staff turnover, inexperienced staff, and high caseloads. These problems may result in insufficient worker visits both with foster children and birth parents, insufficient monitoring and support of parents' service participation and progress toward goal achievement, and longer timeframes to achieve reunification goals as each new worker starts over.
Finally, policies regarding timeliness to reunification are cited as a concern in many State Final Reports. A few States report that while the time taken to reunification is longer than allowed for in the national standard, this caution results in fewer re-entries to foster care. Correspondingly, other States are concerned that shorter times to reunifications are resulting in higher re-entries because families are sometimes reunited before risk and safety issues are fully resolved. Almost half of the Final Reports state that the goal of reunification is often kept too long even when it seems unlikely that it will be achieved (e.g., when the parents have made little or no progress on service plan tasks).
2 The Child and Family Services Reviews are designed to enable the Children's Bureau to ensure that State child welfare agency practice is in conformity with Federal child welfare requirements, to determine what is actually happening to children and families as they are engaged in State child welfare services, and to assist States to enhance their capacity to help children and families achieve positive outcomes. For more information about the CFSR process, visit the Children's Bureau website at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/index.htm#cfsr. back
3 This indicator was added in the second year of reviews and was therefore applicable for only 35 States.
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows
I don't know about the rest of the states, but everything stated in this report for New Hampshire is ALL Lies. Not only does NH DCYF falsify parent's paperwork, they falsify Government paperwork also. I have found NO statistic's on Re-unification in New Hampshire as yet and I doubt I ever will. Re-unification from what I
ve seen does NOT exist in NH!
The Child and Family Services Reviews and Family Reunification
Final Reports from the Federal Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) present results and discussion for each State regarding its conformance with child safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes.2 In the first full round of 52 reviews, 19 States met the national standard for reunification, which states, "76.2 percent of all children who were reunified went home in less than 12 months" (Children's Bureau, 2004c).
No State was found to be in conformance with the first permanency outcome, "Children have permanency and stability in their living situations." However, 12 States received a rating of Strength on the indicator related to achievement of a child's goal of reunification, guardianship, or placement with relatives.3 A Children's Bureau (2004c) summary and analysis of the 52 Final Reports found that the following factors had a significant association with a rating of Strength on this indicator:
The stability of foster care placement
Visiting with parents and siblings in foster care
The needs of and services for the child, parents, and foster parents
Child and family involvement in case planning
Worker visits with the child
Worker visits with the parents
Further review of the States' Final Reports yields additional details about these and other factors' relationships to the achievement of timely, stable family reunification. The factors related to family engagement, assessment and case planning, and service delivery, as well as a number of systemic issues, shed light on States' successes and challenges in this area.
Family Engagement
The CFSRs indicated that a number of family engagement activities contribute to the success of family reunification efforts. Effective family engagement activities include involving birth families in planning and decision-making, encouraging foster parent support of the birth parents, and facilitating visits between children in foster care with their parents. States' experiences in facilitating family engagement are summarized below:
At least eight Final Reports (IA, KY, NH, OH, OK, OR, RI, WY) mention the use of some type of family team meetings (e.g., Family Group Conferencing, Family Group Decision Making) to facilitate reunification efforts. These strategies promote active involvement of both birth parents, extended family, and others to achieve permanency for children.
At least nine Final Reports (KY, LA, MN, NH, NM, OH, OR, PA, SC) state that foster parents' support of contact between children and birth parents, and the foster parents' direct support of birth parents (e.g., mentoring), facilitates achievement of reunification goals.
At least six States' Final Reports (CA, KS, MI, NV, PA, SC) indicate that increasing the frequency of visits leading up to reunification helps to facilitate achievement of this goal and decreases re-entries to foster care.
Many States' Final Reports also address problems in these areas that negatively impact the achievement of timely, stable reunifications:
One of the most common issues is a lack of parent involvement in case planning and decision-making, including a lack of caseworker communication with birth parents regarding expectations.
The lack of involvement of fathers poses a distinct challenge, and States' Final Reports point to such possible causes as a lack of agency effort in identifying, locating, contacting, and attempting to involve fathers and paternal relatives. Sonenstein, Malm, and Billing (2002) report three reasons for lack of involvement of fathers, especially noncustodial fathers, in case planning: caseworker and systemic bias, mothers' gatekeeping, and the characteristics of noncustodial fathers, such as high rates of incarceration.
The Final Reports often cite a lack of caseworker support for and assistance to birth parents in their efforts to achieve the goal of reunification.
At least 17 percent of the Final Reports also indicate that visits between children in foster care and their birth parents were not sufficient to promote the goal of reunification. Reasons cited include foster care placements far from the birth families' homes and inadequate resources (such as transportation and supervision) to facilitate more frequent visits.
Assessment and Case Planning
Adequately assessing the strengths and needs of children and families, planning to build on those strengths and address specific needs, and finally, carrying out those plans are all critical activities to the achievement of a family's reunification goals. A summary of States' experiences in assessing the strengths and needs of families is below:
At least four Final Reports (KY, MI, NH, PR) specifically connect the implementation of initial assessments to the success of reunification efforts.
Twice that many States (MI, NH, NM, NV, PA, SC, VA, WA) report that risk or safety assessments conducted prior to reunification help ensure safe, timely reunification decisions and minimize both the risk of harm to children and re-entries to foster care.
However, challenges related to assessment and case planning are more commonly noted in the Final Reports than are successes:
At least 30 States were found to have had problems conducting adequate assessments to determine the needs of children, parents, and foster parents (Children's Bureau, 2004c).
A number of Final Reports also indicate that case plans often are "boiler plate" and do not address the individual needs of families, and that case plans often lack clear objectives.
A few Final Reports specifically mention that the lack of risk and safety assessments prior to reunification increases the risk of harm to children and subsequent re-entries to foster care.
Many Final Reports cite child and parent problems that impede reunification efforts and contribute to foster care re-entries. Parental substance abuse is the problem most often cited; other problems include child behavior problems, parental mental health concerns, and parents' lack of cooperation with service plans.
Service Delivery
Targeted services that meet the individualized needs of children and families are key to achieving family reunification and ensuring children's safety. Issues reported by States related to the delivery of appropriate services include the following:
At least 10 Final Reports (AZ, HI, IL, ND, NJ, OK, PR, RI, SC, WI) mention the availability and coordination of specific services as factors important to the achievement of reunification. These include in-home services, concrete services such as housing and food, mental health and substance abuse services, culturally competent services, comprehensive wraparound services, and coordination or collocation of service providers.
Many more Final Reports cite problems with service delivery, including a lack of specific services, a lack of transportation to services, long waiting lists, and inconsistent service accessibility in all jurisdictions, with rural areas having the most difficulties. Problems with housing and substance abuse, mental health, and culturally competent services were most often cited as specifically impeding efforts to reunify families.
Many States cite post-reunification services as particularly critical. For example:
At least half of the Final Reports (AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, GA, ID, IN, LA, MD, MI, MS, MT, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WI) specifically cite the provision of post-reunification services as a key to reducing the risk of harm to children, repeat maltreatment, and re-entries to foster care. A number of these reports discuss the length of time post-reunification services are provided (ranging from 3 months to as long as needed). Reports indicate that continued monitoring of families supports their participation in such services.
Specific post-reunification services that contribute to positive outcomes include in-home services, mental health or counseling services, substance abuse services, parenting support, child care, concrete services such as housing and financial assistance, and transportation.
Many Final Reports specifically tie poor post-reunification services to an increased risk of harm to children after reunification, repeat maltreatment, and higher numbers of re-entries to foster care. Common problems include service disruptions, the lack of availability of services in all areas, services not available at the intensity or duration that families need them, and the high costs of needed services.
Systemic Issues
The CFSR Final Reports mention a number of systemic issues that contribute both positively and negatively to the achievement of timely, stable reunifications. These include issues related to funding, courts, and staffing.
Funding. Positive contributions of various funding strategies are cited in at least seven Final Reports as supporting reunification efforts. These strategies include increased funding for reunification (IL), dedicated reunification funds (MI), flexibility in the use of funds (LA, UT), blended funding streams (PA, TX), and financial incentives for contractors (NY).
Courts. Positive contributions related to the courts are mentioned in three Final Reports. Louisiana reports on the success of cooperation between the courts and child welfare agencies. West Virginia reports that court tracking of permanency timeframes facilitates reunifications. Virginia reports that court monitoring of families after reunification helps ensure child safety. Court-related issues noted as impeding reunification efforts include continuances and crowded court dockets delaying reunification, judges extending the timeframe for reunification beyond the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) guidelines, and courts ordering reunifications in cases where agency staff do not feel the family is ready.
Staffing. Staffing problems that reportedly impede reunification efforts include high rates of staff turnover, inexperienced staff, and high caseloads. These problems may result in insufficient worker visits both with foster children and birth parents, insufficient monitoring and support of parents' service participation and progress toward goal achievement, and longer timeframes to achieve reunification goals as each new worker starts over.
Finally, policies regarding timeliness to reunification are cited as a concern in many State Final Reports. A few States report that while the time taken to reunification is longer than allowed for in the national standard, this caution results in fewer re-entries to foster care. Correspondingly, other States are concerned that shorter times to reunifications are resulting in higher re-entries because families are sometimes reunited before risk and safety issues are fully resolved. Almost half of the Final Reports state that the goal of reunification is often kept too long even when it seems unlikely that it will be achieved (e.g., when the parents have made little or no progress on service plan tasks).
2 The Child and Family Services Reviews are designed to enable the Children's Bureau to ensure that State child welfare agency practice is in conformity with Federal child welfare requirements, to determine what is actually happening to children and families as they are engaged in State child welfare services, and to assist States to enhance their capacity to help children and families achieve positive outcomes. For more information about the CFSR process, visit the Children's Bureau website at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/index.htm#cfsr. back
3 This indicator was added in the second year of reviews and was therefore applicable for only 35 States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)