Child Maltreatment 2009: Table of Contents
Child Maltreatment 2009
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Summary
Chapter 1: Introduction
Background of NCANDS
Annual Data Collection Process
NCANDS as a Resource
Structure of the Report
Chapter 2: Reports
Screening of Referrals
Report Sources
Report Dispositions
CPS Response Time
CPS Workforce and Caseload
Tables and Notes
Chapter 3: Children
Children Who Were Subjects of a Report
Number of Child Victims
First-Time Victims
Perpetrator Relationship
Child Victim Demographics
Maltreatment Types
Risk Factors
Recurrence
Maltreatment in Foster Care
Tables and Notes
Chapter 4: Fatalities
Number of Child Fatalities
Child Fatality Demographics
Perpetrator Relationship
Maltreatment Types
Prior CPS Contact of Child Fatalities
Tables and Notes
Chapter 5: Perpetrators
Number of Perpetrators
Perpetrator Demographics
Perpetrator Relationship
Maltreatment Types
Tables and Notes
Chapter 6: Services
Preventive Services
Postresponse Services
In-Home Services
Children Who Were Removed From Home
History of CPS Services
Tables and Notes
Chapter 7: Reports, Research, and Capacity Building Activities Related to Child Maltreatment
Reports on National Statistics
Research on Child Maltreatment
Capacity Building Initiatives
Suggestions for Future Research
Appendix A: Required CAPTA Data Items
Appendix B: Glossary
Appendix C: Data Submission and Data Elements
Appendix D: State Commentary
Endnotes
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
Monday, June 13, 2011
100% total, complete war with CPS
100% total, complete war with CPS
AFRA EDITORIALS
By Leonard Henderson
June 13, 2011
100% total, complete war with CPS
Let's just face it- once you find yourself involved with CPS, it's war.
Unless you are a sick-in-the-head pervert who gets excited about messing with children- more than likely your experience with CPS will be about some bull shit accusation that has nothing whatsoever to do with children's safety or happiness.
In my case, it was about Parenting a dangerous, out of control teenage thug step-son (Part 1, Part 2). It still dumb-founds me that happened when I was working 7 days a week, 325 hours a month, and what this little criminal was doing at school and in local stores became MY fault. I ended up having to move out of my house and sleeping at my business because the insane CPS witch convinced herself that I was the problem. The thug continued committing crimes until the Sheriff's deputies came and arrested him, and removed him in handcuffs.
Which was still my fault, as far as CPS was concerned.
Needless to say, this entire sick episode ticked me off. Especially since CPS continued to blame his behaviors on me. Even after they put him in a foster home, his destructiveness was still blamed on me.
By the time my involvement with this kid and CPS had progressed for a year, I ended up at 100% Total Complete War with CPS. That was in the year 2000.
We are now eleven years later, and I am STILL at 100% Total Complete War with CPS.
Through the years, getting to know the CPS operation, the people, and everything about CPS, I have never seen anything to do with CPS that was impressive. I have never seen anything that was good in them. I have seen only incompetence and evil in them. CPS people are the scum of the earth. Self-Important. Pompous. Arrogant. Officious. I have informed them on several occasions that just because they got a government job didn't make their IQ any higher. They don't seem to have a pride problem with being communist.
Several times every month, there are news stories from all over the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand about CPS agents and agencies pulling off some sort of tyrannical, rape or murderous activity against children. Never mind what they and the gawd awful China courts of NO Constitutional Due Process does to parents.
This situation is intolerable. I have no idea why anybody is putting up with it. Especially people who live in societies that regard themselves as "free". This is the sort of oppression people fight wars over and causes governments to be overthrown.
I am completely mystified at how terrified parents are when CPS comes into their lives. This shouldn't be. Parents should react the same way to a CPS agent as they would to a wolf.
Yeah, I know. Been there myself. We have been completely brainwashed over the past 50 years since Dr Benjamin Spock published "Baby and Child Care" in 1946 and subsequent psychiatric dribble. This same psychiatric slop even became popular in the churches in the 50's and 60's.
Somehow we have been TRAINED to fear these maggots as having some special power over us.
Our society is now stratified into several layers. Perhaps one of the most significant is the over 50% of marriages ending in divorce. Which involves people fighting over custody of the kids (and the money). CPS finds plenty of employment in this collapse of society. There are literally BILLION$ available to support the fraudulent partnership between CPS, the foster care, and the psychiatric industries. All with the blessings of massive corrupt government agencies. There is nothing good in it, anywhere.
So, I believe it has come time to actively organize fighting a WAR against CPS. We need to develop Agent Provocateurs. We need to start putting out counter- propaganda. Perhaps even start using Alinsky's Rules for Radicals (since I am sure they have been using Alinsky against us). We need to issue such an attack against CPS that people would be ashamed to even consider working there.
I am thinking we need to start our very own "Skunk Works" to put every bit of slime on CPS and their contractors as they really are.
How many people ARE interested in 100% Total Complete War with CPS?
Leonard Henderson, co-founder
American Family Rights
http://familyrights.us
"Until Every Child Comes Home"©
"The Voice of America's Families"©
AFRA EDITORIALS
By Leonard Henderson
June 13, 2011
100% total, complete war with CPS
Let's just face it- once you find yourself involved with CPS, it's war.
Unless you are a sick-in-the-head pervert who gets excited about messing with children- more than likely your experience with CPS will be about some bull shit accusation that has nothing whatsoever to do with children's safety or happiness.
In my case, it was about Parenting a dangerous, out of control teenage thug step-son (Part 1, Part 2). It still dumb-founds me that happened when I was working 7 days a week, 325 hours a month, and what this little criminal was doing at school and in local stores became MY fault. I ended up having to move out of my house and sleeping at my business because the insane CPS witch convinced herself that I was the problem. The thug continued committing crimes until the Sheriff's deputies came and arrested him, and removed him in handcuffs.
Which was still my fault, as far as CPS was concerned.
Needless to say, this entire sick episode ticked me off. Especially since CPS continued to blame his behaviors on me. Even after they put him in a foster home, his destructiveness was still blamed on me.
By the time my involvement with this kid and CPS had progressed for a year, I ended up at 100% Total Complete War with CPS. That was in the year 2000.
We are now eleven years later, and I am STILL at 100% Total Complete War with CPS.
Through the years, getting to know the CPS operation, the people, and everything about CPS, I have never seen anything to do with CPS that was impressive. I have never seen anything that was good in them. I have seen only incompetence and evil in them. CPS people are the scum of the earth. Self-Important. Pompous. Arrogant. Officious. I have informed them on several occasions that just because they got a government job didn't make their IQ any higher. They don't seem to have a pride problem with being communist.
Several times every month, there are news stories from all over the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand about CPS agents and agencies pulling off some sort of tyrannical, rape or murderous activity against children. Never mind what they and the gawd awful China courts of NO Constitutional Due Process does to parents.
This situation is intolerable. I have no idea why anybody is putting up with it. Especially people who live in societies that regard themselves as "free". This is the sort of oppression people fight wars over and causes governments to be overthrown.
I am completely mystified at how terrified parents are when CPS comes into their lives. This shouldn't be. Parents should react the same way to a CPS agent as they would to a wolf.
Yeah, I know. Been there myself. We have been completely brainwashed over the past 50 years since Dr Benjamin Spock published "Baby and Child Care" in 1946 and subsequent psychiatric dribble. This same psychiatric slop even became popular in the churches in the 50's and 60's.
Somehow we have been TRAINED to fear these maggots as having some special power over us.
Our society is now stratified into several layers. Perhaps one of the most significant is the over 50% of marriages ending in divorce. Which involves people fighting over custody of the kids (and the money). CPS finds plenty of employment in this collapse of society. There are literally BILLION$ available to support the fraudulent partnership between CPS, the foster care, and the psychiatric industries. All with the blessings of massive corrupt government agencies. There is nothing good in it, anywhere.
So, I believe it has come time to actively organize fighting a WAR against CPS. We need to develop Agent Provocateurs. We need to start putting out counter- propaganda. Perhaps even start using Alinsky's Rules for Radicals (since I am sure they have been using Alinsky against us). We need to issue such an attack against CPS that people would be ashamed to even consider working there.
I am thinking we need to start our very own "Skunk Works" to put every bit of slime on CPS and their contractors as they really are.
How many people ARE interested in 100% Total Complete War with CPS?
Leonard Henderson, co-founder
American Family Rights
http://familyrights.us
"Until Every Child Comes Home"©
"The Voice of America's Families"©
Chapter IV: The Pre-Site Visit Phase
Chapter IV: The Pre-Site Visit Phase
Chapter IV: The Pre-Site Visit Phase
A. Introduction
This chapter outlines the activities State agency staff need to complete in order to prepare for the on-site phase of the AAR. During this phase the State should identify those areas it wants to specifically address during the site visit. The State agency should view the AFCARS Assessment Review as an opportunity to examine its foster care and adoption data concerns completely and take advantage of the intensive technical assistance available from the Children's Bureau. The State should also review its CFSR data profile to identify any areas in which it may want to request assistance from the Federal AFCARS review team.
The pre-site visit phase involves the following activities:
documentation exchange;
test case scenario entry, extraction, and transmission;
case file review preparation; and
finalize the on-site agenda.
Back to Top
B. Overview of the Pre-Site Visit Activitites
The pre-site visit phase officially starts when a State is notified of its AAR. Ideally, a State will know by July that it will have its AAR the next Federal fiscal year. A State will have no less than three months notice of an AAR.
Once the dates are selected for the AAR, a confirmation letter will be sent to the State. This letter contains the following information:
The date of the on-site review.
The date the State's system documents are due to the Children's Bureau.
The date the case file sample and test cases will be sent to the State.
The date the test case extraction is due to the Children's Bureau.
The contact information for the Federal review coordinator and members of the Federal team.
Back to Top
C. Documentation Exchange
This section describes the documents that are exchanged between the State and the Children's Bureau. It is not the Children's Bureau's expectation that the State create new system documentation for the review team to analyze. The State should submit its technical documentation in its current format. Exhibit 4 contains examples of the types of documents to submit. The documentation should reflect the options available to the caseworkers for each AFCARS data element, and the State value for that option.
The State's system documentation may be submitted earlier than the due dates. States should begin consolidating the system documentation as soon as possible and maintain an up-to-date library of system documentation. This is helpful for those States that are developing a SACWIS and to those preparing for the SACWIS Assessment Review.
The Federal review team needs a fixed" set of documentation in order to prepare its analysis and provide the State with useful feedback. The State should submit its most current version of the extraction program code and reference tables. If the State identifies areas that need to be corrected, or is in the process of making overall system modifications after the documentation is submitted to the Federal team, then the State should provide the Federal team (either onsite or during the pre-site phase) a list of all changes and planned changes. When modifications are subsequently made to the screens and/or the program code as it relates to AFCARS those modifications will be included in the post-site visit review.
Procedure
By the due dates, submit copies of the documentation to the Children's Bureau. The documentation is to be submitted electronically.
E-mail all documents to the Federal team members.
If electronic copies of the documents are sent on a compact disk, this must be sent via overnight mail to the Children's Bureau4. Do not send zip disks.
If the State technical staff has questions regarding what technical documentation is to be submitted, contact the Federal Technical Coordinator.
Screen prints must include a copy of the screen as it first appears on the system, and copies of AFCARS related drop-down lists. This may take more than one screen print. The Federal review team must have the actual view that appears to the user.
A data dictionary should include all of the State's values/codes used in the system. While many of these are not related to AFCARS, we have found it is easier for the State to provide a comprehensive list. This provides the Federal team an opportunity to review the values and ensure that the State is including all appropriate values in its AFCARS extract.
If the extraction code is sent to the Federal team in multiple files that are sections of the complete code, include a master list that identifies the order the files are executed.
States that use forms as a means to collect the AFCARS data are to include these in their documentation submission.
Exhibit 4: State Documentation List
Programming Logic (Source Code): The programming logic that derives and extracts each AFCARS element from the State's System.
Data Element Dictionary: A data dictionary or similar documentation will provide the Federal team with definitions and representations of the State's values for AFCARS -related fields. This document should be complete and reflective of options available to the caseworker to select. This documentation may be supplemented by code/lookup tables that will enable the team to understand elements referenced in the source code or mapping forms. For example, placement code 257 = relative foster care, licensed.
Relevant Reference Tables and Fields: Specific fields and tables from which the data are pulled.
Database Structures: Tables referenced in mapping documentation.
Extraction Routine Notes: A logical description, or the steps in pseudo code, of how records are selected for inclusion in the foster care and adoption submission.
Data Entry Screens: Printouts of screens relevant to AFCARS data elements.
Change Request Orders: Changes that the State has planned that impact the AFCARS data elements that are not included in the current version of the extraction program code.
Organizational Charts: Charts of the program and information technology divisions
Note: It is crucial that the documentation be submitted to the Children's Bureau on time. Delays in the submission of the documents affect the Federal team's preparedness for the on-site review and may result in an incomplete on-site evaluation.
Back to Top
D. Test Case Scenarios
The use of test cases is a way to assess the State's collection and extraction of the AFCARS data. This process assists the Federal review team to gain a better understanding of the State's policies, practices, training, and extraction routine prior to the onsite review. The records that are created by the test cases are extracted from the State's data system and compared with an established answer key. This information in conjunction with the analysis of the extraction program code and the other components of the AAR, provides the Federal team with a comprehensive view of the State's system.
The intent of the test cases is to validate the State's information system for accuracy. As such, the Federal review team coordinator may answer some questions the State has on the cases, but most will not be answered in the interest of determining objectively the State's AFCARS capability.
Procedure
The Federal review coordinator e-mails the test cases to the State review coordinator by the established due date.
The State review coordinator will identify a staff member who is familiar with the system and/or case practice to enter the cases. Approximately 40 working hours should be allotted for this task.
A training or test environment may be used to enter the test cases. This should mirror the production system. The State needs to ensure that the method used to enter the data will also allow for the entry/extraction of the financial data elements that are obtained through an interface.
Once the test cases are entered into the system, the State review team coordinator will contact the Federal Technical Coordinator for instructions on electronically transmitting the test file(s). The file must be submitted by the established due date.
The electronic copy of the scenarios are to be transmitted to the Federal review coordinator (in Word) with the encrypted case number provided for the respective test case. Additionally, the State team can include any relevant notes pertaining to the test cases as necessary.
Back to Top
E. Case File Review Preparation
Another tool used in the AFCARS Assessment Review process is the case file review. A sample of 80 foster care records and 30 adoption records is pulled for the AFCARS reporting period under review. The AFCARS data submitted to the Children's Bureau on each record is then compared to information found in the paper case file during the onsite review. The process involves all members of the State and Federal teams, technical and program. The State is encouraged to incorporate field staff, including supervisors and staff from training units, etc., as part of the State team for the purpose of reviewing cases. See Chapter III for additional information on who the State may want to include on the case file review team. A preliminary analysis of the findings is conducted during the onsite review and shared with the State. A further discussion of the onsite process can be found in Chapter V.
The Children's Bureau has found that while there may be challenges to identifying the information in the paper file, the process provides very valuable information to the review teams. The case file review is also the only means for the Federal team to assess the accuracy and the level of completeness of the State's conversion process from a paper or legacy system to its new information system. The findings often provide additional information that increases the Federal team's understanding of the data reported to AFCARS. Also, this process allows the review team to assess how well records are being kept up-to-date, the accuracy of the AFCARS data, and usage of the State's information system. Typically, this process does not identify new problems, but confirms findings from the other components of the AAR.
While the Children's Bureau recognizes that current data may no longer be in the paper files but will, instead, be in the automated information system, there are some documents that may not be part of the State's information system, such as medical reports, court reports, home studies, etc. These documents usually provide a significant amount of the information for the case file reviewers. It is important that the State have available the complete case file; frequently relevant information is found in a sibling's folder instead of the folder on the child under review which can be challenging.
Since the case file review is the only means to assess conversion, the cases selected for the review will primarily be those in which the most recent removal date, or the first removal date, precedes the date the State's system went operational. If the State phased in its operational status, then the sample may reflect these dates.
Depending on the length of time since the State converted to a new information system, this portion of the AAR may be modified to accommodate the State's situation. During the initial conference call, the Children's Bureau and the State will discuss and plan for the case file review and make adjustments, as necessary.
Procedure
Once the State review team coordinator receives the list of encrypted or sequential case record numbers from the Federal review team coordinator, he/she should:
Create a list to cross-reference the encrypted/sequential record number with the actual case record number.
Arrange for the case files to be delivered to the State office by the first day of the on-site review.
Ensure that case records are as complete and up-to-date as possible, and include any files maintained separately, e.g., child protective services files, provider files, and eligibility files. All case records should include:
court orders;
placement history;
caretaker (person from whom child was removed) information;
medical history;
biological parent file for the adoption records; and
foster care records on children adopted (if the relevant AFCARS information cannot be found in the child's adoptive record).
Note Regarding Sealed Adoption Records: If a sufficient number of cases cannot be identified for review due to their having been sealed, then the State will have to petition the court to open the records prior to the on-site review.
Identify and schedule staff to participate in the case file review. It is recommended that the State have field workers, supervisors, and/or regional administrators participate in this part of the review.
Back to Top
F. The On-Site Agenda
Appendix E contains a sample agenda for the on-site review. Any changes to the overall agenda must be discussed with the Federal review team coordinator prior to any changes being made to the agenda. The State review team coordinator should provide the Federal review team coordinator with a list of the names and titles of the State staff participating in each segment of the AAR.
Back to Top
G. Site Logistics
The on-site review activities are conducted in one location. The State capitol is generally the designated location since it is the location of the State agency central office/administrative staff, but another site may be mutually agreed upon. It is preferable to conduct the meetings in one large room to allow enough space for the size of the team and materials needed for the AAR. A separate room can be added on the day of the case file review, as this activity will include additional staff and the case files. The room used for the case file review should be secure to protect the confidentiality of the case records.
Chapter IV: The Pre-Site Visit Phase
A. Introduction
This chapter outlines the activities State agency staff need to complete in order to prepare for the on-site phase of the AAR. During this phase the State should identify those areas it wants to specifically address during the site visit. The State agency should view the AFCARS Assessment Review as an opportunity to examine its foster care and adoption data concerns completely and take advantage of the intensive technical assistance available from the Children's Bureau. The State should also review its CFSR data profile to identify any areas in which it may want to request assistance from the Federal AFCARS review team.
The pre-site visit phase involves the following activities:
documentation exchange;
test case scenario entry, extraction, and transmission;
case file review preparation; and
finalize the on-site agenda.
Back to Top
B. Overview of the Pre-Site Visit Activitites
The pre-site visit phase officially starts when a State is notified of its AAR. Ideally, a State will know by July that it will have its AAR the next Federal fiscal year. A State will have no less than three months notice of an AAR.
Once the dates are selected for the AAR, a confirmation letter will be sent to the State. This letter contains the following information:
The date of the on-site review.
The date the State's system documents are due to the Children's Bureau.
The date the case file sample and test cases will be sent to the State.
The date the test case extraction is due to the Children's Bureau.
The contact information for the Federal review coordinator and members of the Federal team.
Back to Top
C. Documentation Exchange
This section describes the documents that are exchanged between the State and the Children's Bureau. It is not the Children's Bureau's expectation that the State create new system documentation for the review team to analyze. The State should submit its technical documentation in its current format. Exhibit 4 contains examples of the types of documents to submit. The documentation should reflect the options available to the caseworkers for each AFCARS data element, and the State value for that option.
The State's system documentation may be submitted earlier than the due dates. States should begin consolidating the system documentation as soon as possible and maintain an up-to-date library of system documentation. This is helpful for those States that are developing a SACWIS and to those preparing for the SACWIS Assessment Review.
The Federal review team needs a fixed" set of documentation in order to prepare its analysis and provide the State with useful feedback. The State should submit its most current version of the extraction program code and reference tables. If the State identifies areas that need to be corrected, or is in the process of making overall system modifications after the documentation is submitted to the Federal team, then the State should provide the Federal team (either onsite or during the pre-site phase) a list of all changes and planned changes. When modifications are subsequently made to the screens and/or the program code as it relates to AFCARS those modifications will be included in the post-site visit review.
Procedure
By the due dates, submit copies of the documentation to the Children's Bureau. The documentation is to be submitted electronically.
E-mail all documents to the Federal team members.
If electronic copies of the documents are sent on a compact disk, this must be sent via overnight mail to the Children's Bureau4. Do not send zip disks.
If the State technical staff has questions regarding what technical documentation is to be submitted, contact the Federal Technical Coordinator.
Screen prints must include a copy of the screen as it first appears on the system, and copies of AFCARS related drop-down lists. This may take more than one screen print. The Federal review team must have the actual view that appears to the user.
A data dictionary should include all of the State's values/codes used in the system. While many of these are not related to AFCARS, we have found it is easier for the State to provide a comprehensive list. This provides the Federal team an opportunity to review the values and ensure that the State is including all appropriate values in its AFCARS extract.
If the extraction code is sent to the Federal team in multiple files that are sections of the complete code, include a master list that identifies the order the files are executed.
States that use forms as a means to collect the AFCARS data are to include these in their documentation submission.
Exhibit 4: State Documentation List
Programming Logic (Source Code): The programming logic that derives and extracts each AFCARS element from the State's System.
Data Element Dictionary: A data dictionary or similar documentation will provide the Federal team with definitions and representations of the State's values for AFCARS -related fields. This document should be complete and reflective of options available to the caseworker to select. This documentation may be supplemented by code/lookup tables that will enable the team to understand elements referenced in the source code or mapping forms. For example, placement code 257 = relative foster care, licensed.
Relevant Reference Tables and Fields: Specific fields and tables from which the data are pulled.
Database Structures: Tables referenced in mapping documentation.
Extraction Routine Notes: A logical description, or the steps in pseudo code, of how records are selected for inclusion in the foster care and adoption submission.
Data Entry Screens: Printouts of screens relevant to AFCARS data elements.
Change Request Orders: Changes that the State has planned that impact the AFCARS data elements that are not included in the current version of the extraction program code.
Organizational Charts: Charts of the program and information technology divisions
Note: It is crucial that the documentation be submitted to the Children's Bureau on time. Delays in the submission of the documents affect the Federal team's preparedness for the on-site review and may result in an incomplete on-site evaluation.
Back to Top
D. Test Case Scenarios
The use of test cases is a way to assess the State's collection and extraction of the AFCARS data. This process assists the Federal review team to gain a better understanding of the State's policies, practices, training, and extraction routine prior to the onsite review. The records that are created by the test cases are extracted from the State's data system and compared with an established answer key. This information in conjunction with the analysis of the extraction program code and the other components of the AAR, provides the Federal team with a comprehensive view of the State's system.
The intent of the test cases is to validate the State's information system for accuracy. As such, the Federal review team coordinator may answer some questions the State has on the cases, but most will not be answered in the interest of determining objectively the State's AFCARS capability.
Procedure
The Federal review coordinator e-mails the test cases to the State review coordinator by the established due date.
The State review coordinator will identify a staff member who is familiar with the system and/or case practice to enter the cases. Approximately 40 working hours should be allotted for this task.
A training or test environment may be used to enter the test cases. This should mirror the production system. The State needs to ensure that the method used to enter the data will also allow for the entry/extraction of the financial data elements that are obtained through an interface.
Once the test cases are entered into the system, the State review team coordinator will contact the Federal Technical Coordinator for instructions on electronically transmitting the test file(s). The file must be submitted by the established due date.
The electronic copy of the scenarios are to be transmitted to the Federal review coordinator (in Word) with the encrypted case number provided for the respective test case. Additionally, the State team can include any relevant notes pertaining to the test cases as necessary.
Back to Top
E. Case File Review Preparation
Another tool used in the AFCARS Assessment Review process is the case file review. A sample of 80 foster care records and 30 adoption records is pulled for the AFCARS reporting period under review. The AFCARS data submitted to the Children's Bureau on each record is then compared to information found in the paper case file during the onsite review. The process involves all members of the State and Federal teams, technical and program. The State is encouraged to incorporate field staff, including supervisors and staff from training units, etc., as part of the State team for the purpose of reviewing cases. See Chapter III for additional information on who the State may want to include on the case file review team. A preliminary analysis of the findings is conducted during the onsite review and shared with the State. A further discussion of the onsite process can be found in Chapter V.
The Children's Bureau has found that while there may be challenges to identifying the information in the paper file, the process provides very valuable information to the review teams. The case file review is also the only means for the Federal team to assess the accuracy and the level of completeness of the State's conversion process from a paper or legacy system to its new information system. The findings often provide additional information that increases the Federal team's understanding of the data reported to AFCARS. Also, this process allows the review team to assess how well records are being kept up-to-date, the accuracy of the AFCARS data, and usage of the State's information system. Typically, this process does not identify new problems, but confirms findings from the other components of the AAR.
While the Children's Bureau recognizes that current data may no longer be in the paper files but will, instead, be in the automated information system, there are some documents that may not be part of the State's information system, such as medical reports, court reports, home studies, etc. These documents usually provide a significant amount of the information for the case file reviewers. It is important that the State have available the complete case file; frequently relevant information is found in a sibling's folder instead of the folder on the child under review which can be challenging.
Since the case file review is the only means to assess conversion, the cases selected for the review will primarily be those in which the most recent removal date, or the first removal date, precedes the date the State's system went operational. If the State phased in its operational status, then the sample may reflect these dates.
Depending on the length of time since the State converted to a new information system, this portion of the AAR may be modified to accommodate the State's situation. During the initial conference call, the Children's Bureau and the State will discuss and plan for the case file review and make adjustments, as necessary.
Procedure
Once the State review team coordinator receives the list of encrypted or sequential case record numbers from the Federal review team coordinator, he/she should:
Create a list to cross-reference the encrypted/sequential record number with the actual case record number.
Arrange for the case files to be delivered to the State office by the first day of the on-site review.
Ensure that case records are as complete and up-to-date as possible, and include any files maintained separately, e.g., child protective services files, provider files, and eligibility files. All case records should include:
court orders;
placement history;
caretaker (person from whom child was removed) information;
medical history;
biological parent file for the adoption records; and
foster care records on children adopted (if the relevant AFCARS information cannot be found in the child's adoptive record).
Note Regarding Sealed Adoption Records: If a sufficient number of cases cannot be identified for review due to their having been sealed, then the State will have to petition the court to open the records prior to the on-site review.
Identify and schedule staff to participate in the case file review. It is recommended that the State have field workers, supervisors, and/or regional administrators participate in this part of the review.
Back to Top
F. The On-Site Agenda
Appendix E contains a sample agenda for the on-site review. Any changes to the overall agenda must be discussed with the Federal review team coordinator prior to any changes being made to the agenda. The State review team coordinator should provide the Federal review team coordinator with a list of the names and titles of the State staff participating in each segment of the AAR.
Back to Top
G. Site Logistics
The on-site review activities are conducted in one location. The State capitol is generally the designated location since it is the location of the State agency central office/administrative staff, but another site may be mutually agreed upon. It is preferable to conduct the meetings in one large room to allow enough space for the size of the team and materials needed for the AAR. A separate room can be added on the day of the case file review, as this activity will include additional staff and the case files. The room used for the case file review should be secure to protect the confidentiality of the case records.
State Guide to an AFCARS Assesment Review
State Guide to an AFCARS Assesment Review
Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Children and Families
Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS)
State Guide to an AFCARS Assessment Review
4th Edition
June 2009
Preface
The Children's Bureau is committed to the collection of quality data to be used for policy development, program management and evaluation at both the State and Federal levels. The use of the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) data is legislatively and programmatically significant for the administration and oversight of programs under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act.
The Children's Bureau created the AFCARS Assessment Review process to assure the accuracy and reliability of the foster care and adoption data. During these reviews, the Federal review team assesses the efficiency and effectiveness of States' data collection, extraction, and reporting processes, and provides intensive technical assistance to State staff responsible for those processes.
The Children's Bureau produced this State Guide to an AFCARS Assessment Review to provide guidance to State child welfare program and technology staff regarding the AFCARS Assessment Review process. Revisions in this fourth edition are based on the Children's Bureau's experience from conducting AFCARS Assessment Reviews since the Guide was first issued in April 2002. Also, the fourth edition contains new information regarding the AFCARS Improvement Phase.
The Children's Bureau welcomes comments and suggestions from those using this guide. Comments may be sent to:
Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Children and Families
Administration on Children, Youth and Families
Children's Bureau
Director, Division of Program Implementation
1250 Maryland Avenue, SW, 8th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20024
The State Guide to an AFCARS Assessment Review is available for download on the Children's Bureau's web site. The document is available in HTML and PDF file formats.
Table of Contents
Preface
Chapter I: Introduction
A. Overview
B. Audience
C. Background
1. AFCARS
2. SACWIS
D. Information System Reviews
E. Authority
F. Structure of the Guide
Chapter II: Overview of AFCARS Assessment Review
A. Introduction
B. Summary of AAR Phases
1. AAR Initiation Phase
2. Pre-Site Visit Phase
3. On-Site Visit Phase
4. Post-Site Visit Phase
5. AFCARS Improvement Phase
C. Requirements Subject to Review
D. Rating Factors
E. AAR Initiation Phase
1. Federal Selection Process
2. State Request for an AAR
Chapter III: The Review Teams
A. Introduction
B. Composition of the Review Teams
C. Roles and Responsibilities of Team Members
1. State Team
2. Federal Team
Chapter IV: The Pre-Site Visit Phase
A. Introduction
B. Overview of the Pre-Site Visit Activities
C. Documentation Exchange
D. Test Cases
E. Case File Review Preparation
F. The On-Site Agenda
G. Site Logistics
Chapter V: The On-Site Review Phase
A. Introduction
B. On-Site Logistics
C. On-Site Review Activities
1. Day 1 - Entrance Meeting and System Demonstration
2. Day 2 - Case File Review
3. Day 3 and 4 - Foster Care and Adoption Population and Data Elements
a. Population and Data Element Review
b. Document Review Findings
4. Day 5 - Exit Conference
Chapter VI: The Post-Site Visit Phase
A. Introduction
B. Final Analysis
C. Final Report
D. Dissemination of the Final Report
Chapter VII: AFCARS Improvement Phase
A. Introduction
B. AFCARS Improvement Plan (AIP)
C. New Child Welfare Information Systems
D. Close-Out of AFCARS Improvement Plan
E. Technical Assistance
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: AFCARS Assessment Review Process
Exhibit 2: Rating Factors
Exhibit 3: Review Team Roles and Responsibilities
Exhibit 4: State Documentation List
Appendices
APPENDIX A: AFCARS Federal Resources
APPENDIX B: AFCARS General Requirements
APPENDIX C: AFCARS Data Elements
APPENDIX D: State Activities Checklist
APPENDIX E: On-Site Agenda
APPENDIX F: Sample Case File Review Form
APPENDIX G: Sample AIPs
Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Children and Families
Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS)
State Guide to an AFCARS Assessment Review
4th Edition
June 2009
Preface
The Children's Bureau is committed to the collection of quality data to be used for policy development, program management and evaluation at both the State and Federal levels. The use of the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) data is legislatively and programmatically significant for the administration and oversight of programs under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act.
The Children's Bureau created the AFCARS Assessment Review process to assure the accuracy and reliability of the foster care and adoption data. During these reviews, the Federal review team assesses the efficiency and effectiveness of States' data collection, extraction, and reporting processes, and provides intensive technical assistance to State staff responsible for those processes.
The Children's Bureau produced this State Guide to an AFCARS Assessment Review to provide guidance to State child welfare program and technology staff regarding the AFCARS Assessment Review process. Revisions in this fourth edition are based on the Children's Bureau's experience from conducting AFCARS Assessment Reviews since the Guide was first issued in April 2002. Also, the fourth edition contains new information regarding the AFCARS Improvement Phase.
The Children's Bureau welcomes comments and suggestions from those using this guide. Comments may be sent to:
Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Children and Families
Administration on Children, Youth and Families
Children's Bureau
Director, Division of Program Implementation
1250 Maryland Avenue, SW, 8th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20024
The State Guide to an AFCARS Assessment Review is available for download on the Children's Bureau's web site. The document is available in HTML and PDF file formats.
Table of Contents
Preface
Chapter I: Introduction
A. Overview
B. Audience
C. Background
1. AFCARS
2. SACWIS
D. Information System Reviews
E. Authority
F. Structure of the Guide
Chapter II: Overview of AFCARS Assessment Review
A. Introduction
B. Summary of AAR Phases
1. AAR Initiation Phase
2. Pre-Site Visit Phase
3. On-Site Visit Phase
4. Post-Site Visit Phase
5. AFCARS Improvement Phase
C. Requirements Subject to Review
D. Rating Factors
E. AAR Initiation Phase
1. Federal Selection Process
2. State Request for an AAR
Chapter III: The Review Teams
A. Introduction
B. Composition of the Review Teams
C. Roles and Responsibilities of Team Members
1. State Team
2. Federal Team
Chapter IV: The Pre-Site Visit Phase
A. Introduction
B. Overview of the Pre-Site Visit Activities
C. Documentation Exchange
D. Test Cases
E. Case File Review Preparation
F. The On-Site Agenda
G. Site Logistics
Chapter V: The On-Site Review Phase
A. Introduction
B. On-Site Logistics
C. On-Site Review Activities
1. Day 1 - Entrance Meeting and System Demonstration
2. Day 2 - Case File Review
3. Day 3 and 4 - Foster Care and Adoption Population and Data Elements
a. Population and Data Element Review
b. Document Review Findings
4. Day 5 - Exit Conference
Chapter VI: The Post-Site Visit Phase
A. Introduction
B. Final Analysis
C. Final Report
D. Dissemination of the Final Report
Chapter VII: AFCARS Improvement Phase
A. Introduction
B. AFCARS Improvement Plan (AIP)
C. New Child Welfare Information Systems
D. Close-Out of AFCARS Improvement Plan
E. Technical Assistance
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: AFCARS Assessment Review Process
Exhibit 2: Rating Factors
Exhibit 3: Review Team Roles and Responsibilities
Exhibit 4: State Documentation List
Appendices
APPENDIX A: AFCARS Federal Resources
APPENDIX B: AFCARS General Requirements
APPENDIX C: AFCARS Data Elements
APPENDIX D: State Activities Checklist
APPENDIX E: On-Site Agenda
APPENDIX F: Sample Case File Review Form
APPENDIX G: Sample AIPs
World Dangerous-AFRA
World Dangerous
"The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." -Albert Einstein
The thing that is ignored in any discussion about CPS is its' utter illegitimacy.
It was Walter Mondale's adoption of this phony issue in his presidential run that resulted in CAPTA '74. It was about Fritz running for President in nineteen knerffing seventy four (1974).
It's not about "child protection", and it never has been (Except for the FOOLS who believe the dribble). It's about MONEY and communist TYRANNY. It's about SUPPLANTING the ungodly UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into DEFACTO "law".
CPS can't be fixed. It is utterly unconstitutional, fascist, and EVIL.
CPS has no business existing in the United States of America.
CPS people are MALFEASANT and completely ignorant of the LAWS they are supposed to obey, the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of the adults they harass AND children they destroy and KILL, and the recent court decisions against them.
We can find no legal authority for them to bang on people's doors, make wild accusations, MAKE THREATS and write up horrendous LIES in their "reports". They do infinitely more harm than any possible good. CPS is an employment system for Sociopaths and pathological LIARS.
"The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." -Albert Einstein
The thing that is ignored in any discussion about CPS is its' utter illegitimacy.
It was Walter Mondale's adoption of this phony issue in his presidential run that resulted in CAPTA '74. It was about Fritz running for President in nineteen knerffing seventy four (1974).
It's not about "child protection", and it never has been (Except for the FOOLS who believe the dribble). It's about MONEY and communist TYRANNY. It's about SUPPLANTING the ungodly UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into DEFACTO "law".
CPS can't be fixed. It is utterly unconstitutional, fascist, and EVIL.
CPS has no business existing in the United States of America.
CPS people are MALFEASANT and completely ignorant of the LAWS they are supposed to obey, the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of the adults they harass AND children they destroy and KILL, and the recent court decisions against them.
We can find no legal authority for them to bang on people's doors, make wild accusations, MAKE THREATS and write up horrendous LIES in their "reports". They do infinitely more harm than any possible good. CPS is an employment system for Sociopaths and pathological LIARS.
Children's Bureau -- Child and Family Services Reviews CFSR Final Report: New Hampshire
Home > Child Welfare Monitoring > Child and Family Service Reviews > Reports & Results > CFSR Final Report: New Hampshire
http://library.childwelfare.gov/cwig/ws/cwmd/docs/cb_web/Record?w=NATIVE%28%27DT+ph+is+%27%27CFSR+Final+Report%27%27+and+STATE+%3D+%27%27New+Hampshire%27%27+and+RPERIOD+%3D+%27%272nd++Round+CFSR%27%27+and+DOC_AVAILABILITY+^%3D+%27%27Not+publicly+available+on+the+Children%27%27%27%27s+Bureau+website%27%27%27%29&m=1
Children's Bureau -- Child and Family Services Reviews
CFSR Final Report: New Hampshire
Region: I
State/Territory: New Hampshire
Document Type: CFSR Final Report
Review Period: 2nd Round CFSR
Below is a sample of the original document. The original document maintains all formatting, tables, graphs, and charts.
View the original document (PDF - 724 KB).
Page:
First Previous Next Last `
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Final Report: New Hampshire Child and Family Services Review November 2010
INTRODUCTION
This document presents a summary of the findings of the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) for the State of New Hampshire. The CFSR is the Federal Government’s program for assessing the performance of State child welfare agencies with regard to achieving positive outcomes for children and families. The CFSR is authorized by the Social Security Amendments of 1994 requiring that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) promulgate regulations for reviews of State child and family services programs under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. The CFSR is implemented by the Children’s Bureau of the Administration for Children and Families within HHS.
The New Hampshire CFSR was conducted the week of August 2, 2010. The period under review for the onsite case review process was from April 1, 2009, to August 6, 2010. The findings were derived from the following documents and data collection procedures: The Statewide Assessment, prepared by the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), and Division for Juvenile Justice Services (DJJS)
The State Data Profile, prepared by the Children’s Bureau, which provides the State’s child welfare data for the 12-month CFSR da ta period ending September 30, 2008
Reviews of 65 cases (40 foster care and 25 in-home services cases) at three sites: 17 cases in Littleton and Conway (Littleton/Conway), 31 cases in Manchester, and 17 cases in Portsmouth Interviews and focus groups (conducted at all three sites and at the State level) with stakeholders including, but not limited to, children, youth, parents, foster and adoptive parents, all levels of child welfare agency personnel, collaborating agency personnel,
se
rvice providers, court personnel, child advocates, Tribal representatives, and attorneys
Background Information
The CFSR assesses State performance with regard to its substantial conformity with seven child and family outcomes and seven systemic factors. For the outcome assessments, each outcome incorporates one or more of the 23 items included in the review, and each item is rated as a Strength or Area Needing Improvement based on the results of the case reviews. An item is assigned an overall ra
ting of Strength if 90 percent or more of the applicable cases reviewed were rated as Strengths. The evaluation options for these outcome
s are “substantially achieved,” “partially achieved,” or “not achieved.” For a State to be in substantial conformity with a particular outcome, 95 percent or more of the cases reviewed must be rated as having substantially achieved the outcome. Two outcomes—Safety Outcome 1 and Permanency Outcome 1—also are evaluated based on State performance with regard to six national da
ta indicators. For a State to be in substantial conformity with these outcomes, both the national standards for each data indicator and the case review requirements must be met.
2
There are 22 items that are considered in assessing the State’s substantial conformity with the seven systemic factors. Each item reflects a key Federal program requirement relevant to the Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP) for that systemic factor. An item is ra
ted as a Strength or an Area Needing Improvement based on whether State performance on the item meets the Federal program requirements. A determination of the rating is based on information provided in the Statewide Assessment and from interviews with stakeholders held during the onsite CFSR. Additional information may come from other Federal reports or assessments.
Overall performance on each systemic factor is based on the ratings for the individual items incorporated in the systemic factor. For any given systemic factor, a State is rated as being either “in substantial conformity” with that factor (a score of 3 or 4) or “not in substantial conformity” with that factor (a score of 1 or 2). Specific requirements for each rating are shown in the table below.
Rating the Systemic Factor
Not in Substantial Conformity In Substantial Conformity
1 2 3 4
None of the CFSP or program requirements is in place. Some or all of the CFSP or program requirements are in place, but more than one of the requirements fail to function as described in each requirement.
All of the CFSP or program requirements are in place, and no more than one of the requirements fails to function as described in each requirement.
All of the CFSP or program requirements are in place and functioning as described in each requirement.
A State that is not in substantial conformity with a particular outcome or systemic factor must develop and implement a Program Improvement Plan to address the areas of concern associated with that outcome or systemic factor.
Because many changes were made in the CFSR process based on lessons learned during the first round and in response to feedback from the child welfare field, a State’s performance in the second round of the CFSR is not directly comparable to its performance in the first round. Key changes in the process that make comparing performance difficult across reviews are the following: An increase in the sample size from 50 to 65 cases
Stratification of the sample to ensure a minimum number of cases in key program areas, resulting in variations in the number of cases relevant for specific outcomes and items Changes in criteria for specific items to increase consistency and to ensure an assessment of critical areas such as child welfare agency efforts to involve noncustodial parents
The specific findings regarding the State’s performance on safety and permanency outcomes are presented in table 1 at the end of this Executive Summary. Findings regarding well-being outcomes are presented in table 2. Table 3 presents the State’s performance with regard to the seven systemic factors assessed through the CFSR. In the following sections, key findings are summarized for each outcome and systemic factor. Information also is provided about the State’s performance on each outcome and systemic factor during the Federal fiscal year 2003 CFSR.
Key CFSR Findings Regarding Outcomes
The 2010 CFSR identified the following areas of high performance with regard to the State’s performance in achieving the outcomes assessed during the review: Items pertaining to foster care reentry, proximity of placement, visiting with parents and siblings in foster care, preserving connections, and physical health of child were rated as Strengths for the State.
The State met the national standards for the data indicators pertaining to (1) absence of maltreatment recurrence, (2) absence of maltreatment of children in foster care by foster parents or facility staff, (3) timeliness of adoptions, and (4) placement stability. Although the State’s performance on Permanency Outcome 2 (children have permanency and stability in their living situations) did not meet the required 95-percent level for substantial conformity, performance on this outcome was fairly high, with the outcome
being substantially achieved in 87.5 percent of the cases. Although the State’s performance on Well-Being Outcomes 2 (children receive services to meet their educational needs) and 3 (children receive services to meet their physical and mental health needs) did not meet the required 95-percent level for substantial conformity, performance on these outcomes was fairly high, with the outcomes being substantially achieved in 91.7 and 84.4 percent of the cases, respectively. Although the State’s performance on the items pertaining to repeat maltreatment; services to protect children in the home;
reunification, guardianship, and placement with relatives; other planned permanent living arrangement (OPPLA); placement with siblings; caseworker visits with the child; and educational needs of the child did not reach the level required for an overall rating of Strength, these items were rated as Strengths in over 85 percent of the cases.
In addition to these positive CFSR findings, HHS acknowledges the efforts New Hampshire has made since 2003 in focusing its work on improving permanency planning for children. For example, some of the initiatives implemented by the State include the establishment of Permanency Planning Teams (PPTs), the passing of permanency legislation, the establishment of the Voluntary Mediated Adoption Program, the establishment of the Finding Connections Program, and the establishment of the Relative Care Specialist position. HHS would like to acknowledge the commitment and dedication of both DCYF and DJJS in establishing a successful collaboration to prioritize improvements in permanency. New Hampshire has made considerable and continuous efforts to strengthen the services provided to children and families involved in the child welfare system through this focus on permanency and through efforts to individualize services for children.
For example, the Individual Service Option program provides resources to purchase specific services to target individualized service needs, including intensive therapeutic, social, and community-based services. In addition, the State’s commitments to data-informed continuous improvement, cross-system collaboration, and policy reform are clear strengths in New Hampshire.
4
The CFSR also identified the following key concerns with regard to the State’s performance in achieving the desired outcomes for c hildren and families:
The State was not in substantial conformity with any of the seven outcomes. Some of the lowest performing areas included achieving adoption, assessing and addressing the needs of parents and foster parents, involving the child and parents in case planning, and ensuring caseworker visits with parents. The State did not meet the national standards for the data indicators pertaining to (1) timeliness and permanency of reunification,
and (2) permanency for children in foster care for extended time periods.
The State’s low performance with regard to these CFSR outcomes and national data standards may be attributed in part to the following key factors: There are areas of the State that do not have access to the full range of services. Caseworkers carry high caseloads in some areas inhibiting their ability to meet the needs of children and families effectively.
The State has not made consistent, concerted efforts statewide to locate and engage fathers in case planning, assessment, and service provision.
Key CFSR Findings Regarding Systemic Factors
With regard to systemic factors, New Hampshire is in substantial conformity with six of the seven systemic factors: Statewide I nformation System; Quality Assurance System; Staff and Provider Training; Service Array and Resource Development; Agency
Responsiveness to the Community; and Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention. However, New Hampshire is not in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Case Review System.
I. KEY FINDINGS RELATED TO OUTCOMES
Safety Outcome 1: Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect
Safety Outcome 1 incorporates two items. One pertains to the timeliness of initiating a response to a child maltreatment report (item 1), and the other relates to the recurrence of substantiated or indicated maltreatment within a 6-month time period (item 2). Safety Outcome 1 also incorporates two national data indicators for which national standards have been established. These data indi
cators measure the absence of maltreatment recurrence and the absence of maltreatment of children in foster care by foster parents or facility staff.
New Hampshire is not in substantial conformity with Safety Outcome 1. The outcome was substantially achieved in 71.4 percent of the applicable cases reviewed. This percentage is less than the 95 percent required for a determination of substantial conformity.
The outcome was substantially achieved in 100 percent of applicable Littleton/Conway cases, 50 percent of applicable Manchester cases, and 78 percent of applicable Portsmouth cases. In addition, the State met the national standards for the data indicators pertaining to (1) the absence of maltreatment recurrence, and (2) the absence of maltreatment of children in foster care by foster parents or residential facility staff.
The 2010 CFSR case reviews indicated that, in 87.5 percent of the cases reviewed, there was no maltreatment recurrence within a 6-month period.
In addition, in 75 percent of the cases reviewed, the agency initiated a response to a maltreatment report within the timeframes established by State policy. However, the 2010 CFSR case reviews also identified concern that, in some cases, investigations of maltreatment reports were not initiated in a timely manner.
New Hampshire was determined to be in substantial conformity with this outcome in its 2003 CFSR. Therefore, New Hampshire was not required to address the outcome in its Program Improvement Plan.
Safety Outcome 2: Children are safely maintained in their homes when possible and appropriate
Performance on Safety Outcome 2 is assessed through two items. One item (item 3) assesses State efforts to prevent children’s removal from their homes by providing the family with services to ensure children’s safety while they remain in their homes. The other item (item 4) assesses efforts to manage safety and reduce risk of harm to children in their own homes and in their foster care placements.
New Hampshire is not in substantial conformity with Safety Outcome 2. The outcome was substantially achieved in 73.8 percent of the applicable cases reviewed. This percentage is less than the 95 percent required for a determination of substantial conformity. The outcome was substantially achieved in 59 percent of applicable Littleton/Conway cases, 77 percent of applicable Manchester cases, and 82 percent of applicable Portsmouth cases.
The 2010 CFSR case reviews found that the agency was effective in providing services to the family to prevent the child’s removal from the home in 85 percent of the cases reviewed, and the agency conducted initial and ongoing risk and safety assessments to ensure the child’s safety in 75 percent of the cases reviewed. However, the 2010 CFSR case reviews also identified concern that, in some cases, risk and safety were not assessed or managed consistently.
New Hampshire also was not in substantial conformity with this outcome in its 2003 CFSR and was required to address the outcome in its Program Improvement Plan.
The key concern identified in the 2003 review was that, in some cases reviewed, the assessments conducted were not sufficient to address the safety issues in the home, which resulted in some children remaining at risk.
6
To address the identified concern, the State implemented the following strategies in its Program Improvement Plan: Strengthened the assessment process through reevaluating intake criteria and the assessment policy Developed the Second Level Screening process/staff training via Leadership Meetings Developed the Reference Guide for Early Domestic Violence Identification & Referral and accompanying Domestic Violence Indicators Improved the use of Structured Decision Making (SDM) by reviewing the current use of the tool and establishing an SDM Core Team to oversee the application of SDM during intake and assessment Established regular and ongoing review of practice issues relative to assessment and family services Established risk assessment procedures within DJJS Improved the array of and staff’s knowledge of prevention services
The State met its goals for this outcome by the end of its Program Improvement Plan implementation period.
Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations
Six items are incorporated in the assessment of Permanency Outcome 1, although not all of them are relevant for all of the foster care cases reviewed. The items pertain to State efforts to prevent foster care reentry (item 5), ensure placement stability for children in foster care (item 6), and establish appropriate permanency goals for children in foster care in a timely manner as well as seeking termination of parental rights (TPR) in accordance with the requirements of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) (item 7). Depending on the child’s permanency goal, the remaining items focus on an assessment of State efforts to achieve permanency goals (such as reunification, guardianship, adoption, or permanent placement with relatives) in a timely manner (items 8 and 9), or to ensure that children who have a case goal of OPPLA are in stable long-term placements and are adequately prepared for eventual independent living (item 10).
New Hampshire is not in substantial conformity with Permanency Outcome 1. The outcome was substantially achieved in 70.0 percent of the cases reviewed.
This percentage is less than the 95 percent required for an overall rating of substantial conformity. The outcome was substantially achieved in 70 percent of Littleton/Conway cases, 60 percent of Manchester cases, and 90 percent of Portsmouth cases. In addition to case review findings, New Hampshire met the national standards for the data indicators pertaining to (1) timeliness of adoptions, and (2) placement stability. However, the State did not meet the national standards for the data indicators pertaining to (1) timeliness and permanency of reunification and (2) permanency for children in foster care for extended time periods.
7
The 2010 CFSR case reviews determined the following achievements: In 93 percent of cases reviewed, there was no foster care reentry. In 80 percent of cases reviewed, children experienced stability in their foster care placements. In 80 percent of cases reviewed, children had an appropriate goal established in a timely manner. In 86 percent of cases reviewed, the agency made diligent efforts to achieve the goal of reunification, guardianship, or permanent placement with relatives or the goal of OPPLA, as appropriate.
However, the 2010 CFSR also identified the following concerns in the cases reviewed: In some cases, the permanency goal for the child was either not appropriate or not established in a timely manner. In some cases, the agency had not sought TPR in accordance with the requirements of ASFA. There were delays in achieving adoptions in a timely manner, identifying an adoptive resource, and in the TPR process.
New Hampshire also was not in substantial conformity with this outcome in its 2003 CFSR and was required to address the outcome in its Program Improvement Plan.
The following key concerns were identified in the 2003 review: The State did not meet the national standards for the data indicators pertaining to the percentage of children reentering foster care within 12 months of a prior foster care episode, the percentage of reunifications that occurred within 12 months of the child’s entry into foster care, and the percentage of children who were discharged to finalized adoptions within 24 months of entry into fostercare. DCYF was inconsistent in its efforts to ensure that children experienced placement stability while in foster care. DCYF was inconsistent in its efforts to establish appropriate permanency goals. DCYF was inconsistent in its efforts to file for TPR in a timely manner, and there were numerous agency- and court-related delays
pertaining to TPR and adoption finalization. DCYF was inconsistent in its efforts to achieve reunifications or adoptions in a timely manner. DCYF was inconsistent in its efforts to assist youth in achieving independence.
To address the identified concerns, the State implemented the following strategies in its Program Improvement Plan: Added a Permanency and Adolescent caseworker in each district office to specialize in permanency-related issues; specifically to provide consultation on all cases in which the permanency goal is no longer reunification Created a PPT in each district office to provide an opportunity for cooperative case planning to begin at the onset of a case Provided intensive reunification services in the five district offices that have the Permanency Plus Program, which provides timelimited, intensive family reunification services for children in first-time, out-of-home placements, and expanded this program to
four additional district offices Improved data accuracy in reporting of foster care reentries
8
Focused efforts on recruitment of dual-purpose resource homes that work intensively with the birth family toward reunification and, if reunification is not possible, are prepared to become the permanent placement Increased collaboration on cases managed by DCYF and DJJS together and implemented review of these cases by the PPT Monitored all children in out-of-home placements to ensure that each has the most appropriate and least restrictive placement and the most
appropriate permanency goal Monitored the number of cases and courts where TPR decisions were not received within 30 days of the final hearing to ensure that TPR proceedings are in accordance with ASFA, and reviewed findings with each district office and judge to resolve issues Worked with the Court Improvement Project (CIP) to assess and address reasons for delays in TPR proceedings—reviewed court files, surveyed judges and stakeholders, and expanded the Division of Family Courts statewide to address delays in filing TPR petitions in those areas in which the case had to be transferred from district court to probate court
The State met its goals for this outcome by the end of its Program Improvement Plan implementation period.
Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children
Permanency Outcome 2 incorporates six items that assess State performance with regard to (1) placing children in foster care near their parents and close relatives (item 11); (2) placing siblings together (item 12); (3) ensuring frequent visitation between children and their parents and siblings in foster care (item 13); (4) preserving connections of children in foster care with extended family, community, cultural heritage, religion, and schools (item 14); (5) seeking relatives as potential placement resources (item 15); and (6) promoting relationships between children and their parents while the children are in foster care (item 16).
New Hampshire is not in substantial conformity with Permanency Outcome 2.
The outcome was substantially achieved in 87.5 percent of the cases reviewed. This percentage is less than the 95 percent required for a determination of substantial conformity. The outcome was substantially achieved in 100 percent of Littleton/Conway cases, 90 percent of Manchester cases, and 70 percent of Portsmouth cases.
The 2010 CFSR case reviews determined that the State was effective with regard to placing children in close proximity to their parents, placing children with their siblings when appropriate, ensuring that children had the opportunity to visit with their parents and siblings in foster care, preserving important connections for children in foster care, and promoting the relationship of the child in foster care with parents. However, the 2010 CFSR also identified concern that, in some cases, the agency had not made concerted efforts to search for either maternal or paternal relatives as potential placement resources.
New Hampshire also was not in substantial conformity with this outcome in its 2003 CFSR and was required to address the outcome in its Program Improvement Plan.
9
The following key concerns were identified in the 2003 review: DCYF was inconsistent in its efforts to facilitate visitation between children in foster care with their siblings and parents. DCYF was inconsistent in its efforts to seek and assess relatives as placement resources, particularly paternal relatives. DCYF was inconsistent in its efforts to support or strengthen the parent-child relationship, particularly with respect to fathers.
To address the identified concerns, the State implemented the following strategies in its Program Improvement Plan: Revised SDM Case Contact Guidelines to improve practice to ensure consistency regarding visits between children in foster care and their parents and siblings Through the use of the Permanency Plus Program, focused efforts on early identification of relative resources within 30 days of
placement Through the use of the Permanency Plus Program, used a team approach, including the birth family and the foster family, to promote a strong and consistent relationship between the parent and child Focused efforts on identifying fathers, paternal relatives, and/or other appropriate parties in a timely manner
The State met its goals for this outcome by the end of the Program Improvement Plan implementation period.
Well-Being Outcome 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs
Well-Being Outcome 1 incorporates four items. One item pertains to State efforts to ensure that the service needs of children, parents, and foster parents are assessed and that the necessary services are provided to meet identified needs (item 17). A second item examines State efforts to actively involve parents and children (when appropriate) in the case planning process (item 18). The two remaining items examine the frequency and quality of caseworker contacts with the children in their caseloads (item 19) and with the children’s parents (item 20).
New Hampshire is not in substantial conformity with Well-Being Outcome 1.
The outcome was substantially achieved in 52.3 percent of the cases reviewed. This percentage is less than the 95 percent required for a determination of substantial conformity. The outcome was substantially achieved in 57.5 percent of the 40 foster care cases and 44 percent of the 25 in-home services cases. In addition, the outcome was substantially achieved in 53 percent of Littleton/Conway cases, 58 percent of Manchester cases, and 41 percent of Portsmouth cases.
The 2010 CFSR case reviews determined that the State was effective with regard to ensuring frequent and high quality caseworker visits with children, ensuring that the needs of children were assessed and addressed consistently, and involving children in foster care in case planning. In addition, in many cases the State was effective with regard to ensuring that the needs of foster parents were assessed and addressed consistently.
However, the 2010 CFSR case reviews identified the following concerns in many of the cases reviewed:
10
The agency did not make concerted efforts consistently to assess and address the service needs of parents, and especially of fathers. The agency did not make concerted efforts consistently to involve children in in-home services cases, mothers, and fathers in case planning. The frequency and quality of caseworker visits with parents were not consistent or sufficient to monitor the safety and well-being
of the child or promote attainment of case goals.
New Hampshire also was not in substantial conformity with this outcome in its 2003 CFSR and was required to address the outcome in its Program Improvement Plan.
The following key concerns were identified in the 2003 review: DCYF was inconsistent in its efforts to assess children’s and parents’ needs and provide appropriate services to meet those needs. DCYF was inconsistent in its efforts to involve children and families in case planning. DCYF was inconsistent in its efforts to ensure that contact among caseworkers and the children and parents in their caseloads was of sufficient frequency and quality to meet the needs of the family.
To address the identified concerns, the State implemented the following strategies in its Program Improvement Plan: Updated the Foster Parent Handbook and developed the Child Information Sheet to ensure that all foster parents have relevant, current, and complete information relative to their children in care Implemented the SDM Family Strengths, Needs Assessment, and Needs Review to assess families’ needs Identified and enrolled providers of specialized services needed by children and families, including substance abuse counselors and mental health professionals Focused efforts on increasing the number of parents and age-appropriate children/youth who attend and participate in case planning at the Administrative Case Review (ACR) meetings Revised case plan form, policy, and procedures and provided training to ensure that supervisors provide clinical supervision and oversight of the development of the case plan Improved the agency’s capacity to meet the needs of children by reducing caseworker caseloads with the addition of the Permanency and Adolescent caseworker in each district office Focused efforts on improving the consistency of visitation between the caseworker and the child as specified in the case plan Established consistent practices related to the frequency and quality of staff visits with both parents
The State met its goals for this outcome by the end of the Program Improvement Plan implementation period.
11
Well-Being Outcome 2: Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs
Only one item is incorporated under Well-Being Outcome 2. It pertains to State efforts to assess and meet the educational needs of children in foster care and, when relevant, children in the in-home services cases (item 21).
New Hampshire is not in substantial conformity with Well-Being Outcome 2.
The outcome was substantially achieved in 91.7 percent of the applicable cases reviewed. This percentage is less than the 95 percent required for a determination of substantial conformity. The outcome was substantially achieved in 94 percent of the 31 applicable foster care cases and 88 percent of the 17 applicable inhome services cases. In addition, the outcome was substantially achieved in 70 percent of applicable Littleton/Conway cases, 96 percent of applicable Manchester cases, and 100 percent of applicable Portsmouth cases.
The 2010 CFSR case reviews determined that in 92 percent of cases reviewed, the educational needs of children were being appropriately and adequately assessed and addressed. In addition, children in foster care were more likely to have their educational needs met than children in the in-home services cases.
New Hampshire was in substantial conformity with this outcome in its 2003 CFSR and was not required to address the outcome in its P rogram Improvement Plan.
Well-Being Outcome 3: Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs
This outcome incorporates two items pertaining to State efforts to assess and meet the physical health (item 22) and mental health (item 23) needs of children in foster care and children in the in-home services cases, if relevant.
New Hampshire is not in substantial conformity with Well-Being Outcome 3. The outcome was substantially achieved in 84.4 percent of the applicable cases.
This percentage is less than the 95 percent required for a determination of substantial conformity. The outcome
was substantially achieved in 92.5 percent of the 40 foster care cases and 71 percent of the 24 applicable in-home services cases. In addition, the outcome was substantially achieved in 88 percent of Littleton/Conway cases, 90 percent of applicable Manchester cases, and 71 percent of Portsmouth cases.
The 2010 CFSR case reviews determined that the State was effective in assessing and meeting the physical and dental needs of children and, in many cases, the State was effective in assessing and meeting the mental health needs of children. In addition, the 2010 CFSR found that children in foster care were more likely to have their physical, dental, and mental health needs assessed and addressed than children in the in-home services cases.
The key concern identified in the 2003 review was that DCYF was inconsistent in its efforts to assess and address children’s mental health needs.
12
To address the identified concern, the State implemented the following strategies in its Program Improvement Plan: Collaborated with a subgroup of Community Mental Health Center children’s directors to ensure that all children/youth in court-ordered placement receive a mental health and developmental assessment within 30 days of placement Assigned a family therapist to each child/youth during his/her first out-of-home placement Committed to making available home-based therapeutic services to all children/youth at home Provided training for all district office staff relative to protocols regarding accessing mental health services
The State met its goals for this outcome by the end of the Program Improvement Plan implementation period.
II. KEY FINDINGS RELATED TO SYSTEMIC FACTORS
Statewide Information System
Substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Statewide Information System is determined by whether the State is operating an information system that can provide accurate and timely information pertaining to the status, demographic characteristics, location, and case goals for the placement of every child in foster care.
New Hampshire is in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Statewide Information System. The 2010 CFSR determined that New Hampshire Bridges is an information system that can readily identify the status, demographic characteristics, location, and goals for every child in foster care.
New Hampshire also was in substantial conformity with this systemic factor in its 2003 CFSR and was not required to address the factor in its Program Improvement Plan.
Case Review System
Five items are included in the assessment of State performance for the systemic factor of Case Review System. The items examine development of case plans and parent involvement in that process (item 25), the consistency of 6-month case reviews (item 26) and 12-month permanency hearings (item 27), implementation of procedures to seek TPR in accordance with the timeframes established in ASFA (item 28), and notification of foster and pre-adoptive parents and relative caregivers about case reviews and hearings to be held regarding the children in their care and about their right to be heard in those proceedings (item 29).
13
New Hampshire is not in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Case Review System. The 2010 CFSR determined the following :
The State provides a process for the periodic review of each child at least once every 6 months. In addition, the court schedules review hearings for each child every 3 months. The State ensures that permanency hearings occur when a child has been in out-of-home care for 12 months and at least every 12 months thereafter.
The State provides a process for TPR proceedings that is in accordance with the provisions of ASFA.
However, the 2010 CFSR also identified the following concerns: Although the State provides a process that ensures that each child has a written case plan, this plan is not developed jointly with the child’s parents consistently. Although the State consistently provides caregivers with notice of and an opportunity to be heard in administrative reviews, with regard to court hearings, the State is inconsistent in its efforts to ensure that foster parents, pre-adoptive parents, and relative caregivers are notified.
New Hampshire also was not in substantial conformity with this factor in its 2003 CFSR and was required to address this factor in its P rogram Improvement Plan.
The following key concerns were identified in the 2003 review: DCYF was not consistent in its efforts to involve parents in the case planning process. DCYF was not consistent in its efforts to ensure that permanency hearings were held for children in foster care or for adjudicated delinquents in a timely manner due in part to court hearing delays.
To address the identified concerns, the State implemented the following strategies in its Program Improvement Plan: Reviewed and improved the current case plan form, policy, and procedures to ensure that every child has a case plan developed with his/her family and with his/her primary caseworker Increased the number of parents who attend and participate in case planning at ACR meetings Provided satisfaction surveys to assess the parents’ involvement in the development of the case plan In partnership with CIP, examined reasons for delays in adjudicatory hearings which could result in delays in permanency hearings Adopted policy, developed forms and instructions, and provided training on permanency hearings for DJJS staff to ensure that these hearings would be held consistently in all DJJS cases where children/youth are in foster homes or residential placements
The State met its goals for this systemic factor by the end of the Program Improvement Plan implementation period.
14
Quality Assurance System
Performance with regard to the systemic factor of Quality Assurance (QA) System is based on whether the State has developed standards that ensure the safety and health of children in foster care (item 30) and whether the State is operating a statewide QA system that evaluates the quality and effectiveness of services and measures program strengths and areas needing improvement (item 31).
New Hampshire is in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of QA System. The 2010 CFSR determined that the State has standards to ensure that children in foster care are provided quality services that protect their safety and health, including certification standards for service providers. In addition, the State’s QA system, the Case Practice Review, identifies the strengths and needs of the service delivery system, provides relevant reports, develops improvement plans, and evaluates program improvement measures implemented.
New Hampshire also was in substantial conformity with this systemic factor in its 2003 CFSR and was not required to address the fa ctor in its Program Improvement Plan.
Staff and Provider Training
The systemic factor of Staff and Provider Training incorporates an assessment of the State’s training provided to new caseworkers (item 32), the ongoing training provided to agency staff (item 33), and both initial and ongoing training provided to foster and adoptive parents (item 34). This systemic factor does not assess the training of service providers other than child welfare agency staff unless the service providers are private agency caseworkers, operating under a contract with the State, who have full case management responsibilities.
New Hampshire is in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Staff and Provider Training. The 2010 CFSR determined that the State is operating an effective pre-service training and ongoing training program for DCYF and DJJS staff. In addition, the State requires and provides initial training for prospective adoptive parents and initial and ongoing training for foster parents and residential facility staff.
New Hampshire also was in substantial conformity with this systemic factor in its 2003 CFSR and was not required to address this factor in its Program Improvement Plan.
Service Array and Resource Development
The assessment of the systemic factor of Service Array and Resource Development incorporates answers to three questions: Does the State have in place an array of services that meets the needs of children and families served by the child welfare agency (item 35)?
Are the services accessible to families and children throughout the State (item 36)? Can services be individualized to meet the unique needs of the children and families served by the child welfare agency (item 37)?
New Hampshire is in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Service Array and Resource Development. The 2010 CFSR determined that the State has an appropriate array of key services to assess the strengths and address the needs of children and families. In addition, the State effectively uses case planning mechanisms and flexible funds to individualize services to meet the unique needs of children and families. However, the 2010 CFSR also identified concern that there are barriers to accessing key services, such as mental health and substance abuse treatment services, in many parts of the State due to the rural nature of the State and a deficiency of service providers.
New Hampshire was not in substantial conformity with this systemic factor in its 2003 CFSR and was required to address this factor in its Program Improvement Plan.
The following key concerns were identified in the 2003 review: The services available in the State were not adequate to enable children to remain safely with their parents when reasonable and help children in foster and adoptive placements achieve permanency. Existing services were not consistently available throughout the State. Key services noted to be lacking were substance abuse treatment and mental health services.
To address the identified concerns, the State implemented the following strategies in its Program Improvement Plan: Conducted a service resource and needs assessment in each district office that included regular monitoring of all family services cases for adequacy and accessibility of needed community services Improved the array of prevention services, dental services, and treatment services for domestic violence, substance abuse, sexual
abuse, and mental health Improved the access to transportation services for families connected to DCYF and/or DJJS Established wraparound teams to work with DCYF and DJJS to ensure access to local services
The State met its goals for this systemic factor by the end of the Program Improvement Plan implementation period.
Agency Responsiveness to the Community
Performance with regard to the systemic factor of Agency Responsiveness to the Community incorporates an assessment of the State’s consultation with external stakeholders in developing the CFSP and producing Annual Progress and Services Reports (APSRs) (items 38 and 39) and the extent to which the State coordinates child welfare services with services or benefits of other Federal or Federally- assisted programs serving the same population (item 40).
16
New Hampshire is in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Agency Responsiveness to the Community. The 2010 CFSR de termined that the State engages in ongoing consultation with key stakeholders in developing the goals and objectives for the CFSP and in preparing the APSRs. In addition, the State’s coordinates its services with those of other Federal or Federally-assisted programs.
New Hampshire also was in substantial conformity with this systemic factor in its 2003 CFSR and was not required to address the factor in its Program Improvement Plan.
Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention
The assessment of this systemic factor focuses on the State’s standards for foster homes and child care institutions (items 41 and 42), the State’s compliance with Federal requirements for criminal background checks for foster and adoptive parents (item 43), the State’s efforts to recruit foster and adoptive parents who reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of foster children (item 44), and the State’s activities with regard to using cross-jurisdictional resources to facilitate permanent placements for waiting children (item 45).
New Hampshire is in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and R etention. The 2010 CFSR determined the following:
The State has standards for foster family homes and child care institutions and reviews licensing records to ensure that licensing requirements are being met. In addition, the State ensures that licensing standards are applied equally statewide and to all licensed foster family homes and child care institutions.
The State complies with Federal requirements for criminal background clearances in licensing foster and adoptive placements. The State has developed a collaborative process with community and faith-based organizations to ensure the diligent recruitment of potential foster and adoptive families who reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of children in the State. The State has a process to use cross-jurisdictional resources to facilitate timely permanent placements for waiting children.
New Hampshire also was in substantial conformity with this factor in its 2003 CFSR and was not required to address this factor in its Program Improvement Plan.
17
Table 1. New Hampshire 2010 CFSR Ratings for Safety and Permanency Outcomes and Items Outcomes and Indicators Outcome Ratings Item Ratings
In Substantial Conformity?
Percent Substantially Achieved*
Met National Standards?
Rating**
Percent Strength
Safety Outcome 1: Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect
No
71.4
Met 2 of 2
Item 1.
Timeliness of investigations ANI 75
Item 2. Repeat maltreatment ANI 87.5
Safety Outcome 2: Children are safely maintained in their homes when possible and appropriate
No
73.8
Item 3. Services to protect children in home ANI 85
Item 4. Risk of harm ANI 75
Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations
No
70.0
Met 2 of 4
Item 5. Foster care reentry Strength 93
Item 6. Stability of foster care placements ANI 80
Item 7. Permanency goal for child ANI 80
Item 8. Reunification, guardianship, and placement with relatives
ANI
86
Item 9. Adoption ANI 68
Item 10. Other planned living arrangement ANI 86
Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved
No
87.5
Item 11. Proximity of placement Strength 97
Item 12. Placement with siblings ANI 88
Item 13. Visiting with parents and siblings in foster care Strength 91
Item 14. Preserving connections Strength 92
Item 15. Relative placement ANI 70
Item 16. Relationship of child in care with parents ANI 83
* 95 percent of the applicable cases reviewed must be rated as having substantially achieved the outcome for the State to be in substantial conformity with the outcome. ** Items may be rated as Strengths or as Areas Needing Improvement (ANIs). For an overall rating of Strength, 90 percent of cases must be rated as Strengths.
18
Table 2. New Hampshire 2010 CFSR Ratings for Child and Family Well-Being Outcomes and Items Outcomes and Indicators Outcome Ratings Item Ratings
In Substantial Conformity?
Percent Substantially Achieved*
Rating**
Percent Strength
Well-Being Outcome 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for children’s needs
No
52.3
Item 17. Needs/services of child, parents, and foster parents ANI 57
Item 18.Child/family involvement in case planning ANI 66
Item 19. Caseworker visits with child ANI 86
Item 20. Caseworker visits with parents ANI 61
Well-Being Outcome 2: Children receive services to meet their educational needs
No
91.7
Item 21. Educational needs of child ANI 92
Well-Being Outcome 3: Children receive services to meet their physical and mental health needs
No
84.4
Item 22. Physical health of child Strength 98
Item 23. Mental/behavioral health of child ANI 82
* 95 percent of the applicable cases reviewed must be rated as having substantially achieved the outcome for the State to be in substantial conformity with the outcome. ** Items may be rated as Strengths or as Areas Needing Improvement (ANIs). For an overall rating of Strength, 90 percent of the cases reviewed for the item (with the exception of item 21) must be rated as Strengths. Because item 21 is the only item for Well-Being Outcome 2, the requirement of a 95-percent
Strength rating applies.
Table 3. New Hampshire 2010 CFSR Ratings for Systemic Factors and Items
Systemic Factors and Items
Substantial Conformity?
Score*
Item Rating**
Statewide Information System Yes 4
Item 24. The State is operating a statewide information system that, at a minimum, can readily identify the status, demographic characteristics, location, and goals for the placement of every child who is (or, within the immediately preceding 12 months, has been) in foster care
Strength
Case Review System No 2
Item 25. The State provides a process that ensures that each child has a written case plan to be developed jointly with the child’s parent(s) that includes the required provisions
ANI
Item 26. The State provides a process for the periodic review of the status of each child, no less frequently than once every 6 months, either by a court or by administrative review
Strength
Item 27. The State provides a process that ensures that each child in foster care under the supervision of the State has a permanency hearing in a qualified court or administrative body no later than 12 months from the date the child entered foster care and no less frequently than every 19
Systemic Factors and Items
Substantial Conformity?
Score*
Item Rating**
12 months thereafter Strength
Item 28. The State provides a process for termination of parental rights proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Adoption and Safe Families Act
Strength
Item 29. The State provides a process for foster parents, pre-adoptive parents, and relative caregivers of children in foster care to be notified of, and have an opportunity to be heard in, any review or hearing held with respect to the child
ANI
Quality Assurance System Yes 4
Item 30. The State has developed and implemented standards to ensure that children in foster care are provided quality services that protect the safety and health of the children
Strength
Item 31. The State is operating an identifiable quality assurance system that is in place in the jurisdictions where the services included in the Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP) are provided, evaluates the quality of services, identifies strengths and needs of the service delivery system, provides relevant reports, and evaluates program improvement measures implemented
Strength
Staff and Provider Training Yes 4
Item 32. The State is operating a staff development and training program that supports the goals and objectives in the CFSP, addresses services provided under titles IV-B and IV-E, and provides initial training for all staff who deliver these services
Strength
Item 33. The State provides for ongoing training for staff that addresses the skills and knowl- edge base needed to carry out their duties with regard to the services included in the CFSP
Strength
Item 34. The State provides training for current or prospective foster parents, adoptive parents, and staff of State licensed or approved facilities that care for children receiving foster care or adoption assistance under title IV-E that addresses the skills and knowledge base needed to carry out their duties with regard to foster and adopted children
Strength
* Scores range from 1 to 4. A score of 1 or 2 means that the factor is not in substantial conformity. A score of 3 or 4 means that the factor is in substantial conformity. ** Items may be rated as Strengths or as Areas Needing Improvement (ANIs).
20
Systemic Factors and Items
Substantial Conformity?
Score*
Item Rating**
Service Array and Resource Development Yes 3
Item 35. The State has in place an array of services that assess the strengths and needs of children and families and determine other service needs, address the needs of families in addition to individual children in order to create a safe home environment, enable children to remain safely with their parents when reasonable, and help children in foster and adoptive placements achieve permanency
Strength
Item 36. The services in item 35 are accessible to families and children in all political jurisdictions covered in the State’s CFSP
ANI
Item 37. The services in item 35 can be individualized to meet the unique needs of children and families served by the agency
Strength
Agency Responsiveness to the Community Yes 4
Item 38. In implementing the provisions of the CFSP, the State engages in ongoing consultation with Tribal representatives, consumers, service providers, foster care providers, the juvenile court, and other public and private child- and family-serving agencies and includes the major concerns of these representatives in the goals and objectives of the CFSP
Strength
Item 39. The agency develops, in consultation with these representatives, Annual Progress and Services Reports delivered pursuant to the CFSP
Strength
Item 40. The State’s services under the CFSP are coordinated with services or benefits of other Federal or Federally-assisted programs serving the same population
Strength
Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention Yes 4
Item 41. The State has implemented standards for foster family homes and child care institutions that are reasonably in accord with recommended national standards
Strength
Item 42. The standards are applied to all licensed or approved foster family homes or child care institutions receiving title IV-E or IV-B funds
Strength
Item 43. The State complies with Federal requirements for criminal background clearances as related to licensing or approving foster care and adoptive placements and has in place a case planning process that includes provisions for addressing the safety of foster care and adoptive placements for children
Strength
Item 44. The State has in place a process for ensuring the diligent recruitment of potential foster and adoptive families that reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of children in the State for whom foster and adoptive homes are needed
Strength
Item 45. The State has in place a process for the effective use of cross-jurisdictional resources to facilitate timely adoptive or permanent placements for waiting children
Strength
* Scores range from 1 to 4. A score of 1 or 2 means that the factor is not in substantial conformity. A score of 3 or 4 means that the factor is in substantial conformity. ** Items may be rated as Strengths or as Areas Needing Improvement (ANIs).
Final Report
New Hampshire Child and Family Services Review November 2010
U.S.
To Read the More of NH's failings go to:
http://library.childwelfare.gov/cwig/ws/cwmd/docs/cb_web/Record?w=NATIVE%28%27DT+ph+is+%27%27CFSR+Final+Report%27%27+and+STATE+%3D+%27%27New+Hampshire%27%27+and+RPERIOD+%3D+%27%272nd++Round+CFSR%27%27+and+DOC_AVAILABILITY+^%3D+%27%27Not+publicly+available+on+the+Children%27%27%27%27s+Bureau+website%27%27%27%29&m=1
http://library.childwelfare.gov/cwig/ws/cwmd/docs/cb_web/Record?w=NATIVE%28%27DT+ph+is+%27%27CFSR+Final+Report%27%27+and+STATE+%3D+%27%27New+Hampshire%27%27+and+RPERIOD+%3D+%27%272nd++Round+CFSR%27%27+and+DOC_AVAILABILITY+^%3D+%27%27Not+publicly+available+on+the+Children%27%27%27%27s+Bureau+website%27%27%27%29&m=1
Children's Bureau -- Child and Family Services Reviews
CFSR Final Report: New Hampshire
Region: I
State/Territory: New Hampshire
Document Type: CFSR Final Report
Review Period: 2nd Round CFSR
Below is a sample of the original document. The original document maintains all formatting, tables, graphs, and charts.
View the original document (PDF - 724 KB).
Page:
First Previous Next Last `
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Final Report: New Hampshire Child and Family Services Review November 2010
INTRODUCTION
This document presents a summary of the findings of the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) for the State of New Hampshire. The CFSR is the Federal Government’s program for assessing the performance of State child welfare agencies with regard to achieving positive outcomes for children and families. The CFSR is authorized by the Social Security Amendments of 1994 requiring that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) promulgate regulations for reviews of State child and family services programs under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. The CFSR is implemented by the Children’s Bureau of the Administration for Children and Families within HHS.
The New Hampshire CFSR was conducted the week of August 2, 2010. The period under review for the onsite case review process was from April 1, 2009, to August 6, 2010. The findings were derived from the following documents and data collection procedures: The Statewide Assessment, prepared by the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), and Division for Juvenile Justice Services (DJJS)
The State Data Profile, prepared by the Children’s Bureau, which provides the State’s child welfare data for the 12-month CFSR da ta period ending September 30, 2008
Reviews of 65 cases (40 foster care and 25 in-home services cases) at three sites: 17 cases in Littleton and Conway (Littleton/Conway), 31 cases in Manchester, and 17 cases in Portsmouth Interviews and focus groups (conducted at all three sites and at the State level) with stakeholders including, but not limited to, children, youth, parents, foster and adoptive parents, all levels of child welfare agency personnel, collaborating agency personnel,
se
rvice providers, court personnel, child advocates, Tribal representatives, and attorneys
Background Information
The CFSR assesses State performance with regard to its substantial conformity with seven child and family outcomes and seven systemic factors. For the outcome assessments, each outcome incorporates one or more of the 23 items included in the review, and each item is rated as a Strength or Area Needing Improvement based on the results of the case reviews. An item is assigned an overall ra
ting of Strength if 90 percent or more of the applicable cases reviewed were rated as Strengths. The evaluation options for these outcome
s are “substantially achieved,” “partially achieved,” or “not achieved.” For a State to be in substantial conformity with a particular outcome, 95 percent or more of the cases reviewed must be rated as having substantially achieved the outcome. Two outcomes—Safety Outcome 1 and Permanency Outcome 1—also are evaluated based on State performance with regard to six national da
ta indicators. For a State to be in substantial conformity with these outcomes, both the national standards for each data indicator and the case review requirements must be met.
2
There are 22 items that are considered in assessing the State’s substantial conformity with the seven systemic factors. Each item reflects a key Federal program requirement relevant to the Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP) for that systemic factor. An item is ra
ted as a Strength or an Area Needing Improvement based on whether State performance on the item meets the Federal program requirements. A determination of the rating is based on information provided in the Statewide Assessment and from interviews with stakeholders held during the onsite CFSR. Additional information may come from other Federal reports or assessments.
Overall performance on each systemic factor is based on the ratings for the individual items incorporated in the systemic factor. For any given systemic factor, a State is rated as being either “in substantial conformity” with that factor (a score of 3 or 4) or “not in substantial conformity” with that factor (a score of 1 or 2). Specific requirements for each rating are shown in the table below.
Rating the Systemic Factor
Not in Substantial Conformity In Substantial Conformity
1 2 3 4
None of the CFSP or program requirements is in place. Some or all of the CFSP or program requirements are in place, but more than one of the requirements fail to function as described in each requirement.
All of the CFSP or program requirements are in place, and no more than one of the requirements fails to function as described in each requirement.
All of the CFSP or program requirements are in place and functioning as described in each requirement.
A State that is not in substantial conformity with a particular outcome or systemic factor must develop and implement a Program Improvement Plan to address the areas of concern associated with that outcome or systemic factor.
Because many changes were made in the CFSR process based on lessons learned during the first round and in response to feedback from the child welfare field, a State’s performance in the second round of the CFSR is not directly comparable to its performance in the first round. Key changes in the process that make comparing performance difficult across reviews are the following: An increase in the sample size from 50 to 65 cases
Stratification of the sample to ensure a minimum number of cases in key program areas, resulting in variations in the number of cases relevant for specific outcomes and items Changes in criteria for specific items to increase consistency and to ensure an assessment of critical areas such as child welfare agency efforts to involve noncustodial parents
The specific findings regarding the State’s performance on safety and permanency outcomes are presented in table 1 at the end of this Executive Summary. Findings regarding well-being outcomes are presented in table 2. Table 3 presents the State’s performance with regard to the seven systemic factors assessed through the CFSR. In the following sections, key findings are summarized for each outcome and systemic factor. Information also is provided about the State’s performance on each outcome and systemic factor during the Federal fiscal year 2003 CFSR.
Key CFSR Findings Regarding Outcomes
The 2010 CFSR identified the following areas of high performance with regard to the State’s performance in achieving the outcomes assessed during the review: Items pertaining to foster care reentry, proximity of placement, visiting with parents and siblings in foster care, preserving connections, and physical health of child were rated as Strengths for the State.
The State met the national standards for the data indicators pertaining to (1) absence of maltreatment recurrence, (2) absence of maltreatment of children in foster care by foster parents or facility staff, (3) timeliness of adoptions, and (4) placement stability. Although the State’s performance on Permanency Outcome 2 (children have permanency and stability in their living situations) did not meet the required 95-percent level for substantial conformity, performance on this outcome was fairly high, with the outcome
being substantially achieved in 87.5 percent of the cases. Although the State’s performance on Well-Being Outcomes 2 (children receive services to meet their educational needs) and 3 (children receive services to meet their physical and mental health needs) did not meet the required 95-percent level for substantial conformity, performance on these outcomes was fairly high, with the outcomes being substantially achieved in 91.7 and 84.4 percent of the cases, respectively. Although the State’s performance on the items pertaining to repeat maltreatment; services to protect children in the home;
reunification, guardianship, and placement with relatives; other planned permanent living arrangement (OPPLA); placement with siblings; caseworker visits with the child; and educational needs of the child did not reach the level required for an overall rating of Strength, these items were rated as Strengths in over 85 percent of the cases.
In addition to these positive CFSR findings, HHS acknowledges the efforts New Hampshire has made since 2003 in focusing its work on improving permanency planning for children. For example, some of the initiatives implemented by the State include the establishment of Permanency Planning Teams (PPTs), the passing of permanency legislation, the establishment of the Voluntary Mediated Adoption Program, the establishment of the Finding Connections Program, and the establishment of the Relative Care Specialist position. HHS would like to acknowledge the commitment and dedication of both DCYF and DJJS in establishing a successful collaboration to prioritize improvements in permanency. New Hampshire has made considerable and continuous efforts to strengthen the services provided to children and families involved in the child welfare system through this focus on permanency and through efforts to individualize services for children.
For example, the Individual Service Option program provides resources to purchase specific services to target individualized service needs, including intensive therapeutic, social, and community-based services. In addition, the State’s commitments to data-informed continuous improvement, cross-system collaboration, and policy reform are clear strengths in New Hampshire.
4
The CFSR also identified the following key concerns with regard to the State’s performance in achieving the desired outcomes for c hildren and families:
The State was not in substantial conformity with any of the seven outcomes. Some of the lowest performing areas included achieving adoption, assessing and addressing the needs of parents and foster parents, involving the child and parents in case planning, and ensuring caseworker visits with parents. The State did not meet the national standards for the data indicators pertaining to (1) timeliness and permanency of reunification,
and (2) permanency for children in foster care for extended time periods.
The State’s low performance with regard to these CFSR outcomes and national data standards may be attributed in part to the following key factors: There are areas of the State that do not have access to the full range of services. Caseworkers carry high caseloads in some areas inhibiting their ability to meet the needs of children and families effectively.
The State has not made consistent, concerted efforts statewide to locate and engage fathers in case planning, assessment, and service provision.
Key CFSR Findings Regarding Systemic Factors
With regard to systemic factors, New Hampshire is in substantial conformity with six of the seven systemic factors: Statewide I nformation System; Quality Assurance System; Staff and Provider Training; Service Array and Resource Development; Agency
Responsiveness to the Community; and Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention. However, New Hampshire is not in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Case Review System.
I. KEY FINDINGS RELATED TO OUTCOMES
Safety Outcome 1: Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect
Safety Outcome 1 incorporates two items. One pertains to the timeliness of initiating a response to a child maltreatment report (item 1), and the other relates to the recurrence of substantiated or indicated maltreatment within a 6-month time period (item 2). Safety Outcome 1 also incorporates two national data indicators for which national standards have been established. These data indi
cators measure the absence of maltreatment recurrence and the absence of maltreatment of children in foster care by foster parents or facility staff.
New Hampshire is not in substantial conformity with Safety Outcome 1. The outcome was substantially achieved in 71.4 percent of the applicable cases reviewed. This percentage is less than the 95 percent required for a determination of substantial conformity.
The outcome was substantially achieved in 100 percent of applicable Littleton/Conway cases, 50 percent of applicable Manchester cases, and 78 percent of applicable Portsmouth cases. In addition, the State met the national standards for the data indicators pertaining to (1) the absence of maltreatment recurrence, and (2) the absence of maltreatment of children in foster care by foster parents or residential facility staff.
The 2010 CFSR case reviews indicated that, in 87.5 percent of the cases reviewed, there was no maltreatment recurrence within a 6-month period.
In addition, in 75 percent of the cases reviewed, the agency initiated a response to a maltreatment report within the timeframes established by State policy. However, the 2010 CFSR case reviews also identified concern that, in some cases, investigations of maltreatment reports were not initiated in a timely manner.
New Hampshire was determined to be in substantial conformity with this outcome in its 2003 CFSR. Therefore, New Hampshire was not required to address the outcome in its Program Improvement Plan.
Safety Outcome 2: Children are safely maintained in their homes when possible and appropriate
Performance on Safety Outcome 2 is assessed through two items. One item (item 3) assesses State efforts to prevent children’s removal from their homes by providing the family with services to ensure children’s safety while they remain in their homes. The other item (item 4) assesses efforts to manage safety and reduce risk of harm to children in their own homes and in their foster care placements.
New Hampshire is not in substantial conformity with Safety Outcome 2. The outcome was substantially achieved in 73.8 percent of the applicable cases reviewed. This percentage is less than the 95 percent required for a determination of substantial conformity. The outcome was substantially achieved in 59 percent of applicable Littleton/Conway cases, 77 percent of applicable Manchester cases, and 82 percent of applicable Portsmouth cases.
The 2010 CFSR case reviews found that the agency was effective in providing services to the family to prevent the child’s removal from the home in 85 percent of the cases reviewed, and the agency conducted initial and ongoing risk and safety assessments to ensure the child’s safety in 75 percent of the cases reviewed. However, the 2010 CFSR case reviews also identified concern that, in some cases, risk and safety were not assessed or managed consistently.
New Hampshire also was not in substantial conformity with this outcome in its 2003 CFSR and was required to address the outcome in its Program Improvement Plan.
The key concern identified in the 2003 review was that, in some cases reviewed, the assessments conducted were not sufficient to address the safety issues in the home, which resulted in some children remaining at risk.
6
To address the identified concern, the State implemented the following strategies in its Program Improvement Plan: Strengthened the assessment process through reevaluating intake criteria and the assessment policy Developed the Second Level Screening process/staff training via Leadership Meetings Developed the Reference Guide for Early Domestic Violence Identification & Referral and accompanying Domestic Violence Indicators Improved the use of Structured Decision Making (SDM) by reviewing the current use of the tool and establishing an SDM Core Team to oversee the application of SDM during intake and assessment Established regular and ongoing review of practice issues relative to assessment and family services Established risk assessment procedures within DJJS Improved the array of and staff’s knowledge of prevention services
The State met its goals for this outcome by the end of its Program Improvement Plan implementation period.
Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations
Six items are incorporated in the assessment of Permanency Outcome 1, although not all of them are relevant for all of the foster care cases reviewed. The items pertain to State efforts to prevent foster care reentry (item 5), ensure placement stability for children in foster care (item 6), and establish appropriate permanency goals for children in foster care in a timely manner as well as seeking termination of parental rights (TPR) in accordance with the requirements of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) (item 7). Depending on the child’s permanency goal, the remaining items focus on an assessment of State efforts to achieve permanency goals (such as reunification, guardianship, adoption, or permanent placement with relatives) in a timely manner (items 8 and 9), or to ensure that children who have a case goal of OPPLA are in stable long-term placements and are adequately prepared for eventual independent living (item 10).
New Hampshire is not in substantial conformity with Permanency Outcome 1. The outcome was substantially achieved in 70.0 percent of the cases reviewed.
This percentage is less than the 95 percent required for an overall rating of substantial conformity. The outcome was substantially achieved in 70 percent of Littleton/Conway cases, 60 percent of Manchester cases, and 90 percent of Portsmouth cases. In addition to case review findings, New Hampshire met the national standards for the data indicators pertaining to (1) timeliness of adoptions, and (2) placement stability. However, the State did not meet the national standards for the data indicators pertaining to (1) timeliness and permanency of reunification and (2) permanency for children in foster care for extended time periods.
7
The 2010 CFSR case reviews determined the following achievements: In 93 percent of cases reviewed, there was no foster care reentry. In 80 percent of cases reviewed, children experienced stability in their foster care placements. In 80 percent of cases reviewed, children had an appropriate goal established in a timely manner. In 86 percent of cases reviewed, the agency made diligent efforts to achieve the goal of reunification, guardianship, or permanent placement with relatives or the goal of OPPLA, as appropriate.
However, the 2010 CFSR also identified the following concerns in the cases reviewed: In some cases, the permanency goal for the child was either not appropriate or not established in a timely manner. In some cases, the agency had not sought TPR in accordance with the requirements of ASFA. There were delays in achieving adoptions in a timely manner, identifying an adoptive resource, and in the TPR process.
New Hampshire also was not in substantial conformity with this outcome in its 2003 CFSR and was required to address the outcome in its Program Improvement Plan.
The following key concerns were identified in the 2003 review: The State did not meet the national standards for the data indicators pertaining to the percentage of children reentering foster care within 12 months of a prior foster care episode, the percentage of reunifications that occurred within 12 months of the child’s entry into foster care, and the percentage of children who were discharged to finalized adoptions within 24 months of entry into fostercare. DCYF was inconsistent in its efforts to ensure that children experienced placement stability while in foster care. DCYF was inconsistent in its efforts to establish appropriate permanency goals. DCYF was inconsistent in its efforts to file for TPR in a timely manner, and there were numerous agency- and court-related delays
pertaining to TPR and adoption finalization. DCYF was inconsistent in its efforts to achieve reunifications or adoptions in a timely manner. DCYF was inconsistent in its efforts to assist youth in achieving independence.
To address the identified concerns, the State implemented the following strategies in its Program Improvement Plan: Added a Permanency and Adolescent caseworker in each district office to specialize in permanency-related issues; specifically to provide consultation on all cases in which the permanency goal is no longer reunification Created a PPT in each district office to provide an opportunity for cooperative case planning to begin at the onset of a case Provided intensive reunification services in the five district offices that have the Permanency Plus Program, which provides timelimited, intensive family reunification services for children in first-time, out-of-home placements, and expanded this program to
four additional district offices Improved data accuracy in reporting of foster care reentries
8
Focused efforts on recruitment of dual-purpose resource homes that work intensively with the birth family toward reunification and, if reunification is not possible, are prepared to become the permanent placement Increased collaboration on cases managed by DCYF and DJJS together and implemented review of these cases by the PPT Monitored all children in out-of-home placements to ensure that each has the most appropriate and least restrictive placement and the most
appropriate permanency goal Monitored the number of cases and courts where TPR decisions were not received within 30 days of the final hearing to ensure that TPR proceedings are in accordance with ASFA, and reviewed findings with each district office and judge to resolve issues Worked with the Court Improvement Project (CIP) to assess and address reasons for delays in TPR proceedings—reviewed court files, surveyed judges and stakeholders, and expanded the Division of Family Courts statewide to address delays in filing TPR petitions in those areas in which the case had to be transferred from district court to probate court
The State met its goals for this outcome by the end of its Program Improvement Plan implementation period.
Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children
Permanency Outcome 2 incorporates six items that assess State performance with regard to (1) placing children in foster care near their parents and close relatives (item 11); (2) placing siblings together (item 12); (3) ensuring frequent visitation between children and their parents and siblings in foster care (item 13); (4) preserving connections of children in foster care with extended family, community, cultural heritage, religion, and schools (item 14); (5) seeking relatives as potential placement resources (item 15); and (6) promoting relationships between children and their parents while the children are in foster care (item 16).
New Hampshire is not in substantial conformity with Permanency Outcome 2.
The outcome was substantially achieved in 87.5 percent of the cases reviewed. This percentage is less than the 95 percent required for a determination of substantial conformity. The outcome was substantially achieved in 100 percent of Littleton/Conway cases, 90 percent of Manchester cases, and 70 percent of Portsmouth cases.
The 2010 CFSR case reviews determined that the State was effective with regard to placing children in close proximity to their parents, placing children with their siblings when appropriate, ensuring that children had the opportunity to visit with their parents and siblings in foster care, preserving important connections for children in foster care, and promoting the relationship of the child in foster care with parents. However, the 2010 CFSR also identified concern that, in some cases, the agency had not made concerted efforts to search for either maternal or paternal relatives as potential placement resources.
New Hampshire also was not in substantial conformity with this outcome in its 2003 CFSR and was required to address the outcome in its Program Improvement Plan.
9
The following key concerns were identified in the 2003 review: DCYF was inconsistent in its efforts to facilitate visitation between children in foster care with their siblings and parents. DCYF was inconsistent in its efforts to seek and assess relatives as placement resources, particularly paternal relatives. DCYF was inconsistent in its efforts to support or strengthen the parent-child relationship, particularly with respect to fathers.
To address the identified concerns, the State implemented the following strategies in its Program Improvement Plan: Revised SDM Case Contact Guidelines to improve practice to ensure consistency regarding visits between children in foster care and their parents and siblings Through the use of the Permanency Plus Program, focused efforts on early identification of relative resources within 30 days of
placement Through the use of the Permanency Plus Program, used a team approach, including the birth family and the foster family, to promote a strong and consistent relationship between the parent and child Focused efforts on identifying fathers, paternal relatives, and/or other appropriate parties in a timely manner
The State met its goals for this outcome by the end of the Program Improvement Plan implementation period.
Well-Being Outcome 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs
Well-Being Outcome 1 incorporates four items. One item pertains to State efforts to ensure that the service needs of children, parents, and foster parents are assessed and that the necessary services are provided to meet identified needs (item 17). A second item examines State efforts to actively involve parents and children (when appropriate) in the case planning process (item 18). The two remaining items examine the frequency and quality of caseworker contacts with the children in their caseloads (item 19) and with the children’s parents (item 20).
New Hampshire is not in substantial conformity with Well-Being Outcome 1.
The outcome was substantially achieved in 52.3 percent of the cases reviewed. This percentage is less than the 95 percent required for a determination of substantial conformity. The outcome was substantially achieved in 57.5 percent of the 40 foster care cases and 44 percent of the 25 in-home services cases. In addition, the outcome was substantially achieved in 53 percent of Littleton/Conway cases, 58 percent of Manchester cases, and 41 percent of Portsmouth cases.
The 2010 CFSR case reviews determined that the State was effective with regard to ensuring frequent and high quality caseworker visits with children, ensuring that the needs of children were assessed and addressed consistently, and involving children in foster care in case planning. In addition, in many cases the State was effective with regard to ensuring that the needs of foster parents were assessed and addressed consistently.
However, the 2010 CFSR case reviews identified the following concerns in many of the cases reviewed:
10
The agency did not make concerted efforts consistently to assess and address the service needs of parents, and especially of fathers. The agency did not make concerted efforts consistently to involve children in in-home services cases, mothers, and fathers in case planning. The frequency and quality of caseworker visits with parents were not consistent or sufficient to monitor the safety and well-being
of the child or promote attainment of case goals.
New Hampshire also was not in substantial conformity with this outcome in its 2003 CFSR and was required to address the outcome in its Program Improvement Plan.
The following key concerns were identified in the 2003 review: DCYF was inconsistent in its efforts to assess children’s and parents’ needs and provide appropriate services to meet those needs. DCYF was inconsistent in its efforts to involve children and families in case planning. DCYF was inconsistent in its efforts to ensure that contact among caseworkers and the children and parents in their caseloads was of sufficient frequency and quality to meet the needs of the family.
To address the identified concerns, the State implemented the following strategies in its Program Improvement Plan: Updated the Foster Parent Handbook and developed the Child Information Sheet to ensure that all foster parents have relevant, current, and complete information relative to their children in care Implemented the SDM Family Strengths, Needs Assessment, and Needs Review to assess families’ needs Identified and enrolled providers of specialized services needed by children and families, including substance abuse counselors and mental health professionals Focused efforts on increasing the number of parents and age-appropriate children/youth who attend and participate in case planning at the Administrative Case Review (ACR) meetings Revised case plan form, policy, and procedures and provided training to ensure that supervisors provide clinical supervision and oversight of the development of the case plan Improved the agency’s capacity to meet the needs of children by reducing caseworker caseloads with the addition of the Permanency and Adolescent caseworker in each district office Focused efforts on improving the consistency of visitation between the caseworker and the child as specified in the case plan Established consistent practices related to the frequency and quality of staff visits with both parents
The State met its goals for this outcome by the end of the Program Improvement Plan implementation period.
11
Well-Being Outcome 2: Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs
Only one item is incorporated under Well-Being Outcome 2. It pertains to State efforts to assess and meet the educational needs of children in foster care and, when relevant, children in the in-home services cases (item 21).
New Hampshire is not in substantial conformity with Well-Being Outcome 2.
The outcome was substantially achieved in 91.7 percent of the applicable cases reviewed. This percentage is less than the 95 percent required for a determination of substantial conformity. The outcome was substantially achieved in 94 percent of the 31 applicable foster care cases and 88 percent of the 17 applicable inhome services cases. In addition, the outcome was substantially achieved in 70 percent of applicable Littleton/Conway cases, 96 percent of applicable Manchester cases, and 100 percent of applicable Portsmouth cases.
The 2010 CFSR case reviews determined that in 92 percent of cases reviewed, the educational needs of children were being appropriately and adequately assessed and addressed. In addition, children in foster care were more likely to have their educational needs met than children in the in-home services cases.
New Hampshire was in substantial conformity with this outcome in its 2003 CFSR and was not required to address the outcome in its P rogram Improvement Plan.
Well-Being Outcome 3: Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs
This outcome incorporates two items pertaining to State efforts to assess and meet the physical health (item 22) and mental health (item 23) needs of children in foster care and children in the in-home services cases, if relevant.
New Hampshire is not in substantial conformity with Well-Being Outcome 3. The outcome was substantially achieved in 84.4 percent of the applicable cases.
This percentage is less than the 95 percent required for a determination of substantial conformity. The outcome
was substantially achieved in 92.5 percent of the 40 foster care cases and 71 percent of the 24 applicable in-home services cases. In addition, the outcome was substantially achieved in 88 percent of Littleton/Conway cases, 90 percent of applicable Manchester cases, and 71 percent of Portsmouth cases.
The 2010 CFSR case reviews determined that the State was effective in assessing and meeting the physical and dental needs of children and, in many cases, the State was effective in assessing and meeting the mental health needs of children. In addition, the 2010 CFSR found that children in foster care were more likely to have their physical, dental, and mental health needs assessed and addressed than children in the in-home services cases.
The key concern identified in the 2003 review was that DCYF was inconsistent in its efforts to assess and address children’s mental health needs.
12
To address the identified concern, the State implemented the following strategies in its Program Improvement Plan: Collaborated with a subgroup of Community Mental Health Center children’s directors to ensure that all children/youth in court-ordered placement receive a mental health and developmental assessment within 30 days of placement Assigned a family therapist to each child/youth during his/her first out-of-home placement Committed to making available home-based therapeutic services to all children/youth at home Provided training for all district office staff relative to protocols regarding accessing mental health services
The State met its goals for this outcome by the end of the Program Improvement Plan implementation period.
II. KEY FINDINGS RELATED TO SYSTEMIC FACTORS
Statewide Information System
Substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Statewide Information System is determined by whether the State is operating an information system that can provide accurate and timely information pertaining to the status, demographic characteristics, location, and case goals for the placement of every child in foster care.
New Hampshire is in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Statewide Information System. The 2010 CFSR determined that New Hampshire Bridges is an information system that can readily identify the status, demographic characteristics, location, and goals for every child in foster care.
New Hampshire also was in substantial conformity with this systemic factor in its 2003 CFSR and was not required to address the factor in its Program Improvement Plan.
Case Review System
Five items are included in the assessment of State performance for the systemic factor of Case Review System. The items examine development of case plans and parent involvement in that process (item 25), the consistency of 6-month case reviews (item 26) and 12-month permanency hearings (item 27), implementation of procedures to seek TPR in accordance with the timeframes established in ASFA (item 28), and notification of foster and pre-adoptive parents and relative caregivers about case reviews and hearings to be held regarding the children in their care and about their right to be heard in those proceedings (item 29).
13
New Hampshire is not in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Case Review System. The 2010 CFSR determined the following :
The State provides a process for the periodic review of each child at least once every 6 months. In addition, the court schedules review hearings for each child every 3 months. The State ensures that permanency hearings occur when a child has been in out-of-home care for 12 months and at least every 12 months thereafter.
The State provides a process for TPR proceedings that is in accordance with the provisions of ASFA.
However, the 2010 CFSR also identified the following concerns: Although the State provides a process that ensures that each child has a written case plan, this plan is not developed jointly with the child’s parents consistently. Although the State consistently provides caregivers with notice of and an opportunity to be heard in administrative reviews, with regard to court hearings, the State is inconsistent in its efforts to ensure that foster parents, pre-adoptive parents, and relative caregivers are notified.
New Hampshire also was not in substantial conformity with this factor in its 2003 CFSR and was required to address this factor in its P rogram Improvement Plan.
The following key concerns were identified in the 2003 review: DCYF was not consistent in its efforts to involve parents in the case planning process. DCYF was not consistent in its efforts to ensure that permanency hearings were held for children in foster care or for adjudicated delinquents in a timely manner due in part to court hearing delays.
To address the identified concerns, the State implemented the following strategies in its Program Improvement Plan: Reviewed and improved the current case plan form, policy, and procedures to ensure that every child has a case plan developed with his/her family and with his/her primary caseworker Increased the number of parents who attend and participate in case planning at ACR meetings Provided satisfaction surveys to assess the parents’ involvement in the development of the case plan In partnership with CIP, examined reasons for delays in adjudicatory hearings which could result in delays in permanency hearings Adopted policy, developed forms and instructions, and provided training on permanency hearings for DJJS staff to ensure that these hearings would be held consistently in all DJJS cases where children/youth are in foster homes or residential placements
The State met its goals for this systemic factor by the end of the Program Improvement Plan implementation period.
14
Quality Assurance System
Performance with regard to the systemic factor of Quality Assurance (QA) System is based on whether the State has developed standards that ensure the safety and health of children in foster care (item 30) and whether the State is operating a statewide QA system that evaluates the quality and effectiveness of services and measures program strengths and areas needing improvement (item 31).
New Hampshire is in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of QA System. The 2010 CFSR determined that the State has standards to ensure that children in foster care are provided quality services that protect their safety and health, including certification standards for service providers. In addition, the State’s QA system, the Case Practice Review, identifies the strengths and needs of the service delivery system, provides relevant reports, develops improvement plans, and evaluates program improvement measures implemented.
New Hampshire also was in substantial conformity with this systemic factor in its 2003 CFSR and was not required to address the fa ctor in its Program Improvement Plan.
Staff and Provider Training
The systemic factor of Staff and Provider Training incorporates an assessment of the State’s training provided to new caseworkers (item 32), the ongoing training provided to agency staff (item 33), and both initial and ongoing training provided to foster and adoptive parents (item 34). This systemic factor does not assess the training of service providers other than child welfare agency staff unless the service providers are private agency caseworkers, operating under a contract with the State, who have full case management responsibilities.
New Hampshire is in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Staff and Provider Training. The 2010 CFSR determined that the State is operating an effective pre-service training and ongoing training program for DCYF and DJJS staff. In addition, the State requires and provides initial training for prospective adoptive parents and initial and ongoing training for foster parents and residential facility staff.
New Hampshire also was in substantial conformity with this systemic factor in its 2003 CFSR and was not required to address this factor in its Program Improvement Plan.
Service Array and Resource Development
The assessment of the systemic factor of Service Array and Resource Development incorporates answers to three questions: Does the State have in place an array of services that meets the needs of children and families served by the child welfare agency (item 35)?
Are the services accessible to families and children throughout the State (item 36)? Can services be individualized to meet the unique needs of the children and families served by the child welfare agency (item 37)?
New Hampshire is in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Service Array and Resource Development. The 2010 CFSR determined that the State has an appropriate array of key services to assess the strengths and address the needs of children and families. In addition, the State effectively uses case planning mechanisms and flexible funds to individualize services to meet the unique needs of children and families. However, the 2010 CFSR also identified concern that there are barriers to accessing key services, such as mental health and substance abuse treatment services, in many parts of the State due to the rural nature of the State and a deficiency of service providers.
New Hampshire was not in substantial conformity with this systemic factor in its 2003 CFSR and was required to address this factor in its Program Improvement Plan.
The following key concerns were identified in the 2003 review: The services available in the State were not adequate to enable children to remain safely with their parents when reasonable and help children in foster and adoptive placements achieve permanency. Existing services were not consistently available throughout the State. Key services noted to be lacking were substance abuse treatment and mental health services.
To address the identified concerns, the State implemented the following strategies in its Program Improvement Plan: Conducted a service resource and needs assessment in each district office that included regular monitoring of all family services cases for adequacy and accessibility of needed community services Improved the array of prevention services, dental services, and treatment services for domestic violence, substance abuse, sexual
abuse, and mental health Improved the access to transportation services for families connected to DCYF and/or DJJS Established wraparound teams to work with DCYF and DJJS to ensure access to local services
The State met its goals for this systemic factor by the end of the Program Improvement Plan implementation period.
Agency Responsiveness to the Community
Performance with regard to the systemic factor of Agency Responsiveness to the Community incorporates an assessment of the State’s consultation with external stakeholders in developing the CFSP and producing Annual Progress and Services Reports (APSRs) (items 38 and 39) and the extent to which the State coordinates child welfare services with services or benefits of other Federal or Federally- assisted programs serving the same population (item 40).
16
New Hampshire is in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Agency Responsiveness to the Community. The 2010 CFSR de termined that the State engages in ongoing consultation with key stakeholders in developing the goals and objectives for the CFSP and in preparing the APSRs. In addition, the State’s coordinates its services with those of other Federal or Federally-assisted programs.
New Hampshire also was in substantial conformity with this systemic factor in its 2003 CFSR and was not required to address the factor in its Program Improvement Plan.
Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention
The assessment of this systemic factor focuses on the State’s standards for foster homes and child care institutions (items 41 and 42), the State’s compliance with Federal requirements for criminal background checks for foster and adoptive parents (item 43), the State’s efforts to recruit foster and adoptive parents who reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of foster children (item 44), and the State’s activities with regard to using cross-jurisdictional resources to facilitate permanent placements for waiting children (item 45).
New Hampshire is in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and R etention. The 2010 CFSR determined the following:
The State has standards for foster family homes and child care institutions and reviews licensing records to ensure that licensing requirements are being met. In addition, the State ensures that licensing standards are applied equally statewide and to all licensed foster family homes and child care institutions.
The State complies with Federal requirements for criminal background clearances in licensing foster and adoptive placements. The State has developed a collaborative process with community and faith-based organizations to ensure the diligent recruitment of potential foster and adoptive families who reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of children in the State. The State has a process to use cross-jurisdictional resources to facilitate timely permanent placements for waiting children.
New Hampshire also was in substantial conformity with this factor in its 2003 CFSR and was not required to address this factor in its Program Improvement Plan.
17
Table 1. New Hampshire 2010 CFSR Ratings for Safety and Permanency Outcomes and Items Outcomes and Indicators Outcome Ratings Item Ratings
In Substantial Conformity?
Percent Substantially Achieved*
Met National Standards?
Rating**
Percent Strength
Safety Outcome 1: Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect
No
71.4
Met 2 of 2
Item 1.
Timeliness of investigations ANI 75
Item 2. Repeat maltreatment ANI 87.5
Safety Outcome 2: Children are safely maintained in their homes when possible and appropriate
No
73.8
Item 3. Services to protect children in home ANI 85
Item 4. Risk of harm ANI 75
Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations
No
70.0
Met 2 of 4
Item 5. Foster care reentry Strength 93
Item 6. Stability of foster care placements ANI 80
Item 7. Permanency goal for child ANI 80
Item 8. Reunification, guardianship, and placement with relatives
ANI
86
Item 9. Adoption ANI 68
Item 10. Other planned living arrangement ANI 86
Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved
No
87.5
Item 11. Proximity of placement Strength 97
Item 12. Placement with siblings ANI 88
Item 13. Visiting with parents and siblings in foster care Strength 91
Item 14. Preserving connections Strength 92
Item 15. Relative placement ANI 70
Item 16. Relationship of child in care with parents ANI 83
* 95 percent of the applicable cases reviewed must be rated as having substantially achieved the outcome for the State to be in substantial conformity with the outcome. ** Items may be rated as Strengths or as Areas Needing Improvement (ANIs). For an overall rating of Strength, 90 percent of cases must be rated as Strengths.
18
Table 2. New Hampshire 2010 CFSR Ratings for Child and Family Well-Being Outcomes and Items Outcomes and Indicators Outcome Ratings Item Ratings
In Substantial Conformity?
Percent Substantially Achieved*
Rating**
Percent Strength
Well-Being Outcome 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for children’s needs
No
52.3
Item 17. Needs/services of child, parents, and foster parents ANI 57
Item 18.Child/family involvement in case planning ANI 66
Item 19. Caseworker visits with child ANI 86
Item 20. Caseworker visits with parents ANI 61
Well-Being Outcome 2: Children receive services to meet their educational needs
No
91.7
Item 21. Educational needs of child ANI 92
Well-Being Outcome 3: Children receive services to meet their physical and mental health needs
No
84.4
Item 22. Physical health of child Strength 98
Item 23. Mental/behavioral health of child ANI 82
* 95 percent of the applicable cases reviewed must be rated as having substantially achieved the outcome for the State to be in substantial conformity with the outcome. ** Items may be rated as Strengths or as Areas Needing Improvement (ANIs). For an overall rating of Strength, 90 percent of the cases reviewed for the item (with the exception of item 21) must be rated as Strengths. Because item 21 is the only item for Well-Being Outcome 2, the requirement of a 95-percent
Strength rating applies.
Table 3. New Hampshire 2010 CFSR Ratings for Systemic Factors and Items
Systemic Factors and Items
Substantial Conformity?
Score*
Item Rating**
Statewide Information System Yes 4
Item 24. The State is operating a statewide information system that, at a minimum, can readily identify the status, demographic characteristics, location, and goals for the placement of every child who is (or, within the immediately preceding 12 months, has been) in foster care
Strength
Case Review System No 2
Item 25. The State provides a process that ensures that each child has a written case plan to be developed jointly with the child’s parent(s) that includes the required provisions
ANI
Item 26. The State provides a process for the periodic review of the status of each child, no less frequently than once every 6 months, either by a court or by administrative review
Strength
Item 27. The State provides a process that ensures that each child in foster care under the supervision of the State has a permanency hearing in a qualified court or administrative body no later than 12 months from the date the child entered foster care and no less frequently than every 19
Systemic Factors and Items
Substantial Conformity?
Score*
Item Rating**
12 months thereafter Strength
Item 28. The State provides a process for termination of parental rights proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Adoption and Safe Families Act
Strength
Item 29. The State provides a process for foster parents, pre-adoptive parents, and relative caregivers of children in foster care to be notified of, and have an opportunity to be heard in, any review or hearing held with respect to the child
ANI
Quality Assurance System Yes 4
Item 30. The State has developed and implemented standards to ensure that children in foster care are provided quality services that protect the safety and health of the children
Strength
Item 31. The State is operating an identifiable quality assurance system that is in place in the jurisdictions where the services included in the Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP) are provided, evaluates the quality of services, identifies strengths and needs of the service delivery system, provides relevant reports, and evaluates program improvement measures implemented
Strength
Staff and Provider Training Yes 4
Item 32. The State is operating a staff development and training program that supports the goals and objectives in the CFSP, addresses services provided under titles IV-B and IV-E, and provides initial training for all staff who deliver these services
Strength
Item 33. The State provides for ongoing training for staff that addresses the skills and knowl- edge base needed to carry out their duties with regard to the services included in the CFSP
Strength
Item 34. The State provides training for current or prospective foster parents, adoptive parents, and staff of State licensed or approved facilities that care for children receiving foster care or adoption assistance under title IV-E that addresses the skills and knowledge base needed to carry out their duties with regard to foster and adopted children
Strength
* Scores range from 1 to 4. A score of 1 or 2 means that the factor is not in substantial conformity. A score of 3 or 4 means that the factor is in substantial conformity. ** Items may be rated as Strengths or as Areas Needing Improvement (ANIs).
20
Systemic Factors and Items
Substantial Conformity?
Score*
Item Rating**
Service Array and Resource Development Yes 3
Item 35. The State has in place an array of services that assess the strengths and needs of children and families and determine other service needs, address the needs of families in addition to individual children in order to create a safe home environment, enable children to remain safely with their parents when reasonable, and help children in foster and adoptive placements achieve permanency
Strength
Item 36. The services in item 35 are accessible to families and children in all political jurisdictions covered in the State’s CFSP
ANI
Item 37. The services in item 35 can be individualized to meet the unique needs of children and families served by the agency
Strength
Agency Responsiveness to the Community Yes 4
Item 38. In implementing the provisions of the CFSP, the State engages in ongoing consultation with Tribal representatives, consumers, service providers, foster care providers, the juvenile court, and other public and private child- and family-serving agencies and includes the major concerns of these representatives in the goals and objectives of the CFSP
Strength
Item 39. The agency develops, in consultation with these representatives, Annual Progress and Services Reports delivered pursuant to the CFSP
Strength
Item 40. The State’s services under the CFSP are coordinated with services or benefits of other Federal or Federally-assisted programs serving the same population
Strength
Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention Yes 4
Item 41. The State has implemented standards for foster family homes and child care institutions that are reasonably in accord with recommended national standards
Strength
Item 42. The standards are applied to all licensed or approved foster family homes or child care institutions receiving title IV-E or IV-B funds
Strength
Item 43. The State complies with Federal requirements for criminal background clearances as related to licensing or approving foster care and adoptive placements and has in place a case planning process that includes provisions for addressing the safety of foster care and adoptive placements for children
Strength
Item 44. The State has in place a process for ensuring the diligent recruitment of potential foster and adoptive families that reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of children in the State for whom foster and adoptive homes are needed
Strength
Item 45. The State has in place a process for the effective use of cross-jurisdictional resources to facilitate timely adoptive or permanent placements for waiting children
Strength
* Scores range from 1 to 4. A score of 1 or 2 means that the factor is not in substantial conformity. A score of 3 or 4 means that the factor is in substantial conformity. ** Items may be rated as Strengths or as Areas Needing Improvement (ANIs).
Final Report
New Hampshire Child and Family Services Review November 2010
U.S.
To Read the More of NH's failings go to:
http://library.childwelfare.gov/cwig/ws/cwmd/docs/cb_web/Record?w=NATIVE%28%27DT+ph+is+%27%27CFSR+Final+Report%27%27+and+STATE+%3D+%27%27New+Hampshire%27%27+and+RPERIOD+%3D+%27%272nd++Round+CFSR%27%27+and+DOC_AVAILABILITY+^%3D+%27%27Not+publicly+available+on+the+Children%27%27%27%27s+Bureau+website%27%27%27%29&m=1
Children's Bureau -- Child and Family Services Reviews State by State Key Findings Report: New Hampshire Round 2
Children's Bureau -- Child and Family Services Reviews
State by State Key Findings Report: New Hampshire
http://library.childwelfare.gov/cwig/ws/cwmd/docs/cb_web/Record?w=NATIVE%28%27DT+ph+is+%27%27State+by+State+Key+Findings+Report%27%27+and+STATE+%3D+%27%27New+Hampshire%27%27+and+RPERIOD+%3D+%27%272nd++Round+CFSR%27%27+and+DOC_AVAILABILITY+^%3D+%27%27Not+publicly+available+on+the+Children%27%27%27%27s+Bureau+website%27%27%27%29&m=1
Region: I
State/Territory: New Hampshire
Document Type: State by State Key Findings Report
Review Period: 2nd Round CFSR
Below is a sample of the original document. The original document maintains all formatting, tables, graphs, and charts.
View the original document (PDF - 47 KB).
Page:
First Previous Next Last `
1
Children’s Bureau Child and Family Services Review Round Two Key Findings Report New Hampshire Department of Children and Families
The Children’s Bureau administers the Child and Family Services Reviews. The reviews comprise two phases: (1) the Statewide Assessment, during which the State analyzes its child welfare data and practice, and (2) the onsite review, during which Federal and State teams examine outcomes for children and families by conducting case record reviews and case-related interviews, and assess State systemic issues through stakeholder interviews.
Following the onsite review, Federal staff prepare a Final Report, which is provided to the State after the onsite review or resolution of a discrepancy. States are provided a courtesy copy of the Final Report before the official Final Report is issued. In order for the State to be found in substantial conformity in any one of the seven outcomes reviewed, the outcome must be determined to be substantially achieved in 95 percent of the cases reviewed. States that are found not to be in substantial conformity on any of the seven outcomes or seven systemic factors must prepare a Program Improvement Plan (PIP) that includes action steps and benchmarks for bringing the State into substantial conformity. The PIP is due within 90 days after the State receives the courtesy copy of the Final Report. This Key Findings Report is based on data from the New Hampshire Final Report.
I. Identifying Information and Review Dates
Children’s Bureau Region: Region I
Date of Onsite Review: August 2, 2010 – August 6, 2010
Period Under Review: April 1, 2009, to August 6, 2010
Date Courtesy Copy of Final Report Issued: November 2, 2010
Date Program Improvement Plan Due: February 2, 2011
Date Program Improvement Plan Approved:
II. Highlights of Findings
A. The State met the national standards for four of the six standards.
B. The State achieved substantial conformity with none of the seven outcomes.
C. The State achieved substantial conformity with six of the seven systemic factors.
2
III. State’s Conformance With the National Standards
Data Indicator or Composite National Standard State’s Score
Meets Standard
Does Not Meet Standard
Absence of maltreatment recurrence (data indicator) 94.6 or higher 95.8 X
Absence of child abuse and/or neglect in foster care (data indicator) 99.68 or higher 99.88 X
Timeliness and permanency of reunifications (Permanency Composite 1) 122.6 or higher 101.1 X
Timeliness of adoptions (Permanency Composite 2) 106.4 or higher 125.7 X
Permanency for children and youth in foster care for long periods of time (Permanency Composite 3) 121.7 or higher 107.2 X
Placement stability (Permanency Composite 4) 101.5 or higher 101.6 X
IV. State’s Conformance With the Outcomes
Outcome
Achieved Substantial Conformity
Did Not Achieve Substantial Conformity
Safety Outcome 1: Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect. X
Safety Outcome 2: Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate. X
Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations.
X
Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children. X
Child and Family Well-Being Outcome 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs. X
Child and Family Well-Being Outcome 2: Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs. X
Child and Family Well-Being Outcome 3: Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs. X
3
V. State’s Conformance With the Systemic Factors
Systemic Factor
Achieved Substantial Conformity
Did Not Achieve Substantial Conformity
Statewide Information System X
Case Review System X
Quality Assurance System X
Staff and Provider Training X
Service Array and Resource Development X
Agency Responsiveness to the Community X
Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention X
VI. Key Findings by Item 1
Outcomes
Item Strength
Area Needing Improvement
1. Timeliness of Initiating Investigations of Reports of Child Maltreatment X
2. Repeat Maltreatment X
3. Services to Family to Protect Child(ren) in the Home and Prevent Removal or Re-entry Into Foster Care X
4. Risk Assessment and Safety Management X
5. Foster Care Re-entries X
6. Stability of Foster Care Placement X
7. Permanency Goal for Child X
8. Reunification, Guardianship, or Permanent Placement With Relatives X
9. Adoption X
10. Other Planned Permanent Living Arrangement X
1 Visit the Children’s Bureau Web site for more detailed information about the Child and Family Services Reviews outcomes and systemic factors.
4
Outcomes
Item Strength
Area Needing Improvement
11. Proximity of Foster Care Placement X
12. Placement With Siblings X
13. Visiting With Parents and Siblings in Foster Care X
14. Preserving Connections X
15.Relative Placement X
16. Relationship of Child in Care With Parents X
17. Needs and Services of Child, Parents, and Foster Parents X
18. Child and Family Involvement in Case Planning X
19. Caseworker Visits With Child X
20. Caseworker Visits With Parents X
21. Educational Needs of the Child X
22. Physical Health of the Child X
23. Mental/Behavioral Health of the Child X
Systemic Factors
Item Strength
Area Needing Improvement
24. Statewide Information System X
25. Written Case Plan X
26. Periodic Reviews X
27. Permanency Hearings X
28. Termination of Parental Rights X
29. Notice of Hearings and Reviews to Caregivers X
5
Systemic Factors
Item Strength
Area Needing Improvement
30. Standards Ensuring Quality Services X
31. Quality Assurance System X
32. Initial Staff Training X
33. Ongoing Staff Training X
34. Foster and Adoptive Parent Training X
35. Array of Services X
36. Service Accessibility X
37. Individualizing Services X
38. Engagement in Consultation With Stakeholders X
39. Agency Annual Reports Pursuant to CFSP X
40. Coordination of CFSP Services With Other Federal Programs X
41. Standards for Foster Homes and Institutions X
42. Standards Applied Equally X
43. Requirements for Criminal Background Checks X
44. Diligent Recruitment of Foster and Adoptive Homes X
45. State Use of Cross-Jurisdictional Resources for Permanent Placements X
State by State Key Findings Report: New Hampshire
http://library.childwelfare.gov/cwig/ws/cwmd/docs/cb_web/Record?w=NATIVE%28%27DT+ph+is+%27%27State+by+State+Key+Findings+Report%27%27+and+STATE+%3D+%27%27New+Hampshire%27%27+and+RPERIOD+%3D+%27%272nd++Round+CFSR%27%27+and+DOC_AVAILABILITY+^%3D+%27%27Not+publicly+available+on+the+Children%27%27%27%27s+Bureau+website%27%27%27%29&m=1
Region: I
State/Territory: New Hampshire
Document Type: State by State Key Findings Report
Review Period: 2nd Round CFSR
Below is a sample of the original document. The original document maintains all formatting, tables, graphs, and charts.
View the original document (PDF - 47 KB).
Page:
First Previous Next Last `
1
Children’s Bureau Child and Family Services Review Round Two Key Findings Report New Hampshire Department of Children and Families
The Children’s Bureau administers the Child and Family Services Reviews. The reviews comprise two phases: (1) the Statewide Assessment, during which the State analyzes its child welfare data and practice, and (2) the onsite review, during which Federal and State teams examine outcomes for children and families by conducting case record reviews and case-related interviews, and assess State systemic issues through stakeholder interviews.
Following the onsite review, Federal staff prepare a Final Report, which is provided to the State after the onsite review or resolution of a discrepancy. States are provided a courtesy copy of the Final Report before the official Final Report is issued. In order for the State to be found in substantial conformity in any one of the seven outcomes reviewed, the outcome must be determined to be substantially achieved in 95 percent of the cases reviewed. States that are found not to be in substantial conformity on any of the seven outcomes or seven systemic factors must prepare a Program Improvement Plan (PIP) that includes action steps and benchmarks for bringing the State into substantial conformity. The PIP is due within 90 days after the State receives the courtesy copy of the Final Report. This Key Findings Report is based on data from the New Hampshire Final Report.
I. Identifying Information and Review Dates
Children’s Bureau Region: Region I
Date of Onsite Review: August 2, 2010 – August 6, 2010
Period Under Review: April 1, 2009, to August 6, 2010
Date Courtesy Copy of Final Report Issued: November 2, 2010
Date Program Improvement Plan Due: February 2, 2011
Date Program Improvement Plan Approved:
II. Highlights of Findings
A. The State met the national standards for four of the six standards.
B. The State achieved substantial conformity with none of the seven outcomes.
C. The State achieved substantial conformity with six of the seven systemic factors.
2
III. State’s Conformance With the National Standards
Data Indicator or Composite National Standard State’s Score
Meets Standard
Does Not Meet Standard
Absence of maltreatment recurrence (data indicator) 94.6 or higher 95.8 X
Absence of child abuse and/or neglect in foster care (data indicator) 99.68 or higher 99.88 X
Timeliness and permanency of reunifications (Permanency Composite 1) 122.6 or higher 101.1 X
Timeliness of adoptions (Permanency Composite 2) 106.4 or higher 125.7 X
Permanency for children and youth in foster care for long periods of time (Permanency Composite 3) 121.7 or higher 107.2 X
Placement stability (Permanency Composite 4) 101.5 or higher 101.6 X
IV. State’s Conformance With the Outcomes
Outcome
Achieved Substantial Conformity
Did Not Achieve Substantial Conformity
Safety Outcome 1: Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect. X
Safety Outcome 2: Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate. X
Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations.
X
Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children. X
Child and Family Well-Being Outcome 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs. X
Child and Family Well-Being Outcome 2: Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs. X
Child and Family Well-Being Outcome 3: Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs. X
3
V. State’s Conformance With the Systemic Factors
Systemic Factor
Achieved Substantial Conformity
Did Not Achieve Substantial Conformity
Statewide Information System X
Case Review System X
Quality Assurance System X
Staff and Provider Training X
Service Array and Resource Development X
Agency Responsiveness to the Community X
Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention X
VI. Key Findings by Item 1
Outcomes
Item Strength
Area Needing Improvement
1. Timeliness of Initiating Investigations of Reports of Child Maltreatment X
2. Repeat Maltreatment X
3. Services to Family to Protect Child(ren) in the Home and Prevent Removal or Re-entry Into Foster Care X
4. Risk Assessment and Safety Management X
5. Foster Care Re-entries X
6. Stability of Foster Care Placement X
7. Permanency Goal for Child X
8. Reunification, Guardianship, or Permanent Placement With Relatives X
9. Adoption X
10. Other Planned Permanent Living Arrangement X
1 Visit the Children’s Bureau Web site
4
Outcomes
Item Strength
Area Needing Improvement
11. Proximity of Foster Care Placement X
12. Placement With Siblings X
13. Visiting With Parents and Siblings in Foster Care X
14. Preserving Connections X
15.Relative Placement X
16. Relationship of Child in Care With Parents X
17. Needs and Services of Child, Parents, and Foster Parents X
18. Child and Family Involvement in Case Planning X
19. Caseworker Visits With Child X
20. Caseworker Visits With Parents X
21. Educational Needs of the Child X
22. Physical Health of the Child X
23. Mental/Behavioral Health of the Child X
Systemic Factors
Item Strength
Area Needing Improvement
24. Statewide Information System X
25. Written Case Plan X
26. Periodic Reviews X
27. Permanency Hearings X
28. Termination of Parental Rights X
29. Notice of Hearings and Reviews to Caregivers X
5
Systemic Factors
Item Strength
Area Needing Improvement
30. Standards Ensuring Quality Services X
31. Quality Assurance System X
32. Initial Staff Training X
33. Ongoing Staff Training X
34. Foster and Adoptive Parent Training X
35. Array of Services X
36. Service Accessibility X
37. Individualizing Services X
38. Engagement in Consultation With Stakeholders X
39. Agency Annual Reports Pursuant to CFSP X
40. Coordination of CFSP Services With Other Federal Programs X
41. Standards for Foster Homes and Institutions X
42. Standards Applied Equally X
43. Requirements for Criminal Background Checks X
44. Diligent Recruitment of Foster and Adoptive Homes X
45. State Use of Cross-Jurisdictional Resources for Permanent Placements X
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)