Minnesota Department of Human Services ... - dhs.state.mn.us · The Minnesota Department of Human...

i

Minnesota Department of Human Services

Child and Family Service Review

Hennepin County

Self Assessment Update

2010

February 2010

Minnesota Child and Family Service Review

Instructions for Conducting the

ii

County Self Assessment Update

Purpose of the County Self Assessment Update

The county self assessment is the first phase of the Minnesota Child and Family Service Review

(MnCFSR). The self assessment process provides the county an opportunity to evaluate strengths

and areas needing improvement across eight systemic factors. These systemic factors provide a

framework for the delivery of child welfare services and achievement of safety, permanency and

well-being outcomes. The county also examines child welfare data to assess the effectiveness of

the child welfare system and evaluates performance on seventeen federal data indicators.

During the first round of MnCFSRs, the self assessment process allowed counties to identify

systemic strengths and areas needing improvement, and provided a method to examine data

related to safety, permanency and well-being performance. Issues raised in the self assessment

were further evaluated through the on-site case reviews or community stakeholder interviews. In

addition, information from the county self assessment was shared with other program areas at

DHS to inform plans for statewide training, technical assistance, practice guidance and policy

development.

In preparation for subsequent reviews, counties will review their most recent Self Assessment

and, update their evaluation of core child welfare systems. Counties are also asked to review

child welfare data and comment on factors or strategies that impacted the agency’s performance.

Process for Conducting the County Self Assessment Update

Department of Human Services (DHS) Quality Assurance regional consultants provide the

county Self Assessment Update document at the first coordination meeting held with the county,

and offer ongoing technical assistance as the county completes the document. The Self

Assessment Update document includes county specific data on national standard performance

along with safety and permanency data. The county Self Assessment Update is completed and

submitted to the Quality Assurance regional consultant approximately two weeks prior to the

onsite review. Completed Self Assessment Updates are classified as public information and are

posted on the child welfare supervisor’s website.

Counties are strongly encouraged to convene a team of representatives of county agency staff

and community stakeholders to complete the Self Assessment Update. Children’s Justice

Initiative Teams, Child Protection Teams or Citizen Review Panels are examples of community

stakeholders who play a role in the county child welfare delivery system. These community

stakeholders bring a broad and meaningful perspective to the evaluation of systemic factors and

performance related to safety, permanency and well-being. Staff members and community

stakeholders who participate in the county Self Assessment Update process also provide a

valuable resource to the development of the county’s Program Improvement Plan.

The agency may also consider options such as focus groups with community stakeholders or

consumer groups, or consumer surveys as ways to gather information for the Self Assessment

iii

Update. Connecting the Self Assessment Update process to other county needs assessment or

planning requirements, such as CCSA, maximizes the use of time and resources to conduct the

Self Assessment Update.

1

PART I: GENERAL INFORMATION

DHS Quality Assurance staff will identify the period under review. The county is requested to

designate a person who will be primarily responsible for completing the self assessment and

provide contact information below.

Name of County Agency

Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Dept.

Period Under Review

For Onsite Review Case Selection Sample: ____

Period for Part IV Data Tables: _2009_

Period Under Review (PUR) for Onsite Case Review: ____

County Agency Contact Person for the County Self Assessment

Name: Deborah Huskins

Title: Area Director, Hennepin County Human Service and Public Health Department

Address: 300 S. 6th

St, Minneapolis, MN 55487

Phone: ( 612 ) 348-0180 Fax: ( )

E-Mail: [email protected]

Key Dates

Month/year of initial MnCFSR: ____

Month/year of on-site review: October 2010

PART II: SYSTEMIC FACTORS

The framework for completing the Self Assessment Update is divided into four sections: updates of systemic factors, review of program

improvement plan activities, detailed responses to questions targeting specific practices, and updated ratings of overall systemic factors. Use

the following guidance when responding to each of the eight Systemic Factors.

Section 1: Updates. Review information the county provided in the most recent self assessment and describe changes in that Systemic

Factor, including strengths, promising practices, and ongoing challenges. It is unnecessary to restate information provided in

the previous self assessment. If the last self assessment continues to accurately reflect a description of a particular Systemic

Factor, note that no significant changes have occurred since the last review.

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

practice areas or activities. Target questions represent areas identified as needing improvement in Minnesota’s 2007 federal

CFSR. Provide information regarding agency practice, promising approaches or identified barriers in these specific areas.

Section 3: Ratings. Quality Assurance regional consultants will provide the agency rating for the overall systemic factor from the initial

self assessment. Determine an updated rating for each Systemic Factor according to the following scale:

Area Needing Improvement Strength

1 2 3 4

None of the practices or

requirements are in place.

Some, but not all, of the

practices or requirements

are in place and some

function at a lower than

adequate level.

Most, but not all, of the

practices or requirements

are in place and most

function at an adequate or

higher level.

All of the practices or

requirements are in place

and all are functioning at an

adequate or higher level.

3

A. Information System (SSIS)

A1. Review information included in the agency’s last self assessment. Summarize changes in the agency’s information system.

System Changes

SSIS Conformance reports are reviewed at monthly meetings with the HSPHD Executive Committee. The following report is provided

as an example of this work.

HSPHD Executive Committee Update from August 23, 2010

SSIS Coordination, Mentoring, and Support Status Report

Prepared by Ms. Berg

Key Activities and Issues

• Adoption and Foster Care Analysis & Reporting System (AFCARS) Compliance Report – Hennepin County’s SSIS AFCARS

data submission for the reporting period that ended in March 2010 complied with the ―acceptable‖ Federal data error rate threshold of

10%. However, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is asking the State to achieve a ―target‖ error rate of only 2%. All

Hennepin County AFCARS adoption and foster care data had an error rate less than 2% except for data on court activity (3.06%), Social

Security benefit information (3.48%), placement discharge (7.65%), and 46% of the most recent monthly foster care payments were not

in SSIS by the end of the reporting period.

• Expanded Use of SSIS – To look at the extent to which SSIS Fiscal functionality could be used for payments and claiming for

child and adult services, 15 counties were asked to provide feedback regarding their use of SSIS Fiscal. The Minnesota Department of

Human Services’ (DHS) SSIS Fiscal Project Manager was also contacted for information on statewide use of SSIS Fiscal.

Of the 87 counties in Minnesota, Hennepin is the only county that does not use SSIS for the majority of their adult services (adult

protection, adult mental health, adult disability, etc.). Moreover, Hennepin and Dakota are the only two counties that do not use SSIS for

the majority of their payments and claiming (CW-TCM, MH-TCM, RSC –TCM, VA/DD – TCM, LTCC, Rule 5, Waiver and AC). All

counties use SSIS for IV-E claiming.

Of the 16 counties contacted, the following provided information on their use of SSIS Fiscal: Aitkin County, Anoka County, Blue Earth

County, Carver County, Dakota County, Faribault/Martin Counties, Kandiyohi County, Pope County, Roseau County, St. Louis County,

4

Stearns County, Ramsey County and Washington County. Olmsted County and Scott County have not yet responded to the request for

information.

Of the 13 counties that responded and use SSIS for the majority of payments and claiming, all reported satisfaction with SSIS fiscal

functionality and highly recommended its use except for MCO billing.

• SSIS Notice of Determination (NOD) Letters – DHS SSIS is recommending that HSPHD Child Protection Investigators use the

Notice of Determination (NOD) letters in SSIS by October 1, 2010 with the release of SSIS version 5.4. DHS SSIS also encourages

HSPHD to use one of their county attorneys to train investigators how to complete the NOD summary of the reasons for the

determination of abuse/neglect.

• Hennepin Use of SSIS for TCM Claiming – On August 26, 2010 DHS SSIS Fiscal representatives will meet again with HSPHD

SSIS and Accounts Receivable staff to provide further training and assistance on using SSIS to claim CW-TCM.

• DHS SSIS Partnership Meeting on July 21, 2010 – Region 3 Directors have submitted a MACSSA legislative position requesting

unified billing for MH‐ TCM for all health plans through SSIS to simply county MCO billing.

DHS announced that SSIS must cut 12% of its budget ‐ ‐ approximately $1 million. Counties will be impacted by DHS SSIS’s reduced

ability to support county operations, integrate with COMPASS, and replace servers.

DHS SSIS is also proposing a money‐ saving Enterprise Architecture investment to centralize the SSIS database which goes beyond the

recent pilot of consolidating county servers in a virtual environment at DHS.

• Preparation for October 2010 Release of SSIS Version 5.4 – The SSIS Mentors are piloting the new version and preparing new

release materials that will be presented to Child Protection Screening & Investigations workers and staff who work with

Chafee/SELF/Transition Youth during their unit meetings.

Version 5.4 includes the following new functions:

o Minnesota Youth in Transition Database (MNYTD) replaces the Chafee/SELF screen and includes the ability to enter survey

information for 17-year-olds in out-of-home care and contact information for surveys of 19- and 21-year-olds to be completed by DHS

contracted agencies.

o Changes to the Continuous Placement screen and IV-E Submission screen to accommodate foster care extension for youth ages

18–21.

o Statewide Case Access changes allow immediate access for reasons of Child Protection, Non CP Emergency and Adult

5

Protection.

o DD Screening Claiming Category, including a DD Screening Supplemental Healthcare screen.In addition, in 2008 Hennepin

County began implementation of the Enterprise Communications Framework (ECF) - a single, shared electronic file system for all

clients served by HSPHD. ECF is a workflow management system for the forms, documents, and digital information collected or

produced in the course of service delivery. ECF improves LAN files by making more content available, easier to find, accessible from

multiple workgroup files, and supporting HIPAA and data practices rules. ECF uses software from FileNet to store and manage

documents and workflow, and uses the State Master Index (SMI) and connections to case management systems (SSIS, MAXIS, MMIS,

and PRISM) to get the data it displays and the data it needs to deliver documents and work to case workers.

ECF requires a dual log-on to both ECF and to SMI (DHS' Shared Master Index). The staff SMI logon controls security for the data ECF

receives from SMI, and determines what each user can or cannot see. The SMI connection "times out" after 30 minutes of inactivity in

ECF. Staff are required to sign-in again to reestablish the connection. If the SMI system is down, a message appears in the ECF header

stating the SMI is down, and limited functions are available.

The Forms used in ECF are from the current templates workers use in the course of service delivery. Workers upload the template to

ECF for editing and storage. Eventually all templates will be eforms in ECF and accessbile only through ECF for creation, modification,

edits, and storage.

Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Information System—Current


1 2 3 4

6

B. Case Review System

B1. Review information included in the agency’s last self assessment. Summarize changes in the agency’s case review system.

System Changes

A variety of approaches have been used in the Federal review in 2007. Beginning in 3rd

Quarter 2008, the review sessions were held

quarterly and a sample of cases were reviewed by 2-person HSPHD teams. This process included participation by a DHS staff member

who served as a resource consultant. The process yeilded 5 to 6 cases per quarter. This process was suspended in 4th

Quarter 2009 with

the introduction of the DHS case review. The internal review process was found to be resource consuming and yeilded limited data. Cost

per completed review was not efficient.

For 2010 an interim process was introduced which involved using one internal case reviewer who completes a sample of 10 cases per

month. To date this has resulted in 80 cases reviewed through 2010. In addition, an additional reviewed has been added to the process in

September 2010. After completion of training and orientation this individual will be reviewing approximately 25 to 30 cases per month.

Preliminary discussions have been held with DHS CFSR personnel to review the development plan detailed in the PIP. Pursuant to the

completion of the October DHC CFSR review discussions will resume on options for HSPHD internal reviews and options to maximize

process improvement activities.

B2. Target Questions

Target Questions

Describe the county’s process for ensuring foster parents receive notice of court hearings and their right to be heard at hearings

regarding children in their care.

We will send a response to this item as an addendum.

Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Case Review System—Current


1 2 3 4

C. Quality Assurance System

C1. Review information included in the agency’s last self assessment. Summarize changes in the agency’s quality assurance system.

System Changes

HSPHD's Corporate Compliance and Quality Assurance (CC-QU) system covers all service areas of the department (including

Children's Services.) Drawing down from the County's strategic plan, mission, and vision, HSPHD has developed a strategic plan which

includes key CC-QA activitites.

CC-QA's scope includes compliance responsibility for accreditation reviews and readiness; the child mortality review and near death

panel,; participation on the DHS state child mortality review and near death panel,; conduct of child protection appeals and

reconsiderations; conduct of economic assistance appeals; oversight fiscal and progam audits including interface with HC Internal Audit

and approval of all PIPs; and operation of HSPHD Research Review Committee.

CC-QA is also responsible for the development and maintenance of the HSPHD balanced scorecard strategy map, balanced scorecard

data on customer, finance and internal process and learning and growth objectives; maintenance of the performance dashboards; conduct

of participant surveys at both directly operated and contract program sites; and condcut of quarterly employee surveys.

CC-QA took over responsibility for SSIS compliance in the first Quarter of 2010. As a compliance and performance improvement

initiattive, the SSIS coordinator and mentors are fully integrated in to the QA team. Working closely with DHS personnel, this team is

working on smooth implementation of SSIS updates, correction of errors and related problems, and ensuring performance improvement

in AFCARs, Title IVE and CFSR data related areas.

All data is presented on the HSPHD intranet site.

Overall First Round Systemic Factor Rating for Quality Assurance System:

Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Quality Assurance System—Current


1 2 3 4

D. Staff and Provider Training

D1. Review information included in the agency’s last self assessment. Summarize changes in the agency’s staff and provider training

system.

System Changes

Since the last assessment Child Protection staff have participated in the following training opportunities:

TOPIC / TRAINER:

Cultural Competency Workshop / Dr. BraVada Akinsanya

Trauma Informed Practice / Dr. Dante Cichetti, Dr. Betty Carlson, Dr. Ann Gearity, Dr. Megan Gunnar

Signs of Safety / Connected Family Andrew Turnell International Conference

Allegheny County Child Welfare Presentation / Dr. Marcia Sturdivant

ICWA Ed Days (Regularly scheduled training events for staff and community partners on Indian Child Welfare Act and Native

American Culture.) / Esie Leoso, Sandra Whitehawk, and others

Lessons from the Field Training Series (A collaboration with University of Minnesota and Minnesota County Social Services),

including:

"Historical Trauma / Dr.Karina Walters

"Intersection of Culture and Children's Mental Health in Working with Immigrant and Refugee Families" / Dr. Goh

"Promoting Child Well Being and Early Childhood Intervention within a Cultural Context" / Dr. Brenda Jones Harden

"Child Welfare Supervisor Seminar" / Dr. Brenda Jones Harden

"Claiming Fiscal training" delivered by DHS SSIS Fiscal Business Analyst on 2/3/2010

Child Parent Psychotherapy in a Cultural Context / Dr. Alicia Liberman on 8/26/2010

Managing Difficult Decisions / DHS SSIS Policy Coordinator on 7/15/2010 & 9/14/2010

Hennepin SSIS Primary Mentor training / DHS SSIS Policy Coordinator on 5/4/2010.

Hennepin SSIS Primary Mentor training / DHS SSIS Policy Coordinator on 5/4/2010.

Hennepin SSIS CW-TCM 2009 SSIS training activities:

Hennepin IV-E Claiming and Error Clean up Training / DHS SSIS Fiscal Mentor Coordinator and DHS SSIS Worker Mentor

9

Coordinator on 9/28/2010.

Use of SSIS for Foster Care Licensing training / DHS SSIS Worker Mentor Coordinator on 12/2/2009 & 12/10/2009

"SSIS Entry and Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility" training / DHS SSIS Policy Coordinator, DHS Title IV-E Policy Foster Care

Specialist and DHS SSIS Trainer on 4/30/2009, 5/27/2009, 5/28/2009 & 6/11/2009

SSIS New Worker Trainings - Bjorn Basics and CP Focus

SSIS also communicates related DHS training called Quarterly Supervisory Forums and VPCs related to new version releases, e.g. 18 -

21 Extended Foster Care, and MNYTD

Court Mediation Training / Julie Harris, County Attorney's Office

Minnesota Social Service Association Conference, Staff attend and participate in presentations

National Association of Black Social Workers Conference, Staff attend and participate in presentations

Hennepin County Foster Parent Trainings, Becky Richardson and Guest Speakers for staff and foster parents

Hennepin County Staff Development Program, Numerous speakers and topics presented to staff in relation to direct practice and career

advancement

Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Staff and Provider Training System—Current


1 2 3 4

E. Service Array and Resource Development

E1. Review information included in the agency’s last self assessment. Summarize changes in the agency’s service array and resource

development system.

System Changes

The following text is taken from a brochure "Shaping HSPHD." This brochure has also been provided as an attachment to the report.

Client-Focused Service Integration: Key HSPHD Initiatives for 2009–2010

Created in 2004, the vision of Hennepin County’s Human Services and Public Health Department is Better Lives, Stronger

Communities. We built HSPHD on the theory that the best way to serve our clients and communities and to achieve this vision is through

sharing information, expertise and resources. Through HSPHD’s service integration efforts and community partnerships, we are working

toward improving access to services, as well as improving results and outcomes.

As we strive to make the most effective, efficient use of resources, we also are looking at how we manage systems from a horizontal

perspective—across the department. Key HSPHD initiatives for 2009–2010 that focus on service integration, community partner¬ships

and horizontal management include:

* Redesigning our Call Center to provide one phone number for all initial HSPHD »»services inquiries. Ongoing.

* Redesigning our services for children and adults. This involves integrating »»child-based services (e.g., Child Protection, Children’s

Mental Health, Early Childhood Intervention and Out of Home Placement) and focusing on a client-centered approach. It also involves

merging adult services (e.g., Aging and Disability Services, Adult Behavioral Health and Eligibility Supports) to provide comprehensive

case assessment and help clients establish and maintain eligibility for financial and health care programs. Implementation underway.

* Redesigning how we provide ―Case Management‖ to serve clients according to level »»of need, utilizing a common core assessment

and case plan. Ongoing.

* Creating a contract management structure that standardizes business practices and »»gives vendors a single contact point per contract.

Implementation beginning in early 2009.

* Creating a Regional Services Plan through which we have identified six geographic »»regions for hub offices where residents can

apply for programs, make appointments and receive information about county and community services. Site in the NW Suburban region

is expected to open at 7051 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center in 2010.

* Establishing an Office of the Ombudsperson to coordinate and manage responses to constituent concerns and address information

requests and complaints. The office tracks contacts to discover trends and systems issues and will use this information to recommend

11

improvements. Office of the Ombudsperson began its work in November, 2008.

E2. Target Question

Target Questions

If applicable, describe how changes in service availability or accessibility have impacted agency efforts to prevent entry or re-

entry and achievement of timely permanency since the last review.

The Hennepin foster care re-entry rate has declined over the last two years. This trend may be attributed to the restructure of the CP field

area, Risk re-assessment and Family Group Decision Making.

Two years ago the Child Protection Case Management area was redesigned. The goal of the redesign was to eliminate the process of

transitioning cases between an initial worker called the upfront worker to a permanency worker. This practice meant that families would

transition from worker to another during the life of their case. This posed many challenges in the areas of family engagement and case

longevity. For instance under the old upfront/permanency framework family engagement and trust were threatened by the hand off

between workers. Workers didn’t have the full picture of the strengths and risks of the families from start to completion of their case

plan goals. However with the one worker framework staff are able to monitor child/parent progress before reunification. This is

particularly helpful in re-assessing risk and determining improvements in this area.

In addition to the case management redesign and risk re-assessment staff use our family group conferencing resources. Family group

conferencing facilitates the families in developing safety plans that are congruent with their natural support systems. Trusted friends and

family who are a part of the client’s network can provide a foundation of support and accountability for them post discharge from Child

Protection.

There is no empirical data to support the correlation between the above strategies and foster care re-entry. However we believe that the

practice enhancements of the one worker model, Family Group Conferencing, and risk re-assessment are on going strategies that

promote best practices.

Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Service Array and Resource Development System—Current

12


1 2 3 4

F. Agency Responsiveness to the Community

F1. Review information included in the agency’s last self assessment. Summarize changes in the agency’s responsiveness to the

community.

System Changes

Two important initiatives that are part of HSPHD's responsiveness to Hennepin County's needs include the Family Health and

Restoration Network project and the Omniciye project, as described below.

Family Healing and Restoration Network: In 2005, HSPHD initiated a community-based effort to address the disproportionate

representation of African American children in the Child Protection system. As a key component of this effort, the county established

partnerships with African Americand faith communities from the Minneapolis area. Over the next several years, representativesfrom the

county and community began working together to discuss ways to help families in need and prevent child maltreatment within the

African American community. In 2007, as a result of these efforts, county and community partners founded the Family Healing and

Restoration Network (FHRN) project.

The mission of the Family Healing and Restoration Network is ―to provide families with a viable network to heal through the

collaboration between community, church and government.‖ The primary target population for the FHRN project is African American

residents of north and south Minneapolis. This population was selected because of high rates of poverty and distress, and the

disproportionate number of families involved in the county Child Protection and Corrections systems. The project adopted the following

four components as central to its work:

g, shelter; public benefits)

families; community forums that educate residents about community resources)

resources)

Omniciye: Through an exciting new partnership with Hennepin County, Little Earth has a one-stop case management empowerment

program for Little Earth households. The goal is to help Little Earth families move off of federal assistance and into secure employment.

Rather than juggling multiple case workers, Little Earth adults now work with just one case manager who advocates for the entire family.

Just half way through the first year of the program, Omniciye, 50 households, or almost 25% of all Little Earth households are now

actively involved in this new self-sufficiency project-exceeding the required households for the first year in our Hennepin County

contract.

14

Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Agency Responsiveness to the Community—Current


1 2 3 4

G. Foster and Adoptive Home Licensing, Approval and Recruitment

G1. Review information included in the agency’s last self assessment. Summarize changes in the agency’s foster and adoptive home

licensing system.

System Changes

At any given time, Hennepin County has about 446 licensed foster families. About one-third of these home are relative/kin homes.

Hennepin County is dedicated to placing children with family members or kin. There are identified staff whose function is to explore

relative/kin resources for children.

Hennepin County has 1.8 FTE s dedicated to foster and adoption recruitment. In addition there are three intake social workers, 2 FTEs

for training, and 13 Licensing Social Workers carrying an average full-time provider-load of around 40 foster homes. They visit their

families at least once a quarter.

Staff have developed hand fans featuring African American Children that we distribute to churches that have a large African American

membership. The County has contracted with American Indian artists to create artwork for use in advertising targeted at the American

Indian population. This artwork had been used in ad brochures, posters, bus benches and a hand fan, which are distributed at Powwows

and other community functions. Various brochures feature a variety of ethnic groups and are distributed to libraries and community

centers throughout Hennepin County. Diverse images of children needing foster and adoptive home are features on billboards and bus

benches.

Hennepin County works closely with the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption Foundation, Wendy's Wonderful Kids, Child Specific

Recruiters who work with our difficult-to-place children. We partner on recruitment events and children who need specialized

recruitment. We also partner with the state's private agencies on recruitment and placement efforts. We are in process of assessing our

recruitment program as it suports kin/relative searches and placement with relatives to ensure placement with relatives and sibliings is a

priority.

Recruitment for concurrent planning program, the foster care adoption option program, has been especially promoted in communities of

color. A barrier we encounter is that daycare is not subsidized for foster parents. In addition, Adoption Assistance administered by DHS

does not allow for financial assistance to adoptive parents unless the child has special needs. Many of the younger children do not qualify

for the financial aspects of adoption assistance and daycare because their special needs manifest themselves later in the child's

development as they get older.

A searchable database of licensed non-related foster care resources is maintained in the placement request system.

16

Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Foster and Adoptive Home Licensing System—Current


1 2 3 4

H. Supervisor and Social Worker Resources

H1. Review information included in the agency’s last self assessment. Summarize changes in the agency’s supervisor and social

worker resources.

System Changes

The past 2 years have been a continued challenge for Hennepin County as we try to meet the ever-growing needs of families facing harsh

economic conditions and dwindling financial resources and supports. We have been required to make reductions in both staff and

services while Federal and State service funding diminishes. The entire county has been under a ―hiring freeze‖ for more than 2 years,

and all employees have been asked to take a minimum of 32 hours per year in ―Special Leave Without Pay.‖ There are scarce training

funds available to support on-going skill and professional development, and staff frequently supplement available training money out of

their own pockets.

Supervisory and staff positions have been "drawn-down" in certain ―non-critical‖ functions in order to maintain our core service

responsibilities and mandates. An example of this can be seen in the elimination of overnight Child Protection staff working in our

Community-Based First Response program, which has been replaced by a contracted service provider offering ―call center‖ functions

only from the hours of 11pm – 8am.

Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Supervisor and Social Worker Resources—Current


1 2 3 4

Community Issues

Review the information the agency provided in the initial Self Assessment. Discuss changes or community issues that have emerged

that could impact planning and delivery of services to children and families and achievement of safety, permanency and well-being

outcomes.

In 2009, HSPHD conducted the Child Protection Continuum Study to 1) gather baseline service data, 2) identify patterns in service data,

and 3) inform child protection practice. The Study follows a cohort of 7, 026 children that seen by Child Protection Services intake in 2006

and reports on the demographics, intake determinations, service track, allegation types, placement reasons and lengths of stay, and cost of

placement. Data from this report has been presented to HSPHD managers and is used in managing our service improvements to our clients.

A copy of the Study is provided as an attachment to this report.

In September 2010, a study was commissioned to prepare demographic projections for children in Hennepin County. The study will be done

by Dr. Ross of the University of Minnesota, through the Hennepin-University of Minnesota Partnership. It is due for completion in

December 2010.

19

PART III: ASSESSMENT OF SAFETY, PERMANENCY

AND WELL-BEING PERFORMANCE

Use the data tables provided in Section IV, SSIS reports DHS data releases or other data sources

to examine the agency’s performance and respond to the following safety, permanency and well-

being questions.

A. Safety

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

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

appropriate.

1. Safety Indicator 1: Absence of Maltreatment Recurrence (Table1). If the county met the

national standard, identify factors that contribute to strong performance. If the county did

not meet the national standard, identify and discuss barriers.

The national standard is 94.6%, HC achieved 94.4% in 2009 This item is tracked

monthly using SSIS report data. During the period January thru September 2010, the

Federal Standard was exceeded 1 month and exceeded 94% in 3 months. Reported

monthly results ranged from 92.4% to 94.7%

2. Safety Indicator 2: Absence of Child Abuse/Neglect in Foster Care (Table 1). If the

county met the national standard, identify factors that contribute to strong performance. If

the county did not meet the national standard, identify and discuss barriers.

The national standard is 99.68%, HC Achieved 99.3% in 2009. This item is tracked using

SSIS report data. During the period January thru September 2010, the Federal Standard

was exceeded during 2 months, and the 2009 results were exceeded in 8 months.

Reported monthly results ranged from 99.2% to 99.8%

3. Trends in Child Maltreatment (Tables 2-3). Examine the data on reports of child

maltreatment. Identify trends and factors that may have contributed to an increase or

decrease in the number of maltreatment reports.

Reports to child protection have dropped since CY 2005. An independent analysis was

commissioned in early 2010 under the U of MN/Hennepin COunty agreement (HUP) and

is currently under study attempting to idenity reasons for this shift.

4. Family Assessment (Table 3). Describe protocols or criteria that guide the assignment of

child maltreatment reports for a Family Assessment or investigation. Describe the process

the agency uses to determine when track changes may be necessary.

The use of Family Assissment has increased from 42.6% in 2005 to 62.7% in 2009.

Hennepin County appears unique among other counties in the CP reports that are

screened and assigned to one or the other tracks are reviewed again by Intake supervisors

who review the report a second time to ensure the right track has been selected. Due to

this additional step, HC typically has more "switches", a situation that we see as "a good

thing".

There was a short-term drop in utilization of FA in 2008 due to funding restrictions and

the county's decision to reduce property tax funding of this resource. However,

20

utilization picked-up again in 2009 as program managers and supervisors were provided

monthly statistics to help them better manage within the current allocation.

5. Timeliness of Initial Contact in Assessments or Investigations (Tables 4-5). Examine the

data on timeliness of initial contacts. Identify factors that contribute to timely face-to-face

contacts with children, and factors that contribute to delays.

The overall Statewide rate on timely 5 day contact cases was 65.9% in 2008 and 69.5%

in the period Jan-Jun 2009 was 69.5%. Hennepin has shown improvement from 55.0%

in 2008 to 65% in the period Jan - Jun 2009.

For substantialed child endangerment cases (24 standard) the statewide rate was 51.4%

in 2008 and 57.3% in the period Jan-Jun 2009. Henepin has shown some improvement

from 38.1% to 44.6% for the same reporting period.

Work continues and is noted in the PIP for improvements on both of these items.

6. Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Issues (Tables 6-7). Describe agency practices for

addressing the needs of children and families experiencing difficulties with alcohol or other

drugs. Examine worker competencies and training needs related to addiction, treatment, and

relapse planning. Identify promising approaches or current barriers to addressing substance

use issues.

Last year Hennepin developed a new policy for monitoring drug use by parents during

the life of their child protection case. Workers are given clear guidelines regarding when

to refer individuals for CD monitoring and treatment. The referrals are to be tied to the

safety concerns of the case plan. The monitoring should also be tied to the safety plans

for the family. In addition staff have received training on the policy and

psychopharmocology.

Hennepin County continues to be funded through a SAMSHA grant to operate a small,

Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Program that screens and provides assessment and

service brokering for youth who are adjudicated in our Juvenile Court system. For those

youth that were assessed to have difficulty with alcohol or drugs, a promising practice

was initiated in working with HIS New Generationts, one of our providers experienced in

treating youth with FASD. HC worked collaboratively with New Generations to develop

a provider network of FASD clinicians and programs that continues to be used as a

referral source for youth with FASD.

7. Short-term Placements. (Table 5). Examine the agency’s use of short-term placements.

Identify factors that contribute to short-term placements. Discuss efforts to prevent entry or

re-entry into foster care.

The use of short tern placement (1-7 days) for Hennepin County Cases for the period

ending in 2009 was 20% which is lower than the State % of 21.8%. This is an area

Hennepin continnues to work on and is include in the PIP. A focus on the review of all

cases in placement less than 8 days has been initaitied and includes review of reasons for

placement and source of placement activity.

8. Other Safety Issues. Discuss any other concerns, not covered above, that affect safety

outcomes for children and families served by the agency.

21

B. Permanency

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

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

children.

1. Permanency Composite 1: Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification (Table1).

Identify and comment on overall strengths and barriers to the county’s performance on the

four measures included in Permanency Composite 1.

On the four measures Hennepin exceeded the national standards for measures c1.1 and

c1.3. Work continnues on measure c1.2 Median stay in foster case to reunification

below 5.4 months. Hennepin was at 5.8 months at the end of 2009. jan thru sep 2010

data whos the national standard was met 6 of 9 months. On measure c.1.4 children who

exit and re-enter foster care in less than 12 months, Hennepin is at 18.5% which is lower

than the state number at 24.0% but above the national standard which is 9.9%. During

2010 improvements are being to appear, all 9 months were below the 2009 Hennepin

performance. Continued work will focus on moving the percent toward the naitonal

standard. This work continues in the PIP

2. Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of Adoptions (Table 1). Identify and comment on

overall strengths and barriers to the county’s performance on the five measures included in

Permanency Composite 2.

On these five measures Hennepin exceedsthe Natinal Standrad for measures c2.1, c2.2, and

c.2.3.

Hennepin PIP contniues work on measure c2.4: Children in foster care 17+ months

achieving leagal freedom within 6 month (HC at 2.8% which is above the state number

of 1.7%, but below the national standard of 10.7%). In addition work on measure c2.5:

children, legally free, adoption in less than 12 months is at 35.3%, which is below the

state number of 36.5% and the national standard of 53.7%. This item also is included in

the current PIP.

3. Permanency Composite 3: Permanency for Children and Youth in Foster Care for

Long Periods of Time (Table 1). Identify and comment on overall strengths and barriers

to the county’s performance on the three measures included in Permanency Composite 3.

Of the three measures Hennepin met the standard for c3.3. Work continues in the PIP on

measure c.3.1: exitis to permanency prior to their 18th birthday for childen in care for

24+ months where Hennepin is at 18% which is below the state number of 19.8% and

national standard of 29.1%. Similarly for measure c3.2: exits to permanency for children

with TPR Hennepin is below the state number of 91.7% and national standard of 98.0%.

This item is also included in the PIP.

4. Permanency Composite 4: Placement Stability (Table 1). Identify and comment on

overall strengths and barriers to the county’s performance on the three measures included in


On the three measures related to placement stability Hennepin is below both the state

numbers and national standards. This is an area of concern and addressed in the PIP

22

5. Relative foster care (Table 9). Describe agency efforts to promote timely relative searches,

emergency licenses and relative foster care placements. Include a description of agency

efforts to consider both maternal and paternal family members, and outline strategies for

supporting stable relative placements.

Table 10 (not 9) shows Hennepin at 13.8% of cases in foster family relative placements

as compared with the state number of 18%.

6. Long-term foster care. Describe the agency’s current practices related to the use of long-

term foster care as a permanency option for children. Include information regarding the

process for identifying and ruling out other, more permanent options, and the process for

reassessing the ongoing appropriateness of the long-term foster care goal.

We have worked to minimize the use of LTFC as a permanency option. Our goal is to

place children with relatives or other foster care arrangements that will support

reunification or adoption.

7. Other Permanency Issues. Discuss any other issues of concern, not covered above, that

affect permanency outcomes for children and families served by the agency.

23

C. Well-being

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

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

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

health needs.

1. Parent involvement. Discuss strategies the agency has implemented since the last

MnCFSR to improve performance in the following areas:

Engaging fathers/non-resident parents in needs assessment, service delivery and

case planning. Identify promising approaches or current barriers to involving

fathers/non-resident parents.

Child Protection Field staff work with families through out the life of their case to

identify fathers, paternal and out of state relatives. Inquiry regarding possible relative

options is an expectation of all CP staff at all points of the the Hennepin continuum from

investigation to adoption. All staff in Child Protection are expected to include new

information on the kinship template when it becomes available. All families are offered

the option of having a family team conference or a family group conference meeting. At

these meetings facilitated by trained, families are encouraged to share information

regardign potential relative options for placement.

A significant barrier to engaging fathers in particular has to do with their legal status

with the child. Unless the father is the legal custodian, or has joint legal custody of the

child, the mother or other legal custodian determines wether or not the father is party to

the case plan or court proceeding. We typically have difficulty convincing the mother or

other legal custodian to permit the father's engagement.

2. Caseworker visits with children (Table 11 and SSIS General Report ―Caseworker

Visits with Children in Foster Care‖. Describe the agency’s process for determining the

frequency of face-to-face worker visits with children. Identify promising approaches or

current barriers to frequent worker contact. Describe caseworker practices that contribute to

quality visits with children.

Table 11 data for Hennepin exceeded the monthly visit requirement over the state

number for all four of the reporting periods. The October 2008- September 2009 rate

was 57.1% This being noted work continues on increasing the number foster children in

foster care placements who are visited monthly.

3. Other Well-being Issues. Discuss any other issues of concern, not covered above, that

affect well-being outcomes for children and families served by the agency.

24

Part IV: Safety and Permanency Data

A. Federal Data Indicators

Beginning with the first round of the CFSR, single data measures were used for establishing

national standards. This provided information to states and counties about their performance;

however, did not always reflect the broader, more complex factors that contribute to

performance.

In 2007 the Administration of Children and Families revised the national standard indicators.

Safety data indicators continue to be single data elements. Permanency data was expanded to

allow for a closer examination of what particular practices drive the outcomes for children in

foster care. Permanency data is now reflected in components, composites and measures as

defined below:

Composites: Refers to a data indicator that incorporates county performance on multiple

permanency-related individual measures. There are four permanency composites.

Component: Refers to the primary parts of a composite. Components may incorporate

only one individual measure or may have two or more individual measures that are

closely related to one another. There are seven permanency related components.

Measures: Refers to the specific measures that are included in each composite. There are

15 individual permanency measures.

Table 1 includes county performance on the two safety data indicators and 15 permanency

measures.

B. Safety Data Tables

Tables 2-7 include child welfare data related to the agency’s practices in addressing safety.

These tables contain information about the agency’s use of track assignments, report

dispositions, timeliness of initial face-to-face contacts with children who are the subject of a

maltreatment report, length of placement episodes and reasons for out-of-home placements.

C. Permanency Data Tables

Tables 8-10 provide demographic information about the children in out-of-home placement

(gender and age) and the type of settings in which children are placed.

D. Child Well-being Data Tables

Table 11 provides information regarding the frequency of caseworkers’ monthly face-to-face

contact with children in foster care.

25

PART III: ASSESSMENT OF SAFETY, PERMANENCY

AND WELL-BEING PERFORMANCE

Use the data tables provided in Section IV, SSIS reports DHS data releases or other data sources

to examine the agency’s performance and respond to the following safety, permanency and well-

being questions.

A. Safety

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

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

appropriate.

1. Safety Indicator 1: Absence of Maltreatment Recurrence (Table1). If the county met the

national standard, identify factors that contribute to strong performance. If the county did

not meet the national standard, identify and discuss barriers.

2. Safety Indicator 2: Absence of Child Abuse/Neglect in Foster Care (Table 1). If the

county met the national standard, identify factors that contribute to strong performance. If

the county did not meet the national standard, identify and discuss barriers.

3. Trends in Child Maltreatment (Tables 2-3). Examine the data on reports of child

maltreatment. Identify trends and factors that may have contributed to an increase or

decrease in the number of maltreatment reports.

4. Family Assessment (Table 3). Describe protocols or criteria that guide the assignment of

child maltreatment reports for a Family Assessment or investigation. Describe the process

the agency uses to determine when track changes may be necessary.

5. Timeliness of Initial Contact in Assessments or Investigations (Tables 4-5). Examine the

data on timeliness of initial contacts. Identify factors that contribute to timely face-to-face

contacts with children, and factors that contribute to delays.

6. Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Issues (Tables 6-7). Describe agency practices for

addressing the needs of children and families experiencing difficulties with alcohol or other

drugs. Examine worker competencies and training needs related to addiction, treatment, and

relapse planning. Identify promising approaches or current barriers to addressing substance

use issues.

26

7. Short-term Placements. (Table 5). Examine the agency’s use of short-term placements.

Identify factors that contribute to short-term placements. Discuss efforts to prevent entry or

re-entry into foster care.

8. Other Safety Issues. Discuss any other concerns, not covered above, that affect safety

outcomes for children and families served by the agency.

27

B. Permanency

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

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

children.

1. Permanency Composite 1: Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification (Table1).

Identify and comment on overall strengths and barriers to the county’s performance on the

four measures included in Permanency Composite 1.

2. Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of Adoptions (Table 1). Identify and comment on

overall strengths and barriers to the county’s performance on the five measures included in


3. Permanency Composite 3: Permanency for Children and Youth in Foster Care for

Long Periods of Time (Table 1). Identify and comment on overall strengths and barriers

to the county’s performance on the three measures included in Permanency Composite 3.

4. Permanency Composite 4: Placement Stability (Table 1). Identify and comment on

overall strengths and barriers to the county’s performance on the three measures included in


5. Relative foster care (Table 9). Describe agency efforts to promote timely relative searches,

emergency licenses and relative foster care placements. Include a description of agency

efforts to consider both maternal and paternal family members, and outline strategies for

supporting stable relative placements.

6. Long-term foster care. Describe the agency’s current practices related to the use of long-

term foster care as a permanency option for children. Include information regarding the

process for identifying and ruling out other, more permanent options, and the process for

reassessing the ongoing appropriateness of the long-term foster care goal.

7. Other Permanency Issues. Discuss any other issues of concern, not covered above, that

affect permanency outcomes for children and families served by the agency.

28

C. Well-being

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

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

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

health needs.

1. Parent involvement. Discuss strategies the agency has implemented since the last

MnCFSR to improve performance in the following areas:

Engaging fathers/non-resident parents in needs assessment, service delivery and

case planning. Identify promising approaches or current barriers to involving

fathers/non-resident parents.

2. Caseworker visits with children (Table 11 and SSIS General Report ―Caseworker

Visits with Children in Foster Care‖. Describe the agency’s process for determining the

frequency of face-to-face worker visits with children. Identify promising approaches or

current barriers to frequent worker contact. Describe caseworker practices that contribute to

quality visits with children.

3. Other Well-being Issues. Discuss any other issues of concern, not covered above, that

affect well-being outcomes for children and families served by the agency.

29

Part IV: Safety and Permanency Data

A. Federal Data Indicators

Beginning with the first round of the CFSR, single data measures were used for establishing

national standards. This provided information to states and counties about their performance;

however, did not always reflect the broader, more complex factors that contribute to

performance.

In 2007 the Administration of Children and Families revised the national standard indicators.

Safety data indicators continue to be single data elements. Permanency data was expanded to

allow for a closer examination of what particular practices drive the outcomes for children in

foster care. Permanency data is now reflected in components, composites and measures as

defined below:

Composites: Refers to a data indicator that incorporates county performance on multiple

permanency-related individual measures. There are four permanency composites.

Component: Refers to the primary parts of a composite. Components may incorporate

only one individual measure or may have two or more individual measures that are

closely related to one another. There are seven permanency related components.

Measures: Refers to the specific measures that are included in each composite. There are

15 individual permanency measures.

Table 1 includes county performance on the two safety data indicators and 15 permanency

measures.

E. Safety Data Tables

Tables 2-7 include child welfare data related to the agency’s practices in addressing safety.

These tables contain information about the agency’s use of track assignments, report

dispositions, timeliness of initial face-to-face contacts with children who are the subject of a

maltreatment report, length of placement episodes and reasons for out-of-home placements.

F. Permanency Data Tables

Tables 8-10 provide demographic information about the children in out-of-home placement

(gender and age) and the type of settings in which children are placed.

G. Child Well-being Data Tables

Table 11 provides information regarding the frequency of caseworkers’ monthly face-to-face

contact with children in foster care.

30

A. Federal Data Indicators Table 1

Data Indicator National

Standard

Minnesota

2009

Hennepin

County

2009

Safety Indicator 1: Absence of Maltreatment

Recurrence. Of all children who were victims of

determined maltreatment during the first six months of the

reporting period, what percent were not victims of another

determined maltreatment allegation within a 6-month

period.

94.6% 95.3% 93.4%

(803/386)

Safety Indicator 2: Absence of Child Abuse/Neglect in

Foster Care. Of all children in foster care during the

reporting period, what percent were not victims of

determined maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff

member.

99.68% 99.56% 99.3%

(2573/2592)

Measure C1.1: Exits to reunification in less than 12

months. Of all children discharged from foster care to

reunification in the year shown, who had been in foster

care for 8 days or longer, what percent was reunified in

less than 12 months from the date of the latest removal

from the home?

75.2% 83.7% 78.8%*

(576/731)

Measure C1.2: Median stay in foster care to

reunification. Of all children discharged from foster

care to reunification in the year shown, who had been

in foster care for 8 days or longer, what was the median

length of stay (in months) from the date of the latest

removal from home until the date of discharge to

reunification?

5.4 4.1 5.8

Measure C1.3: Entry cohort of children who

reunify in less than 12 months. Of all children

entering foster care for the first time in the 6 month

period just prior to the year shown, and who remained

in foster care for 8 days or longer, what percent was

discharged from foster care to reunification in less than

12 months from the date of the latest removal from

home?

48.4% 61.8% 56.0%*

(211/377)

Measure C1.4: Children who exit and re-enter

foster care in less than 12 months. Of all children

discharged from foster care to reunification in the 12-

month period prior the year shown, what percent re-

entered foster care in less than 12 months from the date

of discharge?

9.9% 24.0% 18.5%

(206/1115)

31


Standard

Minnesota

2009

Hennepin

County

2009

Measure C2.1: Adoption in less than 24 months for

children exiting to adoption. Of all children who were

discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in

the year shown, what percent was discharged in less

than 24 months from the date of the latest removal

from home?

36.6% 47.0% 43.2%*

(73/169)

Measure C2.2: Median length of stay to adoption.

Of all children who were discharged from foster care

to a finalized adoption in the year shown, what was the

median length of stay in foster care (in months) from

the date of latest removal from home to the date of

discharge to adoption?

27.3 24.8 25.3*

Measure C2.3: Children in foster care 17+ months,

adopted by the end of the year. Of all children in

foster care on the first day of the year shown who were

in foster care for 17 continuous months or longer (and

who, by the last day of the year shown, were not

discharged from foster care with a discharge reason of

live with relative, reunify, or guardianship), what

percent was discharged from foster care to a finalized

adoption by the last day of the year shown?

22.7% 20.5% 23.0%*

(104/453)

Measure C2.4: Children in foster care 17+ months

achieving legal freedom within 6 months. Of all

children in foster care on the fist day of the year shown

who were in foster care for 17 continuous months or

longer, and were not legally free for adoption prior to

that day, what percent became legally free for adoption

during the first 6 months of the year shown?

10.9% 1.7% 2.8%

(8/282)

Measure C2.5: Children, legally free, adoption in

less than 12 months. Of all children who became

legally free for adoption in the 12 month period prior to

the year shown, what percent was discharged from

foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12

months of becoming legally free?

53.7% 36.5% 35.3%

(45/128)

32


Standard

Minnesota

2009

Hennepin

County

2009

Measure C3.1: Exits to permanency prior to 18th

birthday for children in care for 24+ months. Of all

children in foster care for 24 months or longer on the

first day of the year shown, what percent was

discharged to a permanency home prior to their 18th

birthday and by the end of the fiscal year? A permanent

home is defined as having a discharge reason of

adoption, guardianship, or reunification (including

living with a relative).

29.1% 19.8% 18.0%

(76/423)

Measure C3.2: Exits to permanency for children

with TPR. Of all children who were discharged from

foster care in the year shown, and who were legally

free for adoption at the time of discharge, what percent

was discharged to a permanent home prior to their 18th

birthday? A permanent home is defined as having a

discharge reason of adoption, guardianship, or

reunification (including living with a relative).

98.0% 91.7% 79.1%

(140/177)

Measure C3.3: Children emancipated who were in

foster care for 3 years or more. Of all children who,

during the year shown, either (1) were discharged from

foster care prior to age 18 with a discharge reason of

emancipation, or (2) reached their 18th

birthday while

in foster care, what percent were in foster care for 3

years or longer?

37.5% 43.0% 37.5%*

(3/8)

Measure C4.1: Two or fewer placement settings for

children in care for less than 12 months.. Of all

children served in foster care during the 12 month

target period who were in foster care for at least 8 days

but less than 12 months, what percent had two or fewer

placement settings?

86.0% 86.0% 78.7%

(888/1128)


children in care for 12 to 24 months. Of all children

served in foster care during the 12 months target period

who were in foster care for at least 12 months but less

than 24 months, what percent had two or fewer

placement settings?

65.4% 57.9% 52.3%

(241/461)


children in care for 24+ months. Of all children

served in foster care during the 12 months target period

who were in foster care for at least 24 months, what

percent had two or fewer placement settings?

41.8% 29.4% 14.5%

(87/598)

*The county met the performance standard.

33

B. Safety Data

Child Maltreatment Reports (Investigation): Alleged, Determined and Need for Service, 5 Year History

Table 2

Year

Reports

Investigated

Reports with Maltreatment

Determined

(Number of cases determined/

as % of reports assessed)

Reports with Child Protection

Services Needed Determined

(Number of cases determined/

as % of FI reports assessed)

2005 2985 1661 / 55.6% 1224 / 41.0%

2006 2350 1427 / 60.7% 1136 / 48.3%

2007 2145 1351 1121 / 52.3%

2008

1809 1227 976 / 54.9%

2009 Family Inv: 1474

Facility Inv: 80

Total: 1554

1005 / 64.7% 802 / 54.4%

DHS Research, Planning and Evaluation

Statewide rate of reports with maltreatment determined in 2009: 50.7%

Statewide rate of reports with child protection services needed determined in 2009: 49.7%

Child Maltreatment Reports (Family Assessment): History as Available/Applicable Table 3

Year Number of Family Assessments / as percent

of total maltreatment assessments

Number of Family Assessments with Subsequent

CPS Needed / as a percent of total FA

Assessments

2005 2219 / 42.6% 1 / 0.0%

2006 2775 / 54.1% 26 / 0.9%

2007 2991 / 58.2% 23 / 0.8%

2008 2756 / 60.4% 9 / 0.3%

2009 2616 / 62.7% 3 / 0.1%


Statewide rate of reports assessed with Family Assessments in 2009: 66.4%

Statewide rate of Family Assessments with Case Management Openings in 2009: 16.6%

34

Completed Face-to-Face Contact with Alleged Child Victims Table 4

Reporting

Period

Total all

Child

Subjects

Percent With

Timely

Contact*

Percent With

No Contact

Statewide

Rate of Timely

Contact

FA and Non-

Substantial Child

Endangerment

Reports (5 days) 2008 5388 55.0%

2.9%

65.9%

Jan – June

2009 2720

65.0%

2.9% 69.5%

Substantial Child

Endangerment

Reports (24 hours) 2008 810 38.1% 4.2% 51.4%

Jan -June

2009 428 44.6% 2.6% 57.3%

DHS Child Welfare Data Release Report

*Timely contact is defined as:

Family Assessments: Within 5 calendar days of receipt of report

Investigation – Not Substantial Child Endangerment: Within 5 calendar days of receipt of report

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

Length of Placement Episodes Ending in 2009 Table 5

Length of Placement Episodes State % County # County %

1 – 7 days 21.8% 311 20.0%

8 – 30 days 9.9% 129 8.3%

31 – 90 days 12.7% 147 9.5%

91 – 180 days 11.5% 183 11.8%

181 – 365 days 16.9% 304 19.6%

366+ days 27.2% 478 30.8%

Total Episodes 6935 1552 --


35

Reasons for Entering Out-of-Home-Care, Related to Protection-2009 Table 6

Reason

State %

County # County %

Alleged Physical Abuse

7.6% 391 10.8%

Alleged Sexual Abuse

3.2% 153 4.2%

Alleged Neglect

18.5% 855 23.6%

Parent Alcohol Abuse

5.7% 238 6.6%

Parent Drug Abuse

9.6% 489 13.5%

Abandonment

3.1% 144 4.0%

TPR

0.8% 14 0.4%

Parent Incarceration

3.8% 145 4.0%

Total Reasons Reported for All Placements

19061 3628 --

Total Placements

--

Total Reasons Related to Protection

10043 / 52.7% 2429 67.0%

Reasons for Entering Out-of-Home-Care, Other than Protection-2009 Table 7

Reason

State %

County #

County %

Child Alcohol Abuse

1.9% 10 0.3%

Child Drug Abuse

2.5% 17 0.5%

Child Behavior

24.4% 771 21.3%

Child Disability

4.8% 134 3.7%

Parent Death

0.4% 16 0.4%

Caretaker Inability to Cope

10.5% 193 5.3%

Inadequate Housing

3.1% 58 1.6%

Total Reasons Reported for All Placements

19061 3628 --

Total Placements

--

Total Reasons Other than Protection

9018 / 47.3% 1199 33.0%

2009 Child Welfare Report

36

C. Permanency Data

Age Group of Children in Care – 2009 Table 9

Age Group

State %

County #

County %

0-7 Years

NA 921 35.9%

8-12 Years

NA 378 14.8%

13+ Years

NA 1263 49.3%

Total Children in Care

NA 2562 100%

Children in Out-of-Home Care by Placement Setting-2009 Table 10

(Children may be counted in more than one placement setting)

Placement Setting

State %

County #

County %

Foster Family Non-Relative 50.5% 1642 35.6%

Foster Family Relative 18.0% 635 13.8%

Foster Home – Corporate/Shift Staff 2.4% 57 1.2%

Group Home 18.6% 457 9.8%

Juvenile Correctional Facility (locked) 4.4% 161 3.5%

Juvenile Correctional Facility (non-secure) 6.5% 15 0.3%

Pre-Adoptive Non-Relative 7.8% 197 4.3%

Pre-Adoptive Relative 3.8% 108 2.3%

Residential Treatment Center 19.2% 1327 28.7%

Other* 0.5% 18 0.5%

Total Placement Settings 11699 4617 --

*‖Other‖ includes ICF-MR and Supervised Independent Living settings

2009 Child Welfare Report

37

D. Child Well-being Data

Caseworker Visits with Children in Foster Care

State %

County #

County %

Oct 1, 2008 –

Sept 30, 2009

Total Number of Children in Foster Care 8,069 1840 --

Monthly Visits 46.9% 1050 57.1%

Of children who had visits, number /percent of

residential visits 99.2% 1044 99.4%

No Visits 7.6% 257 14.0%

July 1, 2008 –

June 30, 2009

Total Number of Children in Foster Care 8007 1816 --




No Visits 2.6% 46 2.5%

April 1, 2008 –

March 31, 2009





No Visits 2.7% 50 2.6%

Jan. 1, 2008 –

Dec. 31, 2008





No Visits 3.0% 59 3.1%

Oct. 1, 2007 –

Sept. 30, 2008





No Visits 3.2% 66 3.5%

DHS Child Welfare Data Release Report

38

PART V: SUMMARY OF STRENGTHS AND NEEDS

Based on examination of data and narrative responses provided in early sections of this

report, summarize the information in response to the following questions.

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

Provided in earlier section of this report.

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

review? Note which of these needs are the most critical to the outcomes under safety,

permanency and well-being for children and families in the county.


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

well-being outcomes that the agency is interested in examining during the onsite review.


4. Please complete the following evaluation of the county self assessment process in terms of its

usefulness to the county and recommendations for revision.

a) Were you allowed adequate time to complete the county self assessment process?

Yes No

Comments:

b) Did you find the data provided helpful to your evaluation of safety, permanency and

well-being performance? Yes No

Comments: However, theare are routine reports that we routinely receive or have access

to, not new data.

c) Did you engage county child welfare staff and/or community stakeholders in the county

self- assessment process? Yes No

Comments: Child welfare staff are engaged in responding to this report, but given the

time frame for completion, stakeholders are not. If the same system is in place for next

39

year and we could anticipate it in time to engage stakeholders, this would be more

meaningful.

d) Did you find the county self assessment an effective process for evaluating your county’s

child welfare system? Yes No

Comments:

e) Will you use findings from the county self assessment to plan for systemic and/or

organizational improvements in your county’s child welfare system? Yes No

Comments:

f) Any additional comments or recommendations for improving the self assessment process:

The format was cumbersome. It is difficult to share a document and edit it between more

than one user. Also, text enhancements such as bold, underline and italic are not

functional. Please improve the template.

Minnesota Department of Human Services ... - dhs.state.mn.us · The Minnesota Department of Human...

Documents

Transcript of Minnesota Department of Human Services ... - dhs.state.mn.us · The Minnesota Department of Human...