Michigan Child Welfare Task Force 2009

Improving Michigan’s Child Welfare System: Our Children. Our Future. Our Responsibility. Prepared for Ismael Ahmed, Director Michigan Department of Human Services

Prepared by: Michigan Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

C. Patrick Babcock, Co-Chair Carol Goss, Co-Chair

April 2009

Table of contents Preamble ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Glossary of terms ............................................................................................................................ 3 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 5 Vision for change............................................................................................................................ 8 Values guiding Michigan programs serving children, youth and families ............................... 10 Mission.................................................................................................................................. 10 Assumptions.......................................................................................................................... 10 Guiding Principles ................................................................................................................ 10 Urgent need for change............................................................................................................. 12 Increase in confirmed abuse and neglect investigations ....................................................... 13 Insufficient resources for prevention and transitional services............................................. 13 Growing backlog in the child welfare system....................................................................... 15 Michigan’s building blocks....................................................................................................... 16 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force ...................................................................................... 20 Composition of Task Force....................................................................................................... 21 Task force work process ........................................................................................................... 21 Work groups.............................................................................................................................. 23 Prevention, Community Services and Treatment Work Group ............................................ 24 Foster Care Work Group....................................................................................................... 24 Adoption and Permanency Work Group............................................................................... 24 Detention, Residential Care, and Treatment Work Group.................................................... 24 Transitional Support Work Group ........................................................................................ 24 Funding Work group............................................................................................................. 25 Communications Committee .................................................................................................... 25 Steering Team ........................................................................................................................... 28 Synthesis Committee ................................................................................................................ 28 Status of child welfare in the U.S. ................................................................................................ 29 Michigan’s Reality................................................................................................................ 30 Current Challenges................................................................................................................ 33 Strategies for change..................................................................................................................... 35 Change Priority #1: Create a seamless array of services that meets the full needs of children and families in a respectful way, with emphasis on prevention and early intervention. ...... 37 Change Priority #2: Planning and provision of service should be guided by a timely comprehensive screening and assessment of the child and family and their needs.............. 40 Change Priority #3: Secure greater funding and use it more flexibly to achieve the structural system and service reforms................................................................................................... 42 Change Priority #4: Racial, gender and cultural equity must become a priority for the child welfare system. ..................................................................................................................... 45 Change Priority #5: Engage and empower consumers, children and youth, birth and adoptive parents, families, Tribes and Tribal organizations to ensure their involvement and voice as decision-makers and respected partners in case planning, program/policy development, service delivery and systemic change efforts................................................. 47

Change Priority #6: Foster a seamless approach to service delivery through cross systems collaboration and community partnerships to improve the conditions of vulnerable children and families........................................................................................................................... 49 Change Priority #7: Improve the strategic use of data collection, analysis and reporting to improve performance of the system as measured by outcomes for families and children. .. 51 Change Priority #8: Provide opportunities for training and workforce development to ensure that judicial officers and public/private providers have adequate skills and competencies to effectively serve the needs of children, youth, and families................................................. 53 Leadership and implementation.................................................................................................... 55 Global system outcomes of the improvement strategy ................................................................. 57 Evaluating the Task Force process ............................................................................................... 58 Appendix A................................................................................................................................... 59 Michigan Child Welfare Improvement Task Force Membership and Consultants .................. 59 Task Force Staff and Consultants ......................................................................................... 61 Department of Human Services Staff ................................................................................... 61 Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 62 Change Priority Implementation Plans ..................................................................................... 62 Implementation Strategies .................................................................................................... 62 Change Priority #1: Create a seamless array of services that meets the full needs of children and families in a respectful way, with emphasis on prevention and early intervention. ...... 63 Change Priority #2: Planning and provision of service should be guided by a timely comprehensive screening and assessment of the child and family and their needs.............. 82 Change Priority #3: Secure greater funding and use it more flexibly to achieve the structural system and service reforms................................................................................................... 87 Change Priority #4: Racial, gender and cultural equity must become a priority for the child welfare system. ..................................................................................................................... 98 Change Priority #5: Engage and empower consumers, children and youth, birth and adoptive parents, families, Tribes and Tribal organizations to ensure their involvement and voice as decision-makers and respected partners in case planning, program/policy development, service delivery and systemic change efforts............................................... 108 Change Priority #6: Foster a seamless approach to service delivery through cross systems collaboration and community partnerships to improve the conditions of vulnerable children and families......................................................................................................................... 122 Change Priority #7: Improve the strategic use of data collection, analysis and reporting to improve performance of the system as measured by outcomes for families and children. 129 Change Priority #8: Provide opportunities for training and workforce development to ensure that judicial officers and public/private providers have adequate skills and competencies to effectively serve the needs of children, youth, and families............................................... 135 Appendix C ................................................................................................................................. 142 Evaluation of the Michigan Child Welfare Improvement Task Force charge and process .... 142 Appendix C: Attachment 1 ......................................................................................................... 152 Evaluation Plan and Data Collection Matrix .......................................................................... 152 Appendix C: Attachment 2 ......................................................................................................... 156 Task Force Charge .................................................................................................................. 156 Appendix C: Attachment 3 ......................................................................................................... 157 Task Force Survey .................................................................................................................. 157

Appendix C: Attachment 4 ......................................................................................................... 160 Task Force Meeting Evaluation Survey.................................................................................. 160 Appendix C: Attachment 5 ......................................................................................................... 161 Work Group Meeting Evaluation Survey ............................................................................... 161 Appendix C: Attachment 6 ......................................................................................................... 162 Initial Child Welfare System Survey ...................................................................................... 162 Appendix C: Attachment 7 ......................................................................................................... 134 Post Meeting Task Force Survey ............................................................................................ 134 Appendix C: Attachment 8 ......................................................................................................... 135 Work Group and Committee Meeting Dates, Time and Locations ........................................ 135 Appendix C: Attachment 9 ......................................................................................................... 137 Work Group Survey Analysis................................................................................................. 137 Appendix D................................................................................................................................. 138 Steering Team responsibilities................................................................................................ 138 Appendix E ................................................................................................................................. 139 Bibliography of Reports Reviewed by Task Force................................................................. 139 Appendix F.................................................................................................................................. 142 Task Force Work Group and Committee Membership........................................................... 142

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“No one spelled it out for me but I kind of guessed.” Young adult ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preamble On behalf of our fellow colleagues, we are honored to submit the final report of the Child Welfare Improvement Task Force. The CWITF included a cross section of Michigan’s children and family services leadership, including young adults and parents with direct experiences in the state child welfare continuum, members of the judiciary, state legislators, state and local officials, public and private agency leaders, educators, health and child welfare professionals, philanthropic leaders and advocates for our state’s children and their families. We know that we speak for all Task Force members in thanking the Michigan Department of Human Services Director, Ismael Ahmed, for his leadership in establishing the Task Force, in serving as an active Task Force member, and in his continual expression of support for our ongoing work. A nearly universal question raised at the inaugural meeting last May, was whether the CWITF could make a difference? In large part, this question arose from the limited success of the numerous special committees and taskforces that have focused on parts of the state child welfare system in past years. Their recommendations, although thoughtful were rarely implemented. In spite of this initial skepticism, the Task Force has been successful in bridging often significant differences in philosophy and experiences to frame a common agenda for systemic reform; an agenda that was adopted by consensus during the last Task Force meeting on March 23, 2009. Our success in forming a community for change was greatly influenced by Director Ahmed’s ongoing active participation in Task Force meetings and commitment to lead a child welfare advisory board to design and oversee an implementation strategy for systemic change, incorporating the Task Force recommendations. We believe that Director Ahmed’s leadership and commitment can move this report from paper to action and look forward to supporting the implementation of the Task Force recommendations and tracking the progress for children and families served.

Carol Goss, Co-Chair Skillman Foundation

C. Patrick Babcock, Co-Chair

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I should have been with my grandmother. I was safe where I was. After I was told why I was in care, no one bothered to tell me the steps.” Young adult ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 1

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 2

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Glossary of terms ADC = Aid to Dependent Children AFDC = Aid to Families with Dependent Children CAPTA = Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act CCF = Child Care Fund CFSR = Child and Family Services Review CIAO = Creating Independence and Outcomes CPS = Child Protective Services CSSP = Center for the Study of Social Policy DCH = Department of Community Health DHS = Department of Human Services DIT = Department of Information Technology DELEG = Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth DMB = Department of Management and Budget DOC = Department of Corrections EPSDT = Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment ETV = Education and Training Vouchers FMAP = Federal Medical Assistance Percentages FCRB = Foster Care Review Board HSCB = Human Service Collaborative Bodies ICWA = Indian Child Welfare Act L-GALs = Lawyer Guardians ad litem MAFAK = Michigan Association of Foster, Adoptive and Kinship parents MDE = Michigan Department of Education MPCBs = Multi-purpose Collaborative Bodies MPHI = Michigan Public Health Institute MSHDA = Michigan State Housing Development Authority MYOI = Michigan Youth Opportunities Initiative NCJFCJ = National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges OJJDP = Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention SACWIS = Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System SCAO = State Court Administrative Office SSW = Schools of Social Work TANF = Temporary Assistance to Needy Families TDM = Team Decision Making TFC = Treatment Foster Care WIA = Workforce Investment Act YIT = Youth in Transition

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 3

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 4

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Introduction In April of 2008, Michigan Department of Human Services Director Ismael Ahmed established the Michigan Child Welfare Improvement Task Force (CWITF) with a charge to assess the state’s policies and programs and to recommend outcomes and actions that will drive future reform of the state’s child welfare system. While several other committees and task forces have been created to examine parts of the state’s child welfare system in the past several years, the CWITF was unique in the breadth of both its scope and its composition. It was asked to look at all parts of the state-supported system, inclusive of policies and programs for youth and families at risk of or experiencing maltreatment, delinquency and teen homelessness. The 85 members of the Task Force include state and local public officials, and leaders from all sectors of the child welfare community, including 16 young adults with direct experience in the system. Their perspectives were complemented by a presentation from birth parents that had also been served. In this report, the Task Force is advancing both the values and change priorities needed to achieve systemic reforms necessary to vigilantly promote the best interest of children and youth. The report details specific actions and outcomes that will protect and support life opportunities for some of Michigan’s most vulnerable young residents and their families. These recommendations are based on recognition of the critical elements imperative for systemic reform, including: „ The vital roles and contributions of family -- both immediate and extended -- in protecting, nurturing, and making decisions about the safe development of children and youth at risk of/or experiencing abuse, neglect, delinquency, and/or homelessness. „ The common developmental needs of vulnerable youth, irrespective of the programmatic or legal labels that have been assigned to them, such as abused, neglected, delinquent, or runaway. „ Investment of public resources in evidence-supported statewide community-based prevention and early-intervention services that protect children by strengthening families. „ Investing in human and financial resources to prepare and to support young adults in their transition from the child welfare system to productive independence and leadership roles in their communities. „ Restructuring a currently fragmented, confusing, and often counterproductive federal, state and local child welfare financing system that is oriented to categorical services. It must be creatively redesigned with a strategy that supports developmental needs of youth and their families, and that places emphasis on in-home services, while ensuring quality treatment for children and youth who need temporary out-of-home care. „ Establishment of a clear and achievable goal of reducing out-of-home care through the support of safe and nurturing family- and community-based environments. „ Increased accountability to policy-makers, the public and equally importantly to the children and youth and their families who receive service.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 5

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

The CWITF change priorities, key actions, and proposed outcomes frame a strategic map for systemic reform of Michigan’s child welfare system. This report includes both intermediate and long-term actions. Some can be achieved within existing policy and resources, while others will require new policy and more appropriate and sufficient funding than currently exists. Some recommendations chart new territory. The Task Force recommends clearly-stated goals to safely reduce the number of Michigan children in foster care, to address the needs of seriously emotionally disturbed children in juvenile justice residential care and to address the inexcusable disproportionally high rate of African American and Native American children in out-of-home care, among others. Some recommendations build upon and call for reinvestment in evidencesupported family preservation programs that Michigan has pioneered, but which have not been fully implemented due to declining state fiscal capacity. Many recommendations deal with dayto-day challenges inherent in effectively managing comprehensive services. Improvements are essential to assure quality and strengthen effective partnerships between state and local governments, and public and private agencies. Finally the recommendations recognize and build off the work of the various special committees and task forces that have preceded us. The CWITF recommendations also acknowledge the reforms included in the settlement of Dwayne B. v. Granholm. We applaud both Governor Jennifer Granholm’s and Director Ahmed’s leadership and the Children’s Rights advocacy group for reaching agreement on this landmark settlement for reforms that will lead to improvements in protective services, foster care, adoption and permanency. Timely implementation of the settlement is essential to the protection of children. At the same time, the Task Force cautions that without increased attention to evidencebased prevention and family-preservation services, an unintended consequence of the settlement could be the investment of funds in more expensive services rather than more cost-effective ways to safely serve families and children in community settings. In addition, the primary direction of the settlement requirement that all children in foster care be placed in licensed settings may very well result in the disruption of safe, stable, and nurturing placements of many children and youth currently in state-supported and funded relative provided unlicensed foster care. As noted in the Task Force’s recommended change priorities, it is essential that the Department of Human Services and private agencies proactively reach out to current unlicensed family providers and equally proactively apply federally sanctioned waivers of non-safety-related licensing requirements whenever appropriate and in the best interests of affected children. Further, when DHS has determined that family members, who have declined licensure, are providing safe and nurturing foster care for their minor relatives, the children in care should have equal access to services and financial resources needed to stabilize their placements and foster their development, as do children in licensed foster care placements. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“All my siblings stayed together.” Young adult --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 6

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

The state child welfare system is complex. It is experiencing unprecedented challenges, increased public expectations, and rapid change. The Task Force believes that the strategy outlined in this report will better prepare state government to meet these challenges. It is important to point out that the elements noted above are interrelated. A reform strategy that does not address all these elements of change will not be successful and indeed may lead to serious unanticipated new problems. Such was the case with the mid-1990s reforms that solely focused on standards for the termination of parental rights; the reforms resulted by some accounts in the state’s failure to meet federal standards concerning permanency for state wards and contributed to subsequent litigation.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 7

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Vision for change The recommendations of the Child Welfare Improvement Task Force are intended to improve the outcomes for children and youth, and to restructure services for children and their families. First and foremost, the intention is to create networks of supportive, preventive and earlyintervention services at the community level, allowing families to resolve problems without disrupting relationships unless absolutely necessary to protect the safety of the child. This will require a shift in funding strategies so that investments are made in less intrusive services. As community-based services are developed, the reliance on out-of-home placement must diminish and be restricted to those children who cannot be safely cared for in their own homes or who need specialized treatment. The provision of services should be tailored to the individual needs of children, youth, and families within the context of community and culture. This will require the ability to make accurate assessments that lead to individualized family service plans driven by needs rather than resources. The service array must be developed based on needs and the most effective models available. Focused effort must be directed at integrating service systems through shared goals, collaborative planning, and community partnerships. Out-of-home placements, when necessary, should be close to family and community and be focused on specific treatment or developmental goals. Permanency services -- including reunification, adoption, and guardianship -- should start from the day of placement. This reform strategy will allow children and families to have their needs met in their own communities, minimize disruption to critical relationships, and promote their long-term well-being.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“If the system thinks you are ready, they will close your case and leave us without support. Many of us end up in homeless shelters after getting put out of the system.” Young adult --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 8

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I did have a very good experience with the system. I learned a lot.” Birth parent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“They need to realize that it’s my first time. It’s my first time losing my child. I’ve never done this before.” Birth parent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 9

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Values guiding Michigan programs serving children, youth and families The reforms recommended in this report should lead to a service-delivery system that is clientoriented, focuses on results, and has the capacity to document performance and regularly share its effectiveness with the public. Given this view for the future, the CWITF developed the following mission, assumptions, and guiding principles as the foundation for reform.

Mission The State of Michigan is committed to ensuring that economic, health and social services are available and accessible to vulnerable families, children and youth. Services are designed to: „ Strengthen families and help parents create safe, nurturing environments for their children. „ Reduce child maltreatment, abandonment, neglect, preventable illness, delinquency, homelessness, and other risks to a child’s development and well-being. „ Strengthen economic security, promote strong nurturing parenting, and improve access to health care and safe, secure housing.

Assumptions „ When children are separated from their families and familiar environments, they experience trauma. „ All services must be guided by knowledge and understanding of the developmental needs of children, youth and their families. They must recognize that childhood is a short period of time and interventions must be provided consistent with a child’s sense of time. All children and youth are in their formative years and are entitled to safe, nurturing environments and high-quality, developmentally appropriate services. Children experience the least trauma when such environments can be provided by parents and other relatives. „ Services should be provided in the homes and communities whenever safe and appropriate. This requires the development, expansion, and coordination of a continuum of prevention, early intervention, and placement services. All services should be accessible and focus on safety as well as the outcomes of permanency, physical and mental health, and educational achievement for children and youth. Services and decisions should be guided by the best interest of the child. They should balance the needs of children and youth with those of their families, and, above all, should do no harm. „ Racial disparities in both the delivery of service and the outcomes for children, youth, and their families must be eliminated.

Guiding Principles „ A vibrant and viable public and private sector network, working in concert, is in the best interest of Michigan’s children and families. „ Michigan and its public and private provider network will strive to provide an array of resources and services which best meet the child and family’s need in the timeliest manner – the right service at the right time.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 10

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

„ The well-being of all children and youth is fostered by assuring safety; strengthening families, marriage and parenting; engaging fathers and paternal relatives; and fostering permanent relationships within the birth family, kinship and/or Tribal networks or in an alternative community-based family setting. „ Services best meet the needs of children, youth, and families when they are based on the strengths of the family, community, and culture from which children and youth come. Outcomes improve when family members are actively engaged in the problem-resolution process. „ Services should be provided to children, youth, and families based on their particular needs as determined by a comprehensive assessment conducted at all entry points. Service should be equally accessible to all residents of the state and be responsive to the family’s race, culture, Tribal affiliation, language, religion, sexual orientation, disability status, gender of the head of household, geographic location, and economic status. „ The community must be engaged through partnership and public education. Communication must be honest, consistent, respectful, and reflect a commitment to resolving critical issues. „ Services must be provided in the least restrictive manner in terms of the levels and duration, thereby minimizing trauma. Placements outside the family should be utilized only when necessary to protect and/or stabilize the child. „ Children, youth, and birth parents or guardians should be respected, active participants in all levels of service delivery, and their voices and opinions must be valued. The state must be committed to engaging consumers of services, and resources must be available to facilitate their involvement. „ A developmentally appropriate continuum of care must be safe and nurturing and demonstrate dignity and respect for the individual, family and culture. The continuum should include: o Community-based services focused on prevention, early intervention, and diversion from placement. o A range of effective placement resources, including specialized care within the state. o Treatment, family reunification, re-entry/ post-placement services. o Permanency (family preservation, reunification, adoption, and guardianship) services. o Post-placement support for children who have returned to their communities and families. o Support services and permanent connections for young persons making the transition to adulthood. o Peer youth advocacy. „ The provision of a seamless system of care requires collaboration among multiple childserving systems (child welfare, juvenile justice, mental health, health and education) in order to: keep children and youth safe; reduce high-risk behaviors; assure permanence; and foster development. This collaboration must occur at the case- and system level and must involve shared outcomes, accountability, and funding strategies. Courts, which have responsibility for decision-making for children and youth, should actively participate in the resolution of issues consistent with the judicial role and ethics. „ DHS in collaboration with the counties, private providers, Tribes and Tribal organizations is responsible for ensuring that services are provided by a trained workforce. The workforce must be skilled in working with children, youth, and families; grounded in evidence-based practice; culturally competent; focused on results; and able to engage families and communities in responding to needs.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 11

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

„ Michigan’s elected and appointed leaders, along with local public service administrators, must be accountable to the residents, Tribes and Tribal organizations, and the federal government for performance. They must provide regular reports on the results achieved for children, youth, and their families. „ Every effort must be made to use financial resources flexibly to facilitate the creation of a seamless array of effective community-based services. Transparency in the use and allocation of funds is essential for public stewardship.

Urgent need for change Michigan’s child welfare system is responsible for some of our most vulnerable children and youth -- those who are at risk of maltreatment and in families in need of service; those who are in out-of-home care due to abuse, neglect, or delinquency; those who have left their family homes and are on the streets; and those who have recently aged out of foster care or juvenile justice services. For children currently at risk, access to services in the community is limited and may only be available at the point of crisis. This may lead to preventable out-of-home placements, long stays in placement, and reduced likelihood of reunification. For children who are unable to return home, access to permanency through adoption is limited, and the likelihood of emancipation without the emotional support of family and friends is increased. Immediate action is necessary to ensure that child welfare services result in positive outcomes for children and families in Michigan.1 The Michigan Foster Care Review Board noted in its 2007 Annual Report that data collected for Michigan’s pending September 2009 Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) indicate that the state is not in compliance with federal permanency requirements. As a result, the state could lose millions of dollars in federal Title IVE and Title IV-B assistance for Michigan’s child welfare system.2 In addition, data provided by DHS’ Federal Compliance Office and by the Foster Care Review Board of the State Court Administrative Office indicate that Michigan’s reunification outcomes must be improved.3,4 Michigan children removed from their homes are less likely to be reunited with their families within a year than children in other states. In Fiscal Year 2007, only 42 percent of Michigan children left the child welfare system to re-unification in less than 12 months, compared with the federal standard of 75 percent. CFSR data also indicated that the median length of stay for children in Michigan’s child welfare system was 13.8 months -- more than double the federal standard of 5.4 months. Although DHS is working to improve these outcomes through the settlement agreement and other activities, the Foster Care Review Board’s 2007 Annual report indicates that the local courts also play a role in the unsatisfactory permanency and reunification outcomes. They indicate that there are four court-related issues that need attention: 1

Throughout this report, the use of the term “child welfare” is inclusive of abuse, neglect, juvenile justice, homeless and runaway youth unless otherwise noted. 2 Michigan Supreme Court, State Court Administrative Office, Michigan Foster Care Review Board 2007 Annual Report. 3 The Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) is a comprehensive federal evaluation of each state’s operations in child abuse and neglect cases. These reviews are the means by which the federal government ensures that all states remain committed to continuous quality improvement in their child welfare system. 4 Federal Child and Family Services Review presented by Carol Kraklan and Jim Novell during the August 18, 2008, Child Welfare Improvement Task Force meeting.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 12

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

„ „ „ „

Absence of consistent judicial leadership. Inefficient administrative processes. Lack of mandatory jurist training and experience. Inconsistent local court/agency collaboration and cooperation.

Increase in confirmed abuse and neglect investigations Child welfare caseloads have increased due to the deteriorating conditions of many children and due to reduced resources for public and private human services. According to Michigan Department of Human Services (DHS) data generated for the Task Force, the total number of children’s protective services investigations (CPS) assigned by the department increased between 2000 and 2008. Assigned investigations went from 69,400 to 74,439 during this time period; an increase of 7 percent. During the same time period, the total number of confirmed CPS investigations increased by 13 percent; from 15,210 in 2000 to 17,460 in 2008. It should also be noted that the percentage of investigations resulting in a finding of preponderance of evidence is increasing; the number of confirmed investigations increased from 22 percent in 2000 to 26 percent in 2007. The state child welfare system has also experienced serious incidents, placing these already vulnerable children and youth at increased risk. In addition, the decline of publicly supported mental health services has increased pressure on the foster care and juvenile justice services as more severely impaired children and youth are placed in the foster care or juvenile justice programs.

Insufficient resources for prevention and transitional services Upon review of historical data generated by DHS, the Task Force also found that the Michigan Legislature has consistently appropriated an insufficient level of funding for preventive, earlyintervention and transitional services for children, youth, and families who come into contact with the child welfare system. While the state is experiencing growth in new child welfare cases and a backlog of existing child welfare cases, twelve-month enrollments in the DHS Families First program have declined by 25 percent between 2000 and 2007. This trend appears to be counter productive as it is occurring at the same time that the State is reporting increases in the number of confirmed investigations for abuse and neglect. Investment in prevention and earlyintervention services can reduce the need for removal, minimize expenditures on costlier services that require out-of-home placement, and significantly reduce trauma associated with removal from parents and familiar surroundings. In addition, many young adult members of the Task Force indicated sufficient services are not being provided as they age out of the child welfare system. This is a critical period of transition that has tremendous impact on the social, educational and professional outcomes. In order for Michigan to have an effective child welfare system, these problems must be remedied. For that to happen, sufficient and flexible state and federal funding must be provided.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 13

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Through the first seven months of them being in care, my children experienced emotional, mental and physical abuse that they never experienced while they were under my care.” Birth parent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I had a wonderful foster care specialist, who breathed life into me…they believed me. They didn’t see me as a stereotype.” Birth parent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 14

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Growing backlog in the child welfare system On average, children spend longer than 12 months under the jurisdiction of Michigan’s Child welfare system when CPS investigations result in a finding of preponderance of evidence. As a result, Michigan is experiencing a problematically high of rate of children and youth in foster care who are awaiting adoption or other permanency services. This has resulted in a permanency backlog of 5,178 youth who are temporary court wards and another 4,396 youth whose parents have had their parental rights terminated.5 Although Michigan is close to the federal standard concerning the number of exits to adoption in less than 24 months (33.9% in Michigan compared to the federal standard 36.6%), a large proportion of youth remain without permanent ties. The average length of stay for cases in the child welfare system has steadily decreased between 2004 and 2007. While this trend appears to be moving in the right direction, it only accounts for cases that were actually closed and does not include cases that remain open in the system. In 2004, DHS investigations resulted in 6,952 new child welfare cases. Of these cases, 18 percent were closed within the first 12 months, 61 percent were closed between 1 to 3 years and 11 percent were closed between 3 to 5 years. Another 10 percent (696) of these cases still remained open as of April 2009. These data indicate that a large number of youth remain in the system after several years and are not attaining permanency outcomes in a timely manner. When looking at cohort data over time between 2004 and 2007, the problem appears to become more apparent and compelling. As of April 2009, there are a total of 7,811 cases represented in these four cohorts that remain open. When looking at the profile of the 7,811 cases in the 2004-2007 cohorts that remain open, African American youth are disproportionately represented. According to 2007 Census estimates, African American youth between the ages of 0 and 17 represent 20 percent of the juvenile population6 in the State of Michigan, but they represent 42 percent of the 17,226 youth who were in the child welfare system in April 2009 and 49 percent of the cases that remain open for at least 3 years after coming into contact with the child welfare system.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I always went in with that mind state that I wasn’t going to be there very long. I think that that is why a lot of my placements went not so good because I went in with a negative mind state.” Young adult ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5

DHS Children’s Services Update presented by Terri Gilbert during the January 26, 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force meeting. 6

Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2008). "Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2007." Online. Available: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 15

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Michigan’s building blocks Despite these significant challenges, there is much to build on within Michigan’s child welfare system. The engagement of citizens and their extensive contribution of time, energy, and talent to this Task Force is a measure of broad community commitment to meeting the needs of the most vulnerable children and families. Michigan has a history of demonstrated leadership and a capacity for system improvement. There is ongoing consideration of implementing best practices around Team Decision Making throughout Michigan, a process that actively engages families in planning for the safety and well-being of their children and promotes family-centered services. Some jurisdictions have instituted parent-advocacy programs to assist parents in working with the child welfare system; model courts which expedite permanency decision-making; and local collaboratives to better integrate services across systems. Additionally, there are programs such as the Michigan Youth Opportunity Initiative (MYOI) that support young people who are aging out of the foster care system. The potential for achieving the changes identified in this report is heightened, by the recent commitment of the state to resolve the class action litigation, Dwayne B. v. Granholm. The consent decree requires: „ Improvement in the processes for receiving and evaluating complaints of abuse including a statewide hotline and new medical policies and staffing. „ Improvement in outcomes for children through: o Increased adoptions o More support for children placed with relatives o Concurrent planning o Improved access to medical and mental heath service o Increased recruitment of foster and adoptive families The agreement also increases staff qualifications, training, and supervision to ensure that the frontline staff has the knowledge and skills needed to serve children, youth and families effectively. The state has also agreed to implement an improved management information system, which will provide regular management reports and track compliance with policy and the settlement order. This change agenda is complementary to the recommendations of the Task Force.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I own a small business right now, and that is exactly how the system has helped me.” Young adult --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 16

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

The Michigan system has residual strengths, including past leadership and investments in familypreservation services, guardianship assistance services, increased services for youth aging out of care, as well as a long-standing partnership between private and public providers committed to quality services. However, the current financial crises have threatened the effectiveness of both program innovations and those partnerships as DHS and experienced providers have struggled to maintain services. Michigan has several existing task forces and committees that are working collaboratively with the state and have recently released reports, including the: „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „

Michigan Committee on Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee on the Overrepresentation of Children of Color in Child Welfare Interdepartmental Task Force on Service to At-Risk Youth Transitioning to Adulthood Governor’s Task Force on Children’s Justice Statewide Adoption Oversight Committee Foster Care Review Board Michigan Child Death Review Program Michigan Mental Health Commission Michigan State Tribal Partnership

The Department of Human Services itself has also established some foundations for progress in improving Michigan’s child welfare system. Previous and ongoing improvements include: „ Engaging families and communities through Michigan’s Family to Family initiative. „ Improving services to youth in transition through the Michigan Youth Opportunity Initiative. „ Adding new positions to expedite permanency for children who have been in placement for extended periods of time. „ Implementing concurrent permanency planning to improve and speed reunification and permanency for children and youth. „ Initiating the Michigan 2020 Initiative to reduce the number of children in foster care by 50 percent by the year 2020. „ Implementing the requirements of the Dwayne B. v. Granholm Consent Decree, especially those related to caseload reduction and staff training. The state has recently participated in a pioneering qualitative study of racial equity issues7 and has received a set of recommendations that have been considered in the development of this report. A focus on racial equity will be critical to achieving the proposed systems outcomes for this effort. Among the recommendations: „ Build the internal leadership capacity to ensure that the agency functions in a fair and equitable manner. „ Use data to manage for racial equity. „ Clarify policies related to kinship care and termination of parental rights. „ Re-evaluate the risk assessment tool and its implementation. „ Collaborate with courts to improve decision-making and establish policies for assisting youngsters who are wards of both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. 7

CSSP, Ibid

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 17

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“People need to be compassionate and understanding, not just prejudge not knowing what people have been through.” Birth parent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I would like to recommend that when you are considering placing a child in a foster home and what would be the best placement, please talk to the parent. He’s my son. I know what’s best for him.” Birth parent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 18

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Federal legislation (The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act (P. L.110-351)) enacted in the fall of 2008 provides new opportunities for states to support children in foster care and increase permanency.8 For the first time, states can use Title IV-E funds for subsidized guardianship, which should facilitate more permanent family arrangements. States are specifically authorized to waive non-safety-related foster care licensing standards to facilitate the licensure of otherwise eligible family foster care providers. This legislation also: „ Provides direct IV-E funding for Native American Tribes and Tribal organizations, and in so doing recognizes Tribal sovereignty and provides resources to help families and children. „ Requires agencies to make reasonable efforts to keep siblings together and when that is not possible assure visitation between brothers and sisters. „ Gives states the option to further assist older youth aging out of foster care by extending care to age 21 with federal participation. „ Requires that youth have transition plans within 90 days of exiting care. „ Makes additional federal training funds available for court and private agency staff. Finally, adoption assistance is de-linked from pre-1994 AFDC eligibility criteria, making more children eligible for federally matched adoption subsidies. The adoption incentive program has been extended for five years, with additional payments for states that increase their rate of adoption. It will be important for Michigan to examine the changes in federal policy and funding and utilize these new provisions to advance the reform agenda. The combination of state history of managing system improvement, the settlement agreement and the new federal law contribute to the potential for systemic reforms.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I did not receive clothes for months.” Young adult ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8

Geen, R. (2009).The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoption Act: Implementation Issue and a Look Ahead at Additional Child Welfare Reforms: Working Paper. Child Trends: Washington D. C.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 19

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Child Welfare Improvement Task Force The Michigan Child Welfare Improvement Task Force has been charged with identifying new approaches to improve life opportunities for children and youth. After nearly a year of study, the Task Force is presenting recommendations that will increase the level of services to children and families, re-invigorate public-private partnerships, and lay out achievable and progressive outcome measures to guide future policy. The Task Force was established to provide recommendations to the director of the Michigan Department of Human Services about the essential outcomes necessary to determine the efficacy of Michigan’s child welfare services in the development and transition of children at-risk of, or receiving, child welfare services. The scope of the Task Force included developing measurable outcomes for the full continuum of state-supported services for children and their families. This includes community-based services for families to protect children from abuse or neglect, temporary placements such as shelter and detention, foster care, relative and other court-ordered home-based placements, residential care, adoption, independent living, and youth transitional services. Building upon the recent work of the advisory committees and task forces noted previously, the Task Force was tasked with: „ Examining the DHS child welfare philosophy: o To provide advice concerning its clarity and sufficiency for system wide direction. o To develop and recommend guiding principles to determine the type and choice of services provided to children and their families. „ Reviewing and assessing the implications of current federal and state standards in developing state child welfare system outcomes. „ Developing and recommending clear, achievable, and measurable performance and process outcomes for the comprehensive state child welfare system and for each subsystem (prevention, community-based family services, out-of-home family-based care, adoption, residential care, independent living and transitional services). „ Recommending the essential high-yield actions that state government should take to address the program and process outcomes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Technically after they close your case you have a year to get into a housing program. Many kids do not hear about this, or there is a waiting list. Not every youth is informed about everything.” Young adult ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 20

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Composition of Task Force The Task Force’s membership draws from young adults and parents who have experience with the Michigan child welfare system, and public, private, and government agency staff and administrators. The members include state legislators, a Supreme Court justice, trial judges and referees, members of the governor’s cabinet, leaders from federally recognized Tribes, leaders of several service organizations, university professors and deans, attorneys, advocates for youth, foundation executives and other public and private providers. (Appendix A provides a complete listing of the Task Force membership.)

Task force work process The Task Force established six work groups to examine different aspects of the child welfare continuum. Each work group was responsible for examining federal and state mandates regarding outcomes. The work groups also reviewed and incorporated recommendations from prior task forces and committees. Some groups are continuing to meet to develop best practice strategies. The groups and reports consulted by the Task Force include the: „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „

Advisory Committee on the Overrepresentation of Children of Color in Child Welfare Interdepartmental Task Force on Service to At-Risk Youth Transitioning to Adulthood Governor’s Task Force on Children’s Justice9 Michigan Committee on Juvenile Justice Michigan Youth Opportunity Initiative Statewide Adoption Oversight Committee Public-Private Providers Committees (2005) Partners in Excellence (2007) Foster Care Review Board Reports (2006) (2007) Michigan Child Death Review Michigan Mental Health Commission Granholm Transition Team Report Ombudsman Annual Report Casey Kids Count Report (2008) Michigan Comprehensive Plan for Juvenile Justice Services (1977) Assessment of Juvenile Justice Services in FIA: Granholm Transition Team Permanency Options Work group Adoption Forum

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“The referee pushed my court hearings back due to lateness of court workers.” Young adult --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9

The reports of the Governor’s Task Force on Children’s Justice were included in the 2002-2007 Annual Reports of the Michigan Citizen Review Panels.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 21

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“My foster care worker was actually wonderful. She brought me to the table.” Birth parent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

““We need to support prevention services.” Birth parent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 22

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

In addition to reviewing prior recommendations and existing laws in their subject area, each work group was tasked with integrating its subject area with the systemic cross-cutting issues that the Task Force had identified. The cross-cutting issues were: „ Disproportionality (race and gender inequity) „ Family engagement as decision-makers, service providers, and service recipients. „ Best practice standards for assessment and treatment. „ Transition to independent living. „ Funding. „ Poverty. „ Family assets. „ Community support. „ Coordination of human service delivery. „ Concurrent planning. „ Data collection. The goal of each work group was to develop child welfare improvement recommendations within its area of focus. Each group identified and prioritized major issues and recommended: „ Clear and measurable program outcomes. „ Strategies to implement desired outcomes. „ High-yield policy and practice actions to trigger implementation of recommended outcomes and changes to the human service system concerning programs and personnel. „ Fiscal and other resources required to implement recommendations.

Work groups The Task Force relied on smaller work groups to study specific areas and report their progress during monthly Task Force meetings. To avoid working in silos, the work groups included leaders from the area of focus as well as a cross-section of the Task Force. Task Force staff helped identify cross-cutting themes that applied to multiple areas. The work groups are listed below, along with the Task Force members who co-chaired the groups and a description of the issues that were analyzed. Copies of the reports and recommendations that were produced by each work group can be found on the Michigan Child Welfare Improvement Task Force Website at http://michigan.gov/cwitf. Click on the “Work Groups” link and select the report you would like to review.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“My lawyer didn’t show and my court proceedings were postponed.” “I had never met my lawyer before my court hearing.” Young adult ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 23

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Prevention, Community Services and Treatment Work Group Co-Chairs: Diana Sieger and Alice Thompson The work group formulated recommendations regarding preventive services, concluding that communities should provide to families to avoid the need to remove children from their homes. Preventive services can save substantial funds and reduce trauma by addressing a situation before it worsens into one that requires removal from home. In addition, the group recommended the implementation of standardized and validated assessment tools to identify the socio-emotional needs of children/youth, and improved access to health, mental health and substance abuse services. This group met five times between late August and mid-October 2008. It presented its findings and recommendations at the October 20 Task Force meeting. Foster Care Work Group Co-Chairs: Joan Jackson Johnson and Sylvia Murray This work group met eight times between late August and early November 2008 to develop recommendations for improving the delivery of foster care. The group presented its recommendations at the November 17 Task Force meeting. They included expanded training for those serving youth, the development of a seamless system of care, and the development of multi-disciplinary team assessment and case-planning programs to better meet the needs of youth. Adoption and Permanency Work Group Co-Chairs: James Novell and Addie Williams This work group developed recommendations to enhance judicial and court training and promote the stable, long-term placement of youth. This group examined expediting the reunification of youth with their families, providing timely services and funding to families whose children have been removed, and ensuring that youth are provided opportunity to participate in judicial proceedings affecting their case. It also looked at developing a database of services so that families in need can more easily learn about and access them, and studied other services attempting to decrease the length of time that youth remain in the foster care system. The work group presented at the November 17 Task Force meeting. Detention, Residential Care, and Treatment Work Group Co-Chairs: Sue Hamilton-Smith and Michael Williams Developed recommendations for improving care provided to youth in detention facilities and to youth with high-treatment needs. The group met six times prior to presenting at the January 26 Task Force meeting. Its recommendations included the creation of diagnostic-assessment centers for youth taken out of their homes in crisis situations, addressing concerns with the licensing system in Michigan, and developing a better system for meeting the needs of youth in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. Transitional Support Work Group Co-Chairs: Amy Good and Jonnie Hill This work group met seven times between late August 2008 and January 2009 to develop recommendations to better serve youth in transition. Transitioning youth are those aging out of

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 24

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

the foster care system as well as any other youth who are moving into or out of any part of the services that Michigan DHS provides. At the January 26 Task Force meeting, the group presented its recommendations. They included retaining the involvement of the child welfare worker when a youth enters the juvenile justice system; the use of a joint information system for juvenile justice and welfare; increased educational support; and the provision of support as youth age out of the foster system. Funding Work group Co-Chairs: Senator Bill Hardiman and Representative Dudley Spade This work group met seven times between August 2008 and January 2009. The group developed recommendations for how to secure more funding for Michigan’s child welfare system and how to better utilize funding to provide services to youth and families. The Funding Work Group presented its findings at the January 26 Task Force meeting.

Communications Committee The communications committee convened frequently as a whole and in work groups over a seven-month period to develop strategies to publicize the Task Force’s work, communicate its recommendations and build public will to support vulnerable children in Michigan. It worked with DHS staff to improve the Task Force’s web site to better inform Task Force members and the public of the Task Force’s progress. The committee solicited advice from leading professional and academic marketing experts, who advised that the key to sustaining the Task Force’s ambitious agenda is to educate, engage, and empower the public with a strong call to action. The central message: Every Michigan resident has a stake in every child’s future. The committee studied campaigns in other states and found the most effective ones combine aggressive, limited-term public service media campaigns, a robust web site that links people to action in their communities, and strong “earned media” efforts to tell the story. The committee carefully examined the Casey Family Foundation’s Raise Me Up campaign, launched last year in Austin, Texas, and believes it is a best-practices model that would be ideally suited for Michigan. The foundation is expanding its campaign to a small number of other states in 2009, and the committee urges DHS to aggressively pursue a partnership to begin a campaign in southeast Michigan. Michigan is at a crossroads and has a unique opportunity to improve the lives of thousands of children. The recommendations of the Michigan Child Welfare Improvement Task Force provide a road map for reform. If the recommendations are adopted, implemented and sustained, fewer children will wind up in foster care, families will be nurtured and preserved, and youth in the juvenile justice system will find paths to success. The Task Force offers its recommendations against a backdrop of tough economic times and harsh budget restraints. It believes the reforms are nonetheless vital and doable, but that they will only come if there is a strong public will that not only supports but demands protection of children in the child welfare system. The key to success will be to engage, educate and empower the public about the recommendations and the importance of investing in children in the child welfare system and

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 25

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

others who are at risk of entering it. Our key message is that these are "Our children. Our future. Our responsibility." Other states are undertaking similar efforts. Illinois and Texas, for example, have effectively used media campaigns, earned media and robust websites to build support for vulnerable children. Over the past several weeks, the communications committee and DHS staff met with the Casey Family Foundation to discuss the "Raise Me Up" campaign that it launched in Austin, Texas, last fall. Key elements of the campaign include: „ A paid media campaign to build public will and encourage people to "raise your hand" to help. It drives people to the website, raisemeup.org „ An earned media campaign engaging the newspapers and television stations and encouraging news coverage. „ An empowering website that provides information and makes it easy for the public to get involved. The "Raise Me Up" campaign is a best-practices campaign that would be ideally suited for Michigan. The Task Force encourages DHS to continue to work with the Casey Family Foundation to become a partner as the foundation expands its efforts to other states. The Task Force has examined DHS’s own web site and recognizes that it contains a wealth of information to educate the public about child welfare issues, but the information is not always organized in a consumer-friendly fashion. DHS has indicated a commitment to revamping its web site, and the Task Force strongly encourages that effort. As the Task Force submits its report, it believes that this must only the beginning of the conversation. The voices for children must be heard often and loudly as lawmakers and other policy-makers make tough decisions about the future. Our children deserve no less. The Task Force urges the department to post this report on its web site and allow and encourage other organizations to do so as well. It believes that public forums – supported by DHS and the organizations that Task Force members represent – can play a vital role in building and maintaining momentum.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I was in foster care for three months before I knew why I was in foster care.” Young adult ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 26

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“A plan is made about us, without us.” Birth parent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“That intervention saved my life.” Birth parent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 27

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Steering Team The Steering Team met monthly to plan and approve Task Force meeting agendas and coordinate the planned activities of the work groups. Toward the end of the Task Force process, the Steering Team reviewed the preliminary recommendations of the work groups, oversaw the integration of the work group recommendations, and reviewed the final draft of the Task Force report prior to submission to DHS Director Ismael Ahmed. The Steering Team was composed of the Task Force co-chairs, work group co-chairs, DHS staff and contracted staff, and an evaluation consultant. (See Appendix D for a detailed list of the Steering Team’s responsibilities.)

Synthesis Committee The Synthesis Committee included at least one representative of each work group and reflected the diversity of the Task Force. The committee included both Task Force Co-Chairs, Task Force members from each work group, DHS staff and contracted staff. The committee convened in January 2009 and met five times. Members were able to participate in all meetings via conference call as well as in person. The committee developed the format of a draft report for consideration at the February 23 Task Force meeting and the protocol for the committee’s assessment of work group recommendations. The Synthesis Committee then analyzed each work group’s findings, recommendations, and proposed outcomes to identify systemic cross-cutting outcomes and action steps for inclusion in the draft Task Force report. The committee had the discretion to add, modify, or delete recommendations to develop a final set of cross-cutting issues, measurable outcomes, and concise recommendations. Following review by the Steering Committee, the Synthesis Committee redrafted its recommendations and forwarded a report to the Task Force for consideration at the February 2009 meeting.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“When my social worker came to get me I didn’t know what was going on, I was in class and they called me to the office and told me I was leaving.” Young adult ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 28

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Status of child welfare in the U.S. The child welfare system has as its goal ensuring the safety of children, securing a permanent family arrangement and promoting the well-being of children in its care. Across the country, social service systems that assist children and families who are experiencing maltreatment, delinquency, homelessness and other social issue are involved in reform efforts. Although the number of children in care nationally has declined, the current efforts continue to leave too many children and youth without the kind of safe, permanent, nurturing relationships that foster development. Driven by the weaknesses in the current operations and deteriorating economic and social conditions, state governments and their partners are working to improve their ability to effectively serve children and families. Among the common challenges are: improving the outcomes for children, youth and families; making sure there is an adequate array of services: strengthening the workforce by providing the practical skills needed to help families; consistently seeking and using feedback from those served; and working within a limited fiscal framework that makes major investments in out-ofhome placement and substantially smaller investments in earlier interventions. There is a general recognition that government alone cannot provide all of the resources that families need. Efforts are under way to build partnerships with not only the private sector but with other public agencies (e.g. mental health, education, disabilities services) and with communities. For children, youth, and their families, these challenges result in removals from homes when community-based services might stabilize families. Children are kept in placements for unnecessarily long periods of time because family problems are not adequately addressed. Too many children and youth spend significant portions of their childhoods in care and age out without the emotional, educational, and financial supports needed to promote their continued development. Nationally, there continue to be large numbers of children and youth bereft of permanent caring families. Children and youth of minority backgrounds are more likely to experience these disadvantages, as evidenced by higher rates of entry and out-of-home placement and lower rates of exit to permanent, safe family situations.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“The MYOI…is a program that has done so many things in my life…it allowed me to change into the successful contributing member of society that I’ve always wanted to be.” Young adult --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 29

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Michigan’s Reality Michigan’s child welfare and juvenile justice systems share the national challenges which are played out in the state’s unique context. While the entire nation is struggling with a severe economic down turn, Michigan has been affected by a declining economy much longer than most other states. Global competition has devastated the automobile industry and it subsidiaries, resulting in the loss of jobs, collapse of small businesses, declining state revenues and a reduction in the limited services used to support troubled families. The January 2009 unemployment rate was 11.6 percent, four points higher than the national average. The state lost 173,000 jobs in 200810 and another 89,000 in January 2009.11 The problems in housing and the credit market have combined with the joblessness issue to create a very difficult environment for young families. As a result of the economic downturn, funds available for human services have been cut significantly. Michigan’s proposed Fiscal Year 2009-10 human services budget contains significant cuts for family preservation and prevention services, including: „ Teen parent counseling „ Family group decision-making „ Youth in transition programs (Michigan Youth Opportunity Initiative) On top of this, families have experienced increased need due to loss of jobs and homes as well as the effects of these stressors on family relationships. The erosion of the safety net and the loss of jobs and benefits cause families to be more vulnerable. The percentage of children in poverty is 19.4 percent and affects an estimated 486,400 children.12 Nearly half of these children live at 50 percent of the poverty rate.13 For families receiving cash benefits from TANF, the cap for a family of three is $459. Over half a million children receive food stamps, which provide $29 per week for food for each individual.14 In addition to poverty, family structure influences the wellbeing of children. Kids Count reports that in 2007, 32 percent of Michigan’s children were being raised in single-parent families and 36 percent of children and youth were being raised in families in which no parent had a full- time, year-round job. About 4 percent of Michigan children lived with grandparents.15 In 2007, nearly 68,000 reports of maltreatment involving almost 187,000 children were investigated.16 Some 27,000 children were found to be abused or neglected.17 The

10

Michigan Labor Market Information retrieved from www.milmi.org/?PAGEID=67&SUBID=200 . http://www.michigan.gov/DELEG/0,1607,7-154--210172--,00.html 12 Children’s Defense Fund. Children in Michigan: Fact Sheet. Washington, D.C.: November 2008 13 Ibid 14 . Personal communication. Ismael Amhed. Director Department of Human Services, November 2008 15 Kids Count 2008. Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore, MD. Retrieved from: http://www.kidscount.org/datacenter/profile_results.jsp?r=24&d=1&c=9&n=1&p=5&x=116&y=9 16 Child Maltreatment 2006. U.S. Department of Heath and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. April 2008; Michigan Child Protective Services 2007 Trends Summary Report. Submitted to the state Legislature on February 20, 2008, by DHS Director Ismael Ahmed. 17 Ibid. Table 3-6. 11

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 30

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“They weren’t in crisis yet. They went for help and did not get help…Then the crisis occurred, and then children got removed.” Birth parent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“In the very beginning, we are judged. We are looked at as guilty.” Birth parent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 31

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

number of investigations has increased as has the percentage of confirmations of maltreatment.18 Neglect was the most prevalent form of maltreatment (76 percent) followed by physical abuse (17 percent) and sexual abuse (4.5 percent). Additional forms of abuse were medical neglect and psychological abuse. Rates of confirmation vary by race and ethnicity. The lowest rate is for Hispanic children at 6.3/1,000. White children are substantiated at a rate of 9.3 per 1,000 investigations. The highest rates are among African American children (21.3) and Native American children (15.4).19 These differences also show up in terms of placement rates, exits from care and permanency outcomes.20 The ages of children and youth found to be maltreated varied, with 32 percent under the age of 4; 30 percent ages 4 through 11; and 26 percent ages 12 and older.21 Eighty percent of the children who were found to be maltreated received services as did 10 percent of the children who were not found to be maltreated. At the end of 2008, the number of children under placement orders because of child abuse and neglect was 17,696, with 15,794 living with someone other than their parents. Thirty eight percent of these children were with relatives. Of the non-relative placements: 6,251 were with foster families; 1,266 were in institutions (including shelters), 43 were in jail/detention or court treatment; and 949 were in independent living settings.22 DHS placed 2,722 children in adoptive homes in FY 2008.23 Despite this accomplishment, there are over 6,000 children whose ties to parents had been legally terminated, of which 4,300 had a goal of adoption. The remaining children were described as “youth satisfied with their placement and not wishing to be adopted or youth in other living arrangements where adoption was not appropriate.”24 External studies have documented persistently low rates of reunification for children who are placed out of their homes.25

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I didn’t get to go to any of my court dates because I was younger, but I wanted to go because I wanted to hear more about what was going on because I still feel like I haven’t heard the whole story.” Young adult ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18

Ibid Children’s Protective Services 2007 Trends Report. Ibid, Table 3-11. 20 See: Center for the Study of Social Policy (2009). Racial Equity Review: Finding from a Qualitative Analysis of Racial Disproportionality and Disparity for African American Children and Families in Michigan’s Child Welfare System. Washington DC. 21 Age data was missing for 12 percent of the children. 22 Foster Care Fact Sheet: December 2008 retrieved from: www.Michigan.gov/doc/DHS-FosterCare-factsheet-131252-7pdf 23 Michigan Department of Human Services, AFCARS Adoption Reporting System, “State Ward Finalized Adoptions by Age Group,” report run March 2009. 24 Adoption Facts, Michigan Department of Human Services Retrieved from: http://www.michigan.gov/dhs/0,1607,7-124-5452_7116-104564--,00.html 25 Final Report; Michigan Child and Family Services Review (2002). Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. Washington DC: 19

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 32

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Current Challenges Based on this stark reality, the Task Force reached consensus that the following challenges need to be addressed to strengthen Michigan’s child welfare system and the services provided to children, youth and families: Adequate array of services „ Inadequate array of services to support children, youth, and families in their own communities, minimize the use of out-of-home placements, and support children and youth returning home. „ The lack of integration of services for children in need of protection and those who have been engaged in delinquent behavior. „ Overutilization of placement. „ Inadequate permanency outcomes for children who enter care as evidenced by youth aging out, low rates of reunification, 4,000 children awaiting adoption, and about 6,000 youth whose parents have had their parental rights terminated. Flexible funding strategies „ Funding strategies that are heavily invested in out-of-home care, with limited investments in a range of community-based services. Fair and equitable treatment „ Significant differences in the outcomes and service process for African American and Native American children compared with others. Engaging children, families and Tribes as decision-makers „ Lack of routine process for securing the input of families and youth to inform the development of policy and implementation of services. „ Lack of an institutional structure and processes to work with Michigan’s Tribes and Tribal organizations in a manner that recognizes their sovereignty and complies with the Indian Child Welfare Act.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I didn’t have to go at first but later on when I was moved to Wayne County they made us go through family therapy. I felt like it helped. We went every week.” Young adult ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 33

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Collaboration and partnerships „ Absence of a shared mission and goals among the key stakeholders involved in serving children and youth: the public agencies, Native American Tribes and Tribal organizations, provider agencies, the courts and the Legislature. „ Fragmented service delivery approaches that are organized around social issues (e.g. mental health, housing, substance abuse treatment, special education) rather than around the individualized needs of a family. Data and reporting „ Inadequate information on performance and inadequate technology to manage the services system in a manner that fosters accountability and transparency. Training and workforce development „ Need to improve the competency and capacity of staff of public and private sector agencies and court to deliver the services and make decisions as required by state and federal law.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 34

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Strategies for change Michigan’s current allocation of funding for appropriate child welfare services is insufficient to ensure the safety and well-being of children, youth, and families being served by the child welfare system. The Task Force believes that the fundamental reinvestment and reform strategies included in this plan are essential to meeting Michigan’s obligation to children and their families. With that said, the strategies require that an adequate level of public investment is made at both the state and federal level as noted in the recommended change priorities. Keeping this in mind, the Task Force has forwarded a number of recommendations that can be implemented within Michigan’s current resources. Other recommendations will require Michigan’s legislative and executive branches to make fundamental changes in funding and policy in order to achieve federal outcome standards. To achieve the recommend reforms, multiple strategies must be undertaken. The Task Force has organized its approach to change around eight key areas that will be discussed in detail below. (See Appendix B for a detailed implementation plan for each change priority.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Aging out sucks.” Young adult ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 35

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“It is so hard to sit and talk to somebody knowing that they think you are a bad parent.” Birth parent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“The system helped me tremendously.” Young adult --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 36

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Change Priority #1: Create a seamless array of services that meets the full needs of children and families in a respectful way, with emphasis on prevention and early intervention. Michigan’s array of child welfare services, similar to other states, has historically relied upon out-of-home placements. Nearly twenty years ago, Michigan was recognized as a leader nationally in the development of alternative services to out-of-home care. This is no longer the case. Today, Michigan’s commitment to early-intervention, family preservation, post-placement and youth transition services is insufficient and underfunded both in terms of availability and the range of services. A comprehensive array of community-based services, including preservation, early intervention, treatment and a decreased reliance upon out-of-home care is desirable and should be a priority in the ongoing development of services to children and families and receive adequate, sustainable funding. Concise recommendations „ Foster care workers and court staff shall be well informed and shall work with collaborative agencies to develop a continuing plan of care and aftercare. It should be developed with children, youth, and families and document the resources that are available for child welfare services. „ Develop a comprehensive array of services, accessible to children and families throughout the state, designed to safely reduce the need for out-of-home placement and to improve outcomes for children who must be placed outside their family homes. The full array of services needs to be universally accessible statewide. The services included in the array must address the needs of: o Abused and neglected youth. o Youth in transition. o Youth in the criminal/juvenile justice system. o Families in need of preventive services and/or early intervention. o Families in need of services to promote timely reunification. „ Improve educational and workforce opportunities and outcomes for children served by the child welfare system. This should include replicating higher educational programs such as the Seita scholarship and giving youth in the foster care system preference in AmeriCorps. „ Improve support services for all youth, ages 15 to 24, who are transitioning from foster care, from juvenile justice, and from youth homelessness (including those with, or without, a history in child welfare or juvenile justice). „ Use residential and other institutional placements only when essential to the needs of children and youth or to public safety. When these placements are essential, the safety, permanency, reunification and well-being outcomes for children served must be improved. „ Implement the best practices and lessons learned from the Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative (MPRI) for youth to help with the reduction of recidivism. Key actions „ Conduct comprehensive child welfare needs system assessment and gap analysis that includes consultation with all key players. Identify options and priorities for changes in the

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 37

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

„

„ „

„

service array and allocation of resources to improve outcomes for children and safely decrease the number of out-of-home placements. Consult with a committee of public and private child welfare, foster, and kinship care providers, and national program experts to study rates paid to direct family care providers through the Determination of Care method and through levels of specialized care (such as Therapeutic Foster Care). Recommend changes that will improve outcomes for children in out-of-home family care. Maximize the use of family-preservation and reunification services as well as wraparound funding to reduce the number of children entering foster care and increase the timeliness of exits from care. Decriminalize children and youth. As of February 2009, the State of Michigan had 485 “juvenile lifers” incarcerated under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC); 346 are serving life sentences without parole. The Children’s Cabinet (including Corrections) should propose to the governor and Legislature amendments to the criminal code to reduce inappropriate criminalization of youth, to abolish sentencing of youth to life imprisonment without parole, and to limit waivers of minors to adult court only in situations in which protection of public safety requires them.26 Based on the needs assessment and study of direct care rates, develop and implement a multiyear plan for priority changes in service array that: o Synchronize with public policy and funding decisions. o Include consultation with all key players in the child welfare system, including private agencies. o Elevate the use of prevention services to decrease the number of children and families entering the child welfare system. o Expand access to specialized mental health, behavioral health and substance abuse treatment services. o Increase the range and capacity of foster and kinship care homes to meet the special needs of children. o Provide sufficient resources for the operation of support services for foster care providers, such as training, recruitment, retention, and support networks. o Provide sufficient staff resources for program design, development, evaluation, knowledge management, and communication.

Expected results „ A full continuum of services is accessible to every Michigan community, including but not limited to: o Prevention services o Home and community based family centered services. o Behavioral, mental health and substance abuse services. o Physical health and dental care. o Individualized educational services. o Workforce development and support services. o Residential services. o Transitional services for youth. 26

Juvenile lifers include inmates serving active life sentences for which all of their relevant life sentence crimes were committed while they were under age 18, regardless of their current age.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 38

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

„ „ „ „ „ „ „

o Increased range and capacity for foster kinship care. o Post-placement and permanency support services. Children and families are able to access any service when needed promoting positive health and social/emotional outcomes and success into adulthood. Families remain intact, and children remain safe and stable. The number of children in foster care placements will be reduced by 50 percent by December 2020. Children and youth in the juvenile justice system are placed in the least restrictive setting appropriate to their needs. Transitioning youth (from foster care, homelessness, & juvenile justice) will achieve safe and stable independent living. Increase the percentage of children who are reunified with their parents by October 2013. Decrease the time it takes for children in out-of-home care to be reunified with their parents by October 2013 (meet timelines established by federal standards).

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 39

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Change Priority #2: Planning and provision of service should be guided by a timely comprehensive screening and assessment of the child and family and their needs. Decisions to intervene and/or implement a treatment plan for youth, children, and families are not uniformly guided by the use of consistent screening and assessment processes and instruments that are standardized, validated, culturally normed and available across the systems that provide child welfare interventions. Comprehensive assessment, intervention and treatment services will allow for the development of an individualized intervention/treatment strategy and provide information on needs that guide the development of community-based services. Concise recommendations „ Establish and use a prescribed set of validated, standardized screening and assessment tools that are culturally normed, appropriately administered, and available across the various stages of child welfare intervention from intake to case closure. Key actions „ DHS and the Legislature should work together to secure additional funding to either purchase an existing, or contract for the development of a comprehensive approach to screening and assessment. DHS will include the contractor in its partnership with other state agencies and the Tribal-state partnership in the development effort. „ Implement a minimum of five pilot comprehensive screening, assessment and case-planning programs. Resolve obstacles encountered in the pilots, and collect process and outcome evaluation information. Analyze process and outcome information, publish results, and use results to make revisions to the model that improve its effectiveness. Target Wayne County as a pilot site. „ For all children taken into custody, DHS should require professionally staffed, objective diagnostic assessment of the child, the nuclear and extended family to determine: o The feasibility of family preservation as compared to out-of-home placement. o The level of placement needed, including consideration of the availability of a licensable relative placement. o The service needs of the child and family regardless of the placement. „ DHS will conduct a comprehensive assessment of the family’s current medical, emotional and social strengths and needs. „ Assessment will be mandatory for youth under juvenile court jurisdiction, using a uniform assessment tool administered by trained staff. Target Wayne County as a pilot site. Expected Results „ Improve the precision of identifying who needs services, which services, and how much. „ Increase the timely implementation of quality treatment plans by utilizing holistic/comprehensive view of the child and family, and multiple levels of assessment. „ Increase availability of research-based, outcome-driven best practices throughout the array of services, including behavioral, physical, educational, and mental health services. „ Increase utilization of existing services through assessing available services and developing a set of tools for screening and assessment across systems. „ Increase the use of prevention and diversion services.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 40

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“The system helped me a lot. I’m at college.” Young adult --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Me being removed from my home, I think that was a good idea because it wasn’t a safe environment for me.” Young adult --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 41

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Change Priority #3: Secure greater funding and use it more flexibly to achieve the structural system and service reforms. Michigan’s current child welfare funding strategy makes significant investments in out-of-home placement and significantly less in community-based prevention and early-intervention services. Further, the current approach does not maximize funding or provide opportunities to fill service gaps through the use of blended funding and other creative approaches. Flexible and creative funding strategies will allow the reinvestment of current placement dollars in community-based services and maximization of other state and federal dollars to promote a seamless service array. Concise recommendations „ Request that the state address the structural deficit that contributes to cutting safety net programs for children, youth and families; revenues continue to decrease and the need for programs continue to increase). „ That the Governor support and the Michigan Legislature amend Section 436.1409 of the Michigan Compiled Laws to increase the excise tax on beer by five cents per 12oz can or bottle ($16.53 per barrel). Revenues raised by this amendment will be deposited in the child abuse/neglect prevention, family preservation and juvenile justice community treatment fund. Annual appropriations from the fund in any fiscal year will be contingent upon an annual legislative appropriation from state funds for child abuse/neglect prevention, family preservation programs, 0-3 programs, and juvenile justice community treatment programs at least equal to state general fund and TANF expenditures for these programs in fiscal year 2008-09, adjusted for inflation (amendment to Funding work group report by Task Force action at the March 23rd meeting; reservation noted at the end of Appendix B by Justice Maura D. Corrigan). „ Improve coordination of fiscal planning and funding of services across systems for children and families involved in the child welfare system. „ That Michigan provide the required state match, starting in 2010, to draw down the funds made available by the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act. „ Institute comprehensive change in Michigan’s funding system for services that support the safety, permanency, and well being of children and families. This change anticipates expansion of funding, along with a reduction in the number of children placed in out-ofhome care. Funds saved as a result should be reinvested in front-end services to preserve and support families. The new funding arrangement will provide for: o Effective community services for prevention of abuse, neglect, delinquency, and homeless youth. o Effective family preservation services. o Post-placement and post-permanency services for child abuse and juvenile justice. o Medical, mental health, dental, and substance abuse treatment services. o Transitional services for children and youth exiting foster care, juvenile justice, mental health and homeless youth. o Educational services for children during and after exiting foster care, juvenile justice, mental health and homeless youth. o Reinvestment of state funds freed up by the temporary federal stimulus adjustment of FMAP into community-based prevention and early intervention for at risk families.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 42

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

„ Advocate with Congress and federal agencies for increased federal funding to expand the availability of community-based, in-home services for children and families. „ DHS should support the expansion of the capacity of federally recognized Tribes and Tribal organizations to protect children by facilitating the planning and funding of services and coordinating state and Tribal programs. „ Target specific funding changes and advocacy efforts to enhance critical program needs. Key actions „ Conduct annual interagency budget hearings with DHS, the Department of Community Health, the Department of Education, the Michigan State Housing Development Authority, and the Department of Energy, Labor and Economic Growth, DCH and MSHDA, focusing on child welfare services and treatments. Hearings should include Tribal representation. „ Charge special child welfare advisory board recommended under Change Priority #6 with coordination of budget, planning, and development with state government branches and agencies. „ Institute a university consortium in partnership with the special child welfare advisory board recommended under Change Priority #6 (using the Michigan Public Health Institute model) to provide an objective, independent clearinghouse to serve as a resource to all branches and levels of government. „ Enhance funding by maximizing federal funds and reinvesting state savings in improved/expanded services: o Use IV-E funds where possible to pay for placements of delinquent youth. o The Legislature should authorize and DHS pilot an enhanced reimbursement percentage for the In-Home Care portion of the Child Care Fund (from 50 percent to 75 percent). o DHS should work with the Congressional Delegation to seek federal approval to utilize medical assistance and Title IV-E funds more flexibly to pilot alternative methods for delivering services to children and families. o Improve process for approving out-of-state placements to ensure child benefits from the placement. o Revise Medicaid policy to increase availability of mental health treatment for children. o As appropriate, use existing DHS counseling funds to draw down additional Medicaid funds for mental health services. o Create a reinvestment fund to carry forward savings in state and private funding dedicated to serving children and families. „ Expedite direct federal funding for Tribal organizations. Expected results „ Increased use of flexible funding so resources can follow the child throughout the continuum. „ Increased collaboration around funding between state, Tribal and local partners. „ Decreased funding barriers, allowing for flexible funding and leveraging of all possible revenue sources to maximize available funds. „ Increased use of data to help with decisions about how funds and resources are deployed. „ Increased use of incentives through performance-based contracts that focus on family reunification.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 43

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

„ Increased utilization of federal resources to preserve state and local resources; can be helpful for sub-populations such as: o Dual wards o Foster care „ Increased ability of the system to meet the immediate needs of families whose children have been placed in out-of-home settings.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Workers are not aware of the Y.I.T. funds that are available for the youth in the system. This limits us from getting things like money for prom and college financial assistance.” Young adult ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 44

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Change Priority #4: Racial, gender and cultural equity must become a priority for the child welfare system. Data for the state of Michigan document the over-representation of Native American and African American children in the child welfare system statewide, as well as a double standard for female youth. These children and youth come into care at a higher rate than male children of European descent; they stay longer and are more likely to age out to lives of uncertainty. Recently, Michigan undertook at study designed to document the dynamics underlying this problem for African American children.27 Key findings included: „ African American families do not receive necessary supports that could prevent or divert their involvement with the child protective system. Once involved in DHS, African American families often experience the services offered to them as irrelevant, difficult to access, or inadequate to support and strengthen their families. „ African American families experience child welfare systems as intrusive interventions that do not fairly assess and appreciate their unique strengths and weaknesses and fail to adequately explore the least restrictive placement options for children. „ African American youth and families are negatively characterized or labeled by workers in the child welfare system. Some of these labels follow them through their interactions with various new workers and ultimately negatively affect the outcome of their cases. „ Advocacy on behalf of African American families and children is insufficient in helping them participate in, challenge, and negotiate the child protection system. „ There are inadequate mechanisms for African American parents and youth to hold DHS, providers, and advocates accountable for equitable treatment and quality services.

Racial and cultural equity will focus on the reduction of disproportionate representation in outof-home care and disparities in outcomes that affect families and children of color. Concise recommendations „ Provide the top leadership and managers of the organizations with the knowledge and skill needed to address institutional policies and practices that disadvantage girls and African American and Tribal children, youth and families. „ Clarify and implement existing policies and procedures in a manner that better serves diverse populations. „ Ensure that effective public and purchased services are available to families of color and to Tribes in their communities for prevention, early intervention as well as out-of-home placement services. „ Track and report to the public progress made reducing disproportionality and disparate outcomes. Key actions „ Build the capacity to address disproportionality and disparate outcomes. 27

See: Center for the Study of Social Policy (2009). Racial Equity Review: Finding from a Qualitative Analysis of Racial Disproportionality and Disparity for African American Children and Families in Michigan’s Child Welfare System. Washington DC.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 45

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

„ Accountability: DHS must monitor and publicly report on progress in this area by adhering to the recommendations in Change Priority #7 Data and Reporting. „ Establish partnership with communities. „ Imbed race equity in the contracting process. „ Training: DHS must monitor and publicly report on progress by adhering to the recommendations in Change Priority #8 Training and Workforce Development. Expected Results „ Reduced disproportionality and disparities in the child welfare and juvenile justices systems. „ Increased access to culturally/racially responsive and appropriate services. „ Increased competency of staff to practice in a manner that appropriately reduces disproportionality. „ Effective use of data to track and manage the reduction in disproportionality. „ Increased presence of preventive and early-intervention services in over-represented communities. „ Establishment of community partnerships to protect and support children and families. „ Decrease in the disproportionate number of female youth held in residential facilities for status offenses. „ Compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Funding for the Michigan Youth Opportunity Initiative should not be cut. The program has helped us so much.” Young adult ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 46

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Change Priority #5: Engage and empower consumers, children and youth, birth and adoptive parents, families, Tribes and Tribal organizations to ensure their involvement and voice as decisionmakers and respected partners in case planning, program/policy development, service delivery and systemic change efforts. Opportunities are not consistently provided for current and former consumers of service to be among the key decision-makers in planning services in their own cases. They do not have sufficient input into how services or systems of care are developed, provided or improved. Family and community engagement creates opportunities for consumers to provide critical feedback to inform service planning. It engages communities in the efforts to keep children safe and promote their well-being. Planning should elicit and acknowledge the child’s preferences, choices and abilities, as well as identity and build upon the child’s, youth’s and family’s strengths. Concise recommendations „ Strengthen staff intervention and response network at first point of contact with youth, children and families in order to respond to needs and build trusting relationships. „ Ensure that youth, children and families are provided with: o Solutions to remove barriers such as: • Opportunities to actively participate in statutory hearings. • Timely information from workers (such as written reports) so that youth can participate, in an informed manner, in their statutory hearings. • A means to transportation to attend their statutory hearings. • Appropriate attire when participating in statutory hearings. o Opportunities to provide feedback through survey feedback. o Adequate enforcement of legal representation. „ DHS and SCAO should work together to establish training for jurists that provides an appropriate protocol for actively engaging youth “on the record” in statutory hearings. „ Once permanent placement has been established, seek to terminate court jurisdiction when appropriate. „ Recognize and prioritize the role and contributions of families as service providers. „ Fund a kinship association that will serve as a critical stakeholder in the development of case planning, program, and policy development. „ Fund parent and youth partners to serve as system navigators and peer mentors. „ Maximize the use of family-preservation and reunification services and wraparound funding to reduce the number of children entering foster care and increase the timeliness of exits from care. „ Review Michigan termination-of-parental-rights policies and recommend legislative amendments and executive actions to ensure that all appropriate actions for family preservation or kinship placements (licensed and unlicensed) have been fully considered before termination-of-parental-rights action is considered. „ Revise foster care licensing policy to strengthen outreach to kinship caregivers and to proactively apply federally authorized waiver of non-safety-licensing regulations.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 47

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

„ Implement Team Decision Making (TDM) in each county. The TDM facilitator should not be the child’s caseworker. „ Encourage or promote the participation of Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs) in representing the needs and point of view of children in abuse/neglect cases. „ DHS and SCAO should work together to ensure that children and youth in the Michigan Juvenile Justice System, including dual wards, are provided with adequate attorney representation and support to participate in the judicial process. Key actions „ Establish Quality Assurance process that ensures public and private child welfare workers are trained and prepared to engage children and families in a positive and collaborative manner. „ Involve stakeholders in planning of prevention efforts and family services at the macro and micro level. „ DHS and the Department of Community Health should: o Seek funding to support system navigators and peer mentors. o Establish a practice that involves system navigators in case management, programming and the court process to assist children, youth, and families as peer mentors. Expected results „ Better decision-making and therefore better outcomes for youth, children, and families. „ Increased frequency with which families are used as viable service providers. „ Decreased trauma experienced by children, youth, and families. „ Increased use of kinship care.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“We were split up and then reunited, then separated, never reunited.” Young adult ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 48

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Change Priority #6: Foster a seamless approach to service delivery through cross systems collaboration and community partnerships to improve the conditions of vulnerable children and families. Current case planning and service delivery efforts do not ensure continuity of care across the systems that serve children involved in child welfare interventions or between and among the array of providers responsible for intervention and treatment services. The experiences of Tribal youth illustrate the systems’ discontinuity. Tribal representatives have observed a lack of understanding about the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act and failure to correctly implement provisions of the Act. Tribal representatives also note a failure to demonstrate respect for Tribal sovereignty when planning programs and services that affect their children and families. The lack of resources for Tribal services continues to be a challenge. Collaborations and partnerships to promote seamless service delivery will allow for the development of shared goals and outcomes, and collaborative strategies that reduce redundancy, and improve access and responsiveness to clients. Concise recommendations We recommend that the Director of Department of Human Services assume primary responsibility to plan and lead the implementation strategy for the change objectives proposed by the Task Force. As a member of the state Children’s Cabinet, the Director is in a key leadership position to support collaboration with other state departments and agencies that are identified as having significant roles in achieving the outcomes that are recommended in the eight change priorities. To assure sustained system wide collaboration, integration of the work of other specialized committees and task forces, and accountability in implementing the change priorities, we also recommend that the Director appoint and chair a special child welfare advisory board, consisting of key public, Tribal, private and community stakeholders, including young adults and parents, that is charged with assisting the department implementing the strategy for reform and reporting on its progress. The child welfare board will advise the Director, and through his/her office other state officials on planning, funding or delivery of services to children and families involved in the child welfare system, including: „ Reviewing and acting on improvement recommendations included in statutorily required reports related to child welfare issues. „ Directing the development and enhancement of collaboration in relationship to planning, funding and delivery of child welfare services. Specifically, the special child welfare advisory board will: o Establish a model for statewide and local collaboration on child welfare issues. o Facilitate the development of evidence-based models of collaboration. o Establish standards for coordinating case processes and case flow among state- level and Tribal entities. o Establish a shared strategic focus across all organizations serving families and children.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 49

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

„ Ensure compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act. „ Provide state financial assistance to Tribes for non-federal match required under Title IV-E. Key actions „ Concurrently plan and define complementary models for collaboration and seamless service delivery. „ Pilot the implementation of the models. „ Clarify policy and implementation related to risk assessment, kinship care, Indian Child Welfare Act and termination of parental rights. Expected results „ Increased community-level coordination and integration of services, thereby eliminating silos and duplication of efforts, while addressing the needs of youth being served by multiple systems or providers (e.g. dual wards or dually diagnosed youth). „ Increased development of collaboratives that review and approve strategies, and hold each other accountable. „ Increased draw-down of public and private funds (better use of Title IV-E funds, increased Medicaid federal share dollars to support mental health and substance abuse services). „ Increased ability of DHS to serve as an agent of systems change. „ Increased consumer access to services, and improved continuity of services. „ Compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Though I was adopted and sent to Illinois, which I didn’t want, and my adopted parent was an evil person to me, I feel that the system saved my life.” Young adult ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 50

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Change Priority #7: Improve the strategic use of data collection, analysis and reporting to improve performance of the system as measured by outcomes for families and children. DHS and the Michigan courts face major challenges in managing the child welfare and juvenile justice systems because of very limited access to information on the operation of programs, the status of individual cases at the state and county level, and the impact of services on children and families. The Children’s Rights settlement requires the development of a Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS)-compliant system by October of 2012 to enable reporting on the settlement requirements. To do so, DHS, the courts and the private provider network need to build a system can be used to manage programs, services, resources and staff toward the desired outcomes, and provide regular reporting of program to the agency and the public. Target Wayne County as a pilot site. Strategic use of data to manage performance and accountability will provide critical feedback by focusing on building the Management Information System and the capacity to use the resulting information to manage for results and increase support front-line staff. Concise recommendations „ DHS and the courts must build a Management Information System that: o Supports decision-making at the case, program and system level. o Allows for the tracking of progress on race equity. o Identifies Native American youth immediately. o Identifies services and resources by geographic area for service planning. o Allows for the ongoing evaluation of all programs including the Reunification and the Michigan Youth Opportunities Initiative. o Links child welfare, juvenile justice, court, and private agency data. o Supports the development of a public report card on agency and judicial performance, shifts in the service delivery system, and outcomes for children and families. o Uses validated instruments. o Meets standards for quality and accuracy of data. o Includes, and works in collaboration with, private sector services. o Interfaces with other state data maintained by DHS, the Department of Education, the courts, and other public data sources. „ DHS and the Supreme Court/State Court Administrative Office must issue an annual report card with outcomes for children and families, racial equity and progress on achieving performance standards outlined in the Task Force report. „ DHS and SCAO will work with local counties, Tribes and Tribal organizations, and providers (with an emphasis on Wayne County due to the large number of children who reside in that county) to establish data-sharing agreements to improve the state’s ability to establish a statewide child welfare, juvenile justice and homeless and runaway youth database. „ DHS should take the lead and collaborate with appropriate data collection partners to establish an integrated, state-wide child welfare, juvenile justice and homeless and runaway youth database (SACWIS plus).

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 51

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Key Actions „ The Task Force fully endorses the current efforts to use external experts to evaluate the current child welfare systems and databases, plan changes, and competitively contract for improvements in quality, ease of use and data integration. „ DHS and the courts must establish performance standards and issue an annual report card on: the outcomes for children and families; racial equity; and the progress on the systemic shifts outlined in this report. Expected Results „ Increased use of data to: o Manage the system. o Inform public stakeholders on the state of child welfare and current efforts. o Improve accountability and effectiveness of programs. o Determine the long-term impact of policy and program changes. „ Increased access to data at the case level to improve the quality of case practice (private agencies currently don’t have access to data). „ Increased data sharing and case planning among service providers to improve quality, create better service outcomes and establish benchmarks and standards. „ Increase collaboration between the Department of Information Technology, the State Court Administrative Office, Tribes and Tribal organizations, courts and DHS in order to implement critical system enhancements that will improve access to and analysis of data. „ Increase the capacity to leverage funding streams.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Foster parents have to be more understanding. Foster parents need to be parents and not babysitters.” Young adult ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 52

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Change Priority #8: Provide opportunities for training and workforce development to ensure that judicial officers and public/private providers have adequate skills and competencies to effectively serve the needs of children, youth, and families. Consistent with the settlement, clear standards for experience and competence must be established for Michigan’s legal and social work practitioners in the field of child welfare through the implementation of competence-based training. Michigan has yet to establish a system requiring these practitioners to demonstrate competencies in the practice of child welfare. Because of this, professional child welfare decisions and practices may be guided by insufficient information or knowledge, resulting in less-than-optimal outcomes for children, youth and families who come into contact with the child welfare system. Workforce development and training must focus on ensuring that staff has the knowledge, skill and supervision needed to work effectively with families and children consistent with the values and desired outcomes. Concise recommendations „ DHS should implement a statewide child welfare training consortium, including agency directors, supervisors, federally recognized Tribes and Tribal organizations, and private agencies. This consortium will assess and address the training needs for Michigan’s child welfare system and ensure that relative caregivers, foster families and public/private providers are provided the necessary training to move cases to safe and timely permanency. „ DHS will collaborate with the State Court Administrative Office, Michigan Supreme Court and Legislature to ensure that judges, referees and attorneys, assigned to child welfare cases, have the necessary training to move cases to safe and timely permanency. Comprehensive training regarding requirements of the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) and Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) should be required and provided upon appointment. „ Training should be expanded for relative and fictive kin caregivers (reflecting the cultural definition of family members; e.g. godparents or clan members). „ DHS should comply with the Children’s Rights settlement provisions regarding qualifications, training, and supervision to ensure that children and youth are provided with high-quality case management services. „ Measures of judicial performance should be established by SCAO and utilized as a tool for training and improving outcomes for children and youth. „ DHS should facilitate and participate in cross-training opportunities with the Department of Community Health/Community Mental Health, the Department of Education and other groups on such subjects as evidenced-based practice interventions and even sub-specialty content for early childhood development, health care integration, parents with disabilities and children with disabilities. Key actions „ The DHS Child Welfare Training Institute (CWTI) should establish and implement a training and workforce development consortium to serve court and legal personnel, and public and private service providers.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 53

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

„ DHS and SCAO should provide cross-training opportunities for judges and attorneys, DHS, and private providers that prepare staff to fulfill their responsibilities in a competent manner. Expected results „ Increased number of lawyer guardians ad litem, other attorneys, judges, relative caregivers, and jurists who are trained on critical issues related to child welfare law and policy. „ Increased quality of service and care provided by judges, relative caregivers, foster families, jurists, public/private providers, attorneys, and lawyer guardians ad litem. „ Improved outcomes for children and families in the areas of safety, timeliness of permanency, youth rehabilitation and child and family well being.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I was put into care at the age of 4, nobody wanted a cute little 4 year-old.” Young adult ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 54

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Leadership and implementation The Task Force has recommended eight interrelated change priorities that should be acted upon concurrently to improve Michigan’s child welfare system. As indicated earlier in the report, it will be important for Department of Human Services to build the capacity to implement these change priorities and to consider the leadership, organizational and systemic changes that will be required to secure the commitment and resources and to put the plan into action. This will require a process to: „ „ „ „ „ „

Manage the change process. Keep a focus on outcomes for children and families. Respond to potential problems. Maintain vital partnerships with courts, the Legislature and the community. Make collaborative decisions. Sustain support for implementation.

Strong leadership and effective ongoing management will be necessary to implement the change strategies in a way that achieves the expected results. As a member of the state children’s cabinet, the director of DHS is in a key position to support collaboration with other state departments and agencies that are identified as having significant roles in achieving the outcomes that are recommended in the eight change priorities. Michigan’s child welfare services are complicated with many often competing demands and expectations. The Task Force which included members from all sectors of Michigan’s child welfare leaders, including young adults and parents, has recommended change objectives that address the system or the “big picture" for reform. We recommend the Director of DHS assume primary responsibility to lead the implementation strategy for these change objectives. To assure sustained system-wide collaboration, integration of the work of other specialized committees and task forces, and accountability in implementing the change priorities, we recommend that the Director appoint a child welfare advisory board, consisting of key public, private and community stakeholders, including young adults and parents, that is charged with assisting the Department implementing the strategy for reform and reporting on its progress.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“When you age out, it seems like you lose everything. That’s how foster kids end up on the street.” Young adult ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 55

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

To help with this process, the following are some suggested steps to coordinate the implementation of the recommended change strategy. „ Review the Task Force implementation plan. The leadership group should review the recommendations and make a commitment to use it as a document to guide change and progress. Timelines should be established to measure the progress of reform and expected changes in outcomes. The initial review process should allow readers to become familiar with the: o Change priorities. o Concise recommendations. o Expected results. o Implementation plans. „ Convene and facilitate a series of regional forums among key staff and stakeholders to discuss the report and the implications for various sectors. „ Post the final report on the DHS website and issue periodic reports to the public which includes a discussion of actions taken and the outcomes for children, youth and families. „ Allow Task Force members to post the report on their websites to inform the general public of the state’s commitment to improving the system.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I was happy that my brother and I were able to be adopted and grow up together.” Young adult ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 56

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Global system outcomes of the improvement strategy Once the plan is implemented, in order to determine progress, numerous measures of change should be tracked over a 5-year period and reported to the public annually. Expected outcomes include: „ The proportion of children, youth and families safely served in family and community- based settings will increase. o More families will receive prevention and early intervention services. o More children families and youth will receive community-based placement diversion services. o Communities will increase their capacity to meet the needs of families using a mix of public, private, voluntary and sectarian resources. „ Out-of-home placements will decrease by 2020. „ For children and youth in need of placement the following outcomes should be expected: o The number of children placed in licensed family foster care will increase. o The number of placement changes will decrease. o Re-entry rates will decline for children and youth in the child welfare system. o The length of time in care will be reduced. o The number and proportion of children reunited with their families and relatives will increase. o The number and proportion of children who are adopted or placed in legal guardianship arrangements will increase. o The number and proportion of children aging out of foster care will decrease. o Inappropriate congregate-care placements will decrease. „ Recurrence of maltreatment and delinquency will decrease. „ An increased number and proportion of vulnerable youth transitioning (out of homelessness and the child welfare system) to adulthood will have the educational, occupational, emotional, and social resources needed to promote long-term well-being. „ An increased proportion of services will be tailored to respond to racial, cultural and gender and other diversities. „ Racial equity for children and families will increase as it relates to: o Substantiation of maltreatment. o Access to community-based services. o Placement rates and type of setting. o Length of stay in care o Safety and permanency (reunification, adoption and guardianship) outcomes o Aging out „ Transparency will increase as evidenced by annual reporting on the safety, permanency and well-being outcomes of children, youth, and families. „ State and federal funding for community-based services will increase.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 57

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Evaluating the Task Force process Surveys were administered by an external evaluator during Task Force and work group meetings to seek continuous feedback on the Task Force process. Task Force members and work group participants were asked to respond several questions to identify areas for improvement and to determine if the Task Force was making adequate progress on accomplishing its charge. According to the final report provided by the external evaluator, the Child Welfare Improvement Task Force structure and implemented processes functioned to produce their stated goals and required work products and satisfied all tasks and work products as defined in the charge. (See Appendix C for the full evaluation report on how the Task Force met its charge.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“My family may have not been the best place to place me because the family member that neglected me was easily able to reach me and cause more harm.” Young adult ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 58

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Appendix A Michigan Child Welfare Improvement Task Force Membership and Consultants Pat Babcock, Co-Chair – Lansing Carol Goss, Co-Chair, President and CEO of the Skillman Foundation – Detroit Ismael Ahmed, Director, Michigan Department of Human Services – Lansing Gary Anderson, Director, Michigan State University School of Social Work – East Lansing Beth Arnovits, Executive Director, Michigan Council on Crime and Delinquency – Lansing Quientae Baker, Parent Partner, The Guidance Center – Southgate Sheryl Calloway, Parent Partner, Association for Children’s Mental Health – Detroit Patricia Caruso, Director, Michigan Department of Corrections – Lansing State Representative Brenda Clack – Lansing Sharon Claytor Peters, Claytor Peters Consulting – Belleville Marvis Cofield, CEO, Alkebu-Lan Village – Detroit Rob Collier, President and CEO, Council of Michigan Foundations – Grand Haven The Honorable Maura D. Corrigan, Justice, Michigan Supreme Court – Detroit The Honorable Susan Dobrich, Judge, Cass County Probate Court – Cassopolis The Honorable Charlene Elder, Judge, Wayne County Circuit Court – Detroit Mike Flanagan, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Michigan Dept. of Education – Lansing Harold Gazan, Child Welfare Executive (retired), Michigan DHS – Holland Amy Good, CEO, Alternatives for Girls – Detroit Shirley Gray, Director of Clinical Support Services, Children’s Hospital of Michigan – Detroit Ricardo Guzman, CEO, Community Health and Social Service Center – Detroit Sue Hamilton-Smith, Director, Dept. of Children and Family Services – Wayne County Senator Bill Hardiman – Lansing Ashley Harris, Youth Representative, MYOI – Canton James Haveman, President, Haveman Group – Grand Haven Michael Head, Deputy Director for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, DCH - Lansing Jeriel Heard, Chairperson, Michigan Committee on Juvenile Justice – Farmington Hills James Henry, Director, Southwest Michigan Child Trauma Assessment Center – Kalamazoo Jonnie Hill, Peer Group Facilitator, Creating Independence and Outcomes Project – Detroit Rob Hilla, Youth Representative, MYOI – Midland Jennifer Hopp, Youth Representative, MYOI – Midland Cameron Hosner, President and CEO, Vista Maria – Dearborn Heights Judith Jackson, CEO, Youthville – Detroit Joan Jackson Johnson, Human Relations and Community Services, City of Lansing – Lansing Senator Gilda Jacobs – Lansing Senator Mark C. Jansen – Lansing Alicia Johnson, Youth Representative, MYOI/Dream Academy – Detroit Jane R. Johnson, Director, Muskegon County Dept. of Human Services – Muskegon Heights Ashley Jones, Youth Representative, MYOI/CIAO/WIA – Detroit

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 59

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Susan Kelly, Senior Director for Strategic Consulting, Casey Family Programs – Ypsilanti Noble Kheder, Chairman, Kheder Davis and Associates – Lansing Alan Kilar, Financial Secretary Treasurer, UAW, Local 6000 Margaret King-Ahmed, Enrichment/Parenting Teacher, Dearborn Public Schools – Dearborn Mistie Klingelsmith, Youth Representative, MYOI – Interlochen John Konke, Youth Representative, MYOI – Bay City Jack Kresnak, President and CEO, Michigan’s Children – Lansing Shannyn Lee, Youth Representative, Alternatives for Girls – Detroit Jen Leedy, Youth Representative, Spirit Youth Board – Lenox Sandra Lindsey, CEO, Saginaw County Community Mental Health – Saginaw Bill Memberto, Director of Family Services, Little River Band of Ottawa Indians – Manistee Robert Miles, President and CEO, Lutheran Child and Family Service of Michigan – Bay City Martin Mitchell, President and CEO, Starr Commonwealth – Albion Vondie Moore Woodbury, Muskegon Community Health Project – Muskegon Cory Morgan, Youth Representative, MYOI – Grand Rapids Sylvia Murray, Director, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan – Mt. Pleasant Dinia Nobles, Foster Parent Representative James Novell, Program Manager, Foster Care Review Board at SCAO – Detroit Kathryne O’Grady, DHS Children’s Services Administration – Lansing Janet Olszewski, Director, Department of Community Health – Lansing Debra Porchia-Usher, United Way for Southeastern Michigan – Detroit Robyn Price, AFSCME – Detroit Verlie Ruffin, Director, Office of Children’s Ombudsman – Lansing David Sanders, Executive Vice President, Casey Family Programs – Seattle, WA Bill Schramm, Youth Representative, MYOI – Traverse City The Honorable Peter J. Schummer, Jr., Wayne County Circuit Court Family Division – Detroit John Seita, Associate Professor, Michigan State University School of Social Work – Lansing Shawn Semelsburger, Youth Representative, MYOI – Traverse City State Representative Rick Shaffer – Lansing Diana Sieger, President, Grand Rapids Community Foundation – Grand Rapids Carol Siemon, Director, Child Welfare Training Institute, DHS – Lansing Gerald K. Smith, President and CEO, Detroit Youth Foundation – Detroit* State Representative Dudley Spade – Lansing Tabitha Stauffer, Youth Representative, MYOI – Freeland Carl Taylor, Professor, Michigan State University Department of Sociology – East Lansing Gary Tester, Vice President of Advocacy, Holy Cross Children’s Services – Clinton Alice Thompson, CEO, Black Family Development, Inc. – Detroit Sheryl Thompson, Director, Genesee County Department of Human Services – Flint John Tropman, Dean, School of Social Work at the University of Michigan – Ann Arbor Christina Vadino, Attorney – Grosse Pointe Park Annemarie Valdez, Executive Director, Child’s Hope – Dearborn Frank Vandervort, University of Michigan Law School – Ann Arbor Phyllis Vroom, Dean, School of Social Work at Wayne State University – Detroit Margaret Warner, Wayne County Child and Family Services Administration – Detroit Kiefert Watson, Youth Representative, Orchards Children’s Service – Hazel Park Addie Williams, President and CEO, Spaulding for Children – Southfield

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 60

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Michael Williams, President and CEO, Orchards Children’s Services – Southfield Michelle Williams, Youth Representative, Wolverine Human Services – Detroit Paris Winters, Youth Representative, Wolverine Human Services – Detroit Robert Wallack, CEO, Wolverine Human Services – Grosse Pointe Park Gorgeous Young, Youth Representative, MYOI – Detroit Andy Zylstra, Director, Kent County Department of Human Services – Grand Rapids *Deceased

Task Force Staff and Consultants Chris Andrews, Public Policy Associates Charles Corley, Ph.D., Public Policy Associates Lisa Cylar-Miller, Skillman Foundation Paul Elam, Ph.D., Public Policy Associates Dan Fitzpatrick, Public Policy Associates Jim Hennessey, Michigan State University Jim Hines, Public Policy Associates Danielle Moore, Public Policy Associates Kristin Raymond, Public Policy Associates Rick Robinson, Ph.D., Independent Evaluator Elysia Rodriguez, Public Policy Associates Carol Spigner, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania Willard Walker, Public Policy Associates

Department of Human Services Staff Montrelle Baldwin, Departmental Analyst Mary Chaliman, Senior Executive Assistant Deputy Director Beverly Davenport, Executive Assistant to Chief Deputy Director John Evans, State Bureau Administrator Ted Forrest, State Administrative Manager Terri Gilbert, State Bureau Administrator Kate Hanley, State Division Administrator Mary Mehren, State Office Administrator Anita Peters, State Administrative Manager Ozzie Riveria, State Administrative Manager Jeanette Scroggins, Departmental Specialist Stacey Tadgerson, Departmental Specialist

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 61

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Appendix B Change Priority Implementation Plans The Change Priorities presented in this Appendix provide key action steps that the Task Force believes should be implemented to improve Michigan’s child welfare system. To implement the action steps, the Task Force is recommending a four-pronged approach that will require an ongoing commitment to complete tasks that are already in progress, reinvestment strategies, reform strategies and meaningful partnerships between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of state government. Implementation Strategies

„ Commitment to complete tasks in progress - Action steps in this category are already in progress and DHS has made a commitment to accomplish these tasks with existing resources. It will be important for the Department to oversee these initiatives to make sure that they are maintained as priorities and that the expected outcomes are achieved within specified timeframe.

„ Reinvestment strategies - Action steps in this category are also supported by DHS departmental leadership, but will require a significant shift in the way the Department currently utilizes existing staff and monetary resources. It may mean spending more time on new initiatives and focusing energies in areas that have not been seen as priorities in the past. These action steps will require additional planning efforts to realize the expected results within the recommended timeframe.

„ Reform strategies - Action steps in this category are also supported by DHS departmental leadership, but will require statutory changes and/or additional funding to accomplish the associated outcomes. To accomplish the outcomes associated with these action steps, the Department will have to engage in ongoing reform efforts to secure resources that are not currently available. Initiation of the reform/funding proposals should occur within the recommended timeframes.

„ State partnerships - Action steps in this category are also supported by DHS departmental leadership, but cannot be accomplished without partnering with other branches of the state government. To accomplish the outcomes associated in this area, DHS will have to establish ongoing collaborative relationships that provide opportunities to impact statewide programming, training and policy within the recommended timeframe. To assure both transparency and inclusion of the insights of the multiple parties engaged in child welfare policy and service delivery, it is recommended that stakeholders with a primary interest in the recommendations included in each of the following change priorities be consulted on a regular basis. While the grouping may vary by change priority, key stakeholders in Michigan’s child welfare system include, but are not limited to, Tribal governments, local courts, local multipurpose collaborative bodies, Michigan Association of County Social services, Foster Care Review Boards, local courts, state judicial associations, private children agencies, community mental and public health agencies, state and local united ways, community foundations, MYOI, CIAO, University schools of social work, MAFAK, and kinship associations.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 62

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Change Priority #1: Create a seamless array of services that meets the full needs of children and families in a respectful way, with emphasis on prevention and early intervention. Specific Issue Michigan’s current child welfare array of services is weighted heavily toward out-of-home placement options. The array of early intervention, family preservation, post-placement and youth transition services is insufficient, both in terms of availability and the range of services.

Concise Recommendations 1. Develop a comprehensive array of services designed to safely reduce the need for out-of-home placement and to improve outcomes for children who must be placed outside their family homes. The full array of services needs to be universally available and accessible to children and families throughout the state. The services included in the array must address the needs of: a. Abused and neglected youths. b. Youths in transition. c. Youths in the juvenile/criminal justice system. d. Families in need of preventive services and/or early intervention. e. Homeless and runaway youth. 2. Improve educational and workforce opportunities and outcomes for children served by the child welfare system. This should include replicating higher educational programs such as the Seita scholarships and giving youths in the foster care system preference in AmeriCorps. 3. Improve support services for all youth ages 15 to 24 who are transitioning from foster care, from juvenile justice, and from youth homelessness (including those with or without a history in child welfare or juvenile justice). 4. Use residential and other institutional placements only when essential to the needs of children and youth or to public safety. When these placements are essential, improve the safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes for those served. 5. Foster care workers and court staff shall be well informed and shall work with collaborative agencies to develop a continuing plan of care and aftercare. It should be developed with children, youth, and families and document the resources that are available for child welfare services.

Expected Results 1. A full continuum of services is available to every Michigan community, including but not limited to: a. Prevention services. b. Home and community-based family-centered services. c. Behavioral (mental health and substance abuse) services. d. Physical health and dental care. e. Individualized educational services.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 63

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8.

f. Workforce development and support services. g. Residential services. h. Transitional services for youth. i. Increased range and capacity for foster kinship care. j. Post-placement and permanency support services. Children and families are able to access any service when needed promoting positive health and social/emotional outcomes and success into adulthood. Families remain intact and children remain safe and stable. The number of children in foster care placements will be reduced by 50% by December 2020. Children and youth in the juvenile justice system are placed in the least restrictive setting appropriate for their needs. Transitioning youth (from foster care, homelessness, and juvenile justice) will achieve safe and stable independent living. Increase the percentage of children who are reunified with their parents by October 2013. Decrease the time it takes for children in out-of-home care to be reunified with their parents by October 2013 (meet timelines established by federal standards).

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 64

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Change Priority #1: Create a seamless array of services that meets the full needs of children and families in a respectful way, with emphasis on prevention and early intervention. 1.

Action Steps and Time Frames Conduct comprehensive child welfare needs system assessment and gap analysis that: a. Includes consultation with all key state and local players in the child welfare system including children, youth, and families; foster care, kinship care, and adoptive families; and service providers. b. Provides a common definition of each of the service elements in the array, including prevention services. c. Defines an array of services most essential to achieving timely permanency for children while protecting their safety and wellbeing, focusing on use of proven and promising program/service models. d. Evaluates the services needed to reduce the number of children in out-of-home placements. e. Identifies options and priorities for changes in the service array and allocation of resources among elements of the service array to meet the goals of improving outcomes for children and safely decreasing the number of out-of-home placements

Time Frame: May 15, 2009: Complete 1st assessment & gap analysis. Nov 15, 2010: Complete 2nd assessment & gap analysis.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) DCH DMB DOC MDE DELEG MSHDA SCAO FCRB In Progress: MSU Child Welfare Resource Center is in the process of completing a comprehensive Needs Analysis to document unmet needs of the child welfare population and to identify gaps in the service array. Service array exploration is in process, Needs assessment will contribute to identification of next steps. Pilot programs are being developed currently with DCH. Reinvestment: Service array may require redirecting existing funding to most effective and appropriate services. Needs assessment will help determine service gaps and priorities. Reform: New services determined by the needs assessment may require an investment of additional resources.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 65

1.

Specific Outcomes Needs assessment and gap analysis identifies options and priorities for changes in the service array that prioritize: a. Availability of community-level evidence-based prevention services both prior to and after CPS intervention. b. Use of a wraparound service delivery concept within a family preservation and reunification model that frontloads services for families by providing limitless flexibility to use of any universally available service to meet individual and family needs available at any point in the intervention process including at the time of preliminary court hearings. c. Front-loaded services within a family preservation and reunification model with increased use of evidencebased parenting education programs and increased visitation for children in out-of-home care. d. Increased foster care range and capacity that: i. Provide appropriate placements for special needs children (age, sibling groups, cultural issues, health issues, etc.). ii. Address revised limits on the number of children who can be placed in one home. iii. Improve quality of foster homes. iv. Address the need for proximity of placement to the home of the child’s family. v. Assume aggressive implementation of new federally authorized waivers from licensing requirements for non-safety issues. vi. Provide services and support in kinship care equivalent to other foster care arrangements. vii. Provide parity in financial support for kinship care when the home is not licensed. viii. Provide full support for foster parents that addresses recruitment and retention needs.

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

2.

Action Steps and Time Frames Based on the needs assessment and study of direct care rates, develop a multi-year plan for implementing priority changes in service array that: a. Recognizes the need to synchronize program and service array changes with decisions about public policy changes and changes in program appropriations. b. Includes consultation with all key players in the child welfare system including private agencies. c. Elevates the use of prevention services to decrease the number of children and families entering the child welfare system. d. Maximizes the use of family preservation and reunification services and wraparound funding to reduce the number of children entering foster care and increases the timeliness of exits from care. e. Expands access to specialized mental health, behavioral health, and substance abuse treatment services. At a minimum, this should include: i. A more complete definition of the treatment approaches paid through the Medicaid outpatient benefit. ii. Improved targeting of services currently paid through DHS counseling contracts. f. Increases the range and capacity of foster and kinship care homes to meet the special needs of children who must be placed in foster care. g. Addresses recommendations related to DOC and specialized level-of-care rates. h. Provides sufficient resources for the operation of foster care provider support services such as training, recruitment, retention, and support networks. i. Provides sufficient staff resources for program design and development to maintain ongoing communication with service recipients, service and care providers, and representative service support organizations about program needs and potential improvements. These staff also need to maintain knowledge of proven and promising practices to improve programs.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) DCH MDE DMB-Budget DELEG MSHDA SCAO

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Specific Outcomes Multi-year service array improvement plan is prepared. Expected results of service array changes are developed. System-wide understanding of changes is maximized. Public policy and appropriations changes are identified for the initial year of implementation. Information to promote policymakers’ understanding of needed changes is prepared.

Reinvestment: A strategic plan will result from the needs and gap analysis, and policy. The impact on policy, statute and appropriations could be a key part of plan. Resources dedicated to this effort would need to be redirected from other departmental priorities. Reform: Expansion will depend on current service array and availability and resources available to fund any new or significantly revised services statewide. Additional resources would be needed to train community collaboratives and complete additional work associated with interagency integrated service delivery.

Time Frame: 1st Quarter FY 2010: DHS initiates planning process.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 66

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

3.

Action Steps and Time Frames Develop and deploy an implementation plan for first year of the multiyear plan that addresses: a. Needed changes in state policy and appropriations. b. Development of contracts for new and altered programs and services. c. Protocol for coordination of services among state and local-level public and private service providers. d. Development and delivery of training to all involved service providers. e. Development of metrics and tools that will be used to measure implementation progress, account for timely and accurate delivery of services, and gauge the effectiveness of service delivery in achieving expected outcomes.

Time Frame: 3rd Quarter FY 2010: Plan requirements submitted for FY 2011budget. 4th Quarter FY2010: Implementation plan completed.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) DCH DOC DMB-Budget MDE DELEG MSHDA SCAO

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Specific Outcomes Policy and appropriations changes are enacted. Contracts and arrangements for delivery of new and revised services in the array are in place. Service-delivery coordination plans are in place. Service and care providers are trained for changes in the service array. Measurement tools are developed and ready to use in year one.

In Progress: Discussions are in progress with DCH to develop mental health services for child welfare clients. Reform: Implementation of recommendations from the needs and gap analysis, including expanded or new services, will require additional resources. These resources may be required across departmental and program budgets.

Page 67

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

4.

Action Steps and Time Frames Implement the first-year plan.

Time Frame: FY 2011: Plan approved for first year pilot implementation.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) DCH DOC DMB-Budget MDE DELEG MSHDA SCAO

1.

Reform: Expansion will depend on current service array and availability and resources available to fund any new or significantly revised services statewide. Additional resources would be needed to train community collaboratives and complete additional work associated with interagency integrated service delivery.

2.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 68

Specific Outcomes Intermediate process outcomes: a. Improved system functioning including communication and coordination among public and private service providers across program areas; increased participation of parents, children, and direct-care providers in defining system needs and developing system changes; and increased agreement on service delivery and practice models across all involved program areas. b. Increased service array and flexibility allowing workers to improve service packaging in a manner that meets the needs of children and families. c. Increased recruitment and retention of family out-ofhome care providers. d. Increased compliance with SCAO standards on timeliness, including: i. By October 1, 2009, at least 80% of cases will be in compliance with SCAO practice standards. ii. By October 1, 2009, in at least 90% of the cases, court orders authorizing services for families whose children have been placed in out-of-home care will be signed by the judge and delivered to DHS within 72 hours of the hearing. In a minimum of 90% of the cases, if the child is supervised by a private agency, DHS will fax the court order to the private agency within 24 hours of receipt. Private agencies will begin delivering services within 72 hours of receipt of the order for 90% of the cases. iii. Placement orders for out-of-home cases will be signed and delivered to DHS within 72 hours of the hearing. DHS will deliver the placement order to the agency within 24 hours. Agencies will deliver services within 24 hours of receipt. e. Increase the availability of formal support networks and adults (MYOI model). f. Increase the allocation of resources for youth aging out of the system. g. Increase the number of available foster homes and the frequency with which foster homes remain licensed. Long-term outcomes for children, youth, and families:

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Action Steps and Time Frames

Implementation Strategy

Specific Outcomes Increase in number of children served in their own homes, per plan, by instituting new/improved evidencebased services and practices in accordance with year one plan (e.g., in-home nursing programs). b. Decrease in number of children in foster care per plan by reducing the frequency of removal, increasing speed and frequency of reunification, and decreasing the length of time to alternative legal permanency. c. Expedition of services through appropriate partnerships to move children from foster care who have been in placement for long periods of time. d. Decrease in disproportionate removal of children of color per plan. e. Reduction of the number of moves experienced by children in foster care, per plan. f. Reduction in disparity between length of placement for children of color and that of total foster care population, per plan. g. Reduction in the number of children in residential care, per plan. h. Decrease in exposure to the risks inherent to foster placement (which in some cases are the same risks present in the birth home). i. Increase in skill building and educational opportunities for foster children. j. Improvement in public safety outcomes resulting from better juvenile justice services. k. All permanency placements have access to ongoing services to maintain and stabilize the placements. l. Youth who are transitioning have ongoing access to services needed to maintain progress and stability into early adulthood. m. Overall improvement in child safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes. a.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 69

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

5.

Action Steps and Time Frames Collect and analyze measurement data.

Time Frame: 1st Quarter, FY 2011: Initiate evaluation 4th Quarter, FY 2011: Complete evaluation.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS DCH DMB-Budget DOC MDE DELEG MSHDA SCAO Reform: Additional resources are needed to procure independent evaluation.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 70

1. 2.

3. 4. 5.

Specific Outcomes Data analysis provides information that can be used to improve service and program design and delivery processes. Data and information are widely shared among policy makers, funders, program developers, public and private service providers, provider/parent/youth support organizations, and advocacy organizations. Design for data collection and aggregation uses the automated child welfare information system (see Change Priority #5) as fully as possible. Use of the measurement and reporting process provides information needed to improve design and operation of the automated information system. Further improvements in outcomes for children and families are achieved.

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

6.

Action Steps and Time Frames Revised Multi Year Plan Implemented State wide.

Time Frame: FY 2011

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) DCH DMB DOC MDE DELEG MSHDA SCAO Reform: Additional resources will be needed to implement state wide access to array of services

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 71

1.

Specific Outcomes Long-term outcomes for children, youth, and families: a. Increase in number of children served in their own homes, per plan, by instituting new/improved evidencebased services and practices in accordance with year one plan (e.g., in-home nursing programs). b. Decrease in number of children in foster care per plan by reducing the frequency of removal, increasing speed and frequency of reunification, and decreasing the length of time to alternative legal permanency. c. Expedition of services through appropriate partnerships to move children from foster care that have been in placement for long periods of time. d. Decrease in disproportionate removal of children of color per plan. e. Reduction of the number of moves experienced by children in foster care, per plan. f. Reduction in disparity between length of placement for children of color and that of total foster care population, per plan. g. Reduction in the number of children in residential care, per plan. h. Decrease in exposure to the risks inherent to foster placement (which in some cases are the same risks present in the birth home). i. Increase in skill building and educational opportunities for foster children. j. Improvement in public safety outcomes resulting from better juvenile justice services. k. All permanency placements have access to ongoing services to maintain and stabilize the placements. l. Youth who are transitioning have ongoing access to services needed to maintain progress and stability into early adulthood. m. Overall improvement in child safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes.

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

7.

Action Steps and Time Frames Improve educational services for children involved in the child welfare system by: a. Changing the system to facilitate transfer of education credits, or partial credits, between schools and between residential settings (foster care or juvenile justice) and community-based schools. b. Enforcing consistent standards for high school education in private residential placements, ensuring that adequate resources are provided for such programs, and measuring results. Ensure that youth are given every opportunity to earn high school diplomas rather than resorting to GEDs. Explore middle college programming in residential facilities. c. Providing alternative pathways to graduation from high school, including dual enrollment in technical skills training schools and college. Provide resources necessary for youth to attend community college. Public schools should receive incentives for exploring and piloting alternative models. d. Providing incentives for higher education institutions to recruit and retain transitioning youth. e. Assessing the impact of zero-tolerance policies, advocating for change if deemed necessary by assessment, and considering best practices in other states regarding zero tolerance. f. Using DHS educational planners to serve homeless and juvenile justice youth as well as foster care youth. House these positions in the intermediate school districts in order to ensure that MDE remains engaged in serving this population. This will further ensure that services are consistent across regions. Focus educational planners on reducing school mobility and on reducing its (statistically significant) negative impact on the likelihood of graduation. That is, help smooth transitions when school transfers must take place. g. Expand the DREAM Academy pilot model to at least four counties beyond Wayne County.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: MDE (lead) DHS DMB-Budget DELEG Reform: Expansion will depend on current service array and availability and resources available to fund any new or significantly revised services statewide. Additional resources would be needed to train community collaboratives and complete additional work associated with interagency integrated service delivery.

1.

2. 3. 4.

Specific Outcomes The percentage of transitioning youth (those transitioning from foster care, juvenile justice, and homeless programs) who complete high school and participate in post-secondary educational opportunities will equal the national average. All eligible youth (with eligibility expanded to include homeless and juvenile justice youth) will have access to Chafee funds for educational support. A reduction in the students who are pushed out or drop out of high school as a result of inappropriate uses of zerotolerance policies. School attendance and performance for youth are improved.

Time Frame: 2nd Quarter, FY 2010: Educational issues partnership team established by Dept Directors and led by MDE. 4th Quarter, FY 2010: Partnership team completes implementation plan for Dept. Directors approval.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 72

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

8.

Action Steps and Time Frames Improve workforce development and community living services provided to youth by: a. Supporting Michigan Works! in its efforts to successfully serve the thousands of youth aging out of foster care who will be referred to them in the coming years. This includes developing capacity of Michigan Works! staff and contracted service providers to address the specific needs of youth in the manner required by WIA. b. Supporting similar development of increased capacity of Michigan Rehabilitation Services to meet the needs of youth with disabilities. c. Exploring the capability of Goodwill Industries and other similar organizations to serve transitioning youth. d. As this system becomes effective, making similar referrals of other transitioning youth (those aging out of the juvenile justice and homeless systems of care) as well. Do this through: i. Engaging workers who serve transitioning youth to educate and support Michigan Works! staff regarding special needs of transitioning youth. ii. DHS work with Michigan Works! to assist it in implementing a socialization component (soft skills) in job-training programming for transitioning youth. e. Recruiting, training, and supporting volunteer career mentors for all youth. f. Ensuring that transitioning youth receive educational and career planning support by age 14, or, for those who enter a system of care after age 14, within a month of entering foster care, homeless services, or the juvenile justice system. Continue educational and career-planning support at least annually from age 14 until exiting services. g. Fully implementing rights of McKinney-Vento-eligible children and youth (Detroit and Washtenaw County have successful models). Educate all players regarding the McKinney-Vento Act and resources connected with it. h. Making youth transition and support resources and services, including MYOI, ETV, and YIT, available on the basis of a uniform and rational set of criteria based on the need for assistance (e.g., income, access to parents/guardians with resources, education completion, housing, health, workforce development, etc). i. DHS, together with private foundations, should seek ways to

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Implementation Strategy State Partnership DELEG (lead) DHS DMB-Budget Michigan Works! Community Service Commission MSHDA Governor’s Office of Foundation Liaison

1.

2. 3. 4.

In Process: Program in place with MSHDA to provide housing vouchers to youth aging out. Reinvestment: Youth over the age of 14 must have an appr0priate independent living plan developed. Committing additional resources to ensure educational and career planning could be accomplished through changes in some current programming. Reform: This effort will require program/systems changes plus additional and reinvested resources.

Page 73

5.

6. 7.

Specific Outcomes By the end of 2011, all transitioning youth are able to be successfully referred to Michigan Works! Eighty percent of these youth will be successfully employed within three months of referral. All transitioning youth have a written career plan that has been developed with their participation (benchmark: 100%). Written career plans are updated annually. Within four years, all transitioning youth are offered an opportunity to be matched with an “employment mentor.” Begin within first year with pilot services in several counties, including both urban and rural. All service providers involved with transitioning youth understand the requirements and resources available through the McKinney-Vento Act, and all eligible youth receive the support and services to which they are entitled. Youth currently ineligible because of their status in the child welfare system, such as most homeless and juvenile justice youth, have access to transition support services. Youth transitioning from juvenile justice system and homeless services will have access to ETV, YIT, and MYOI resources to assist them in continuing their education and maintaining housing.

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Action Steps and Time Frames sustain and expand MYOI beyond the end of Casey funding in 2010, through additional appropriations and other sources (see Funding CP #3, 5e).

Implementation Strategy

Specific Outcomes

Time Frame: 3rd Quarter, FY 2010: Workforce issues partnership team established by Dept Directors. 1st Quarter FY 2011: Partnership team completes implementation plan for Dept. Directors approval.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 74

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

9.

Action Steps and Time Frames Consider and prioritize the following: a. Providing continuity of service and oversight by continuing case involvement by the child welfare worker in the parens patriae role when child moves into juvenile justice or mental health systems. In addition, whenever possible, the same judge and attorneys should be responsible for the child welfare cases when the children enter the juvenile justice system. b. Providing life skills training and assessment during and after high school. Training and employing peer advocates to help implement. DHS should review life skills educational and assessment resources and adopt a single system to be used statewide so that all counties and private service providers use the same measures for efficiency’s sake. c. Providing opportunities for paid internships, career exposure programs, and volunteer employment to transitioning youth. d. Expanding eligibility for MYOI assistance to all transitioning youth. e. Maintaining case responsibility for the youth until age 24, when requested by youth. Need specialty positions with DHS to serve 18 to 24 year-old population. Implementing a “return” policy, per citation in “Background” section above, to ensure that lack of housing during school breaks does not interfere with a transitioning youth’s ability to go away to college.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership DHS (lead) DCH MDE DELEG DMB-Budget MSHDA SCAO Reform: This effort will require program/systems changes plus additional and reinvested resources.

1. 2.

3. 4. 5.

Specific Outcomes Continuity of planning, services, resources, and medications is maintained for children who move from child welfare to other systems. Transitioning youth improve their life skills scores from the baseline assessment to the point that they complete the life skills training program or when they leave the foster care, juvenile justice, or homeless program (whichever comes first), as determined by validated life skills assessment (e.g., Ansell-Casey). Eighty percent of transitioning youth who participate will score at 75% competency or higher at the point of completion of the training program or of exit from the service system. All transitioning youth have access to, and 65% participate in, paid internships, career exposure programs, and/or volunteer employment. Policies and procedures are developed to ensure the continuation of services by the appropriate agencies through the age of 24, when requested by the youth in transition. Seamless transfer from foster care status to independent status is increased.

Time Frame: 1st Quarter FY 2011: Implement revised policies.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 75

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Action Steps and Time Frames 10. Assure the treatment of youth in the Juvenile Justice system: a. Monitor detention facilities and jails to ensure that children are not detained solely for status offenses or violation of a court order related to a status offense. In addition, provide referrals to support services for runaways and children committing other status offenses. Monitor detention facilities and jails to determine the extent to which these referrals are made.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (Lead) DMB-Budget Corrections County DHS SCAO

1. 2.

Specific Outcomes No child or youth is jailed or detained solely for a status offense or violation of a court order related to a status offense. Referrals are made to support youth and avoid any concern about need for detention.

Time Frame: 1st Quarter 2010: Policies issued by DHS & SCAO.

b. Eliminate the use of adjudication of a youth as a delinquent as an alternative to transitioning from child welfare.

Time Frame: 1st Quarter 2010: Monitoring procedures developed. 2nd Quarter 2011: County level monitoring agreements implemented.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 76

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Action Steps and Time Frames 11. Apply and enforce Child Care Organization Licensing Act equally for all state and private agencies. a. Amend the Child Care Organization Licensing Act: i. Require all governmental child care organizations to be licensed. ii. Remove Section 6 by redefining both non-governmental and governmental child care organizations. b. DHS will resolve inequalities by revising policies and procedures to equally enforce licensing requirements, whether applied to governmental or non-governmental agencies. c. DHS will ensure equality of treatment and maintain an equal floor of protection and service delivery to all Michigan children and youth. d. DHS will eliminate disproportionality of resources between the programs it operates and agencies it contracts with. e. Upon the amendment to the licensing rules, the director of DHS will require all managers of child-care organizations (as defined by the Act) to fully comply with licensing requirements and make compliance a matter of performance.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (Lead) DCH SCAO In Progress: Parts b, c, &e of this recommendation are in progress by the department. The Director of DHS holds managers of child placing departments accountable for their licensing outcomes, and has provided tight timeframes for resolution of provisional licenses. Reinvestment: Equal Application of licensing rules to public agencies is with the authority of the Director, DHS.

1.

2.

Specific Outcomes Immediate outcomes: a. Passage of the amendment would mean there is no distinction between governmental and nongovernmental child care organizations, as related to the application of licensing requirements and the enforcement of the licensing statute. b. Performance outcome measures are applied consistently, whether to governmental or nongovernmental agencies. Long-term outcome: Reduction—with the goal of elimination—of the disparity of resource allocation. Per Diem rates should be equal in governmental and nongovernmental operations for programs of a similar nature.

Reform: Legislative action and promulgation of administrative rules will be necessary.

Time Frame: 4th Quarter FY 2009: Request recommended legislation. Ongoing monitoring of policy

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 77

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Action Steps and Time Frames 12. Develop specialized programs for children and youth: a. For children taken into custody in crisis situations, DHS will conduct professionally-staffed, objective diagnostic assessment of the child and the nuclear and extended family to determine: i. The feasibility of family preservation. ii. The level of placement needed, including consideration of the availability of a licensable relative placement. iii. The service needs of the child and family, regardless of the placement. b. DHS will conduct a comprehensive assessment of the family’s medical, emotional, and social strengths and needs. Assessment will be mandatory for youth under juvenile court jurisdiction using a uniform assessment tool administered by trained staff. c. DHS will establish small staff-administered group homes for older youth who have attachment disorders, drug dependency, or pronounced emotional/psychiatric challenges.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) DHC DMB-Budget SCAO Reform: Establishment of diagnostic centers and assessment of all children and families will require new funding and resources.

2.

3.

Time Frame: 2nd Quarter FY 2010: Initiate planning action for a, b, & c. 3rd Quarter FY 2010: Request budget support for b & C for FY 2011.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

1.

Page 78

Specific Outcomes Immediate outcomes: a. Keep sibling groups together. b. Provide more time to assess whether out-of-state relative placement is appropriate. c. Make better information available for juvenile court dispositions. Intermediate outcomes: a. Improve the accuracy of service planning. b. Speed the delivery of correctly targeted services to the child, parents, and other family members. c. Provide appropriate services to adjudicated delinquents Long term outcomes: a. Reduce the incidences of inappropriate out-of-home placements. b. Reduce the number of replacements. c. Reduce the number of failed foster family placements for teens. d. Increase rate of high school graduation for all children under governmental jurisdiction. e. Increase seamless transfer from foster care status to independent status. f. Increase success of children exiting the juvenile justice system.

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Action Steps and Time Frames 13. Decriminalize children and youth: The Children’s Cabinet (including Corrections) should propose to the Governor and Legislature amendments to the criminal code to reduce inappropriate criminalization of youth, to abolish sentencing of youth to life imprisonment without parole, and to limit waivers of minors to adult court in situations in which protection of public safety requires the waivers. Crimes committed by youth that may be harmful to the youth but present little or no danger to public safety should be excluded from waivers (service array recommendations advanced in this Change Priority would provide the services needed to correctly address the needs of these youth).

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS(lead) Corrections Governor’s Children’s Cabinet SCAO

2.

Reform: Will require amendment to state law. Transfer of funds to DHS to provide services for youth who would otherwise be incarcerated in DOC facilities should be explored. 3.

Time Frame: 4th Quarter FY 2009: Request introduction of legislation.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

1.

Page 79

Specific Outcomes Immediate outcome: Supervise standardization of information and data for inter-agency sharing and networking across systems. Long term outcomes: a. Decrease the number of juveniles tried in adult courts and housed in adult correctional facilities. b. Increase treatment options in the juvenile justice system that eliminate geographic, racial, and gender disparities in response to delinquent youth. c. Decrease number of females adjudicated delinquents. d. Reduce number of career criminals. Evaluate program effectiveness.

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Action Steps and Time Frames 14. In consultation with a committee of public and private child welfare foster and kinship care providers and national program experts, study rates paid to direct family care providers through the Determination of Care method and through levels of specialized care. Recommend changes that will promote improved outcomes for children in out-ofhome family care.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) DCH DMB-Budget FCRB

1. 2.

Specific Outcomes Recommended rates for direct family care providers are developed. Increased support or children in relative provided foster care that currently provide over 35% of foster care, often at reduced rate and receive lesser services.

Reinvestment: May require rate adjustments.

Time Frame: 4th Quarter, FY 2009

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 80

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Action Steps and Time Frames 15. DHS should proactively reach out to family members providing unlicensed and apply the appropriate waivers of non-safety-related licensing requirements.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) SCAO

1. 2.

Specific Outcomes Increased relative foster care placements Consistent with settlement provisions

Time Frame: 4th Quarter, FY 2009

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 81

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Change Priority #2: Planning and provision of service should be guided by a timely comprehensive screening and assessment of the child and family and their needs. Specific Issue Decisions to intervene and/or implement a treatment plan for youth, children, and families are not uniformly guided by the use of consistent screening and assessment processes and instruments that are standardized, validated, culturally normed, and available across the systems that provide child welfare interventions.

Concise Recommendations 1. Establish and use a prescribed set of validated and standardized screening and assessment tools from intake to case closure that are culturally normed, appropriately administered, and available across the various stages of child welfare intervention. 2. For all children taken into custody, DHS will require professionally-staffed, objective diagnostic assessment of the child, the nuclear family, and the extended family to determine: a. The feasibility of family preservation, as compared to placement b. The level of placement needed, including consideration of the availability of a licensable relative placement c. The service needs of the child and family, regardless of placement 3. DHS will conduct a comprehensive assessment of the family’s current medical, emotional and social strengths and needs. Assessment will be mandatory for youth under juvenile court jurisdiction using a uniform assessment tool administered by trained staff. 4. Implement a minimum of five pilot comprehensive screening, assessment and case-planning programs. Resolve obstacles encountered in the pilots, and collect process and outcome evaluation information. Analyze process and outcome information, publish results, and use results to make revisions to the model that improve its effectiveness. Target Wayne County as a pilot site. 5. Assessment will be mandatory for youth under juvenile court jurisdiction, using a uniform assessment tool administered by trained staff. Target Wayne County as a pilot site.

Expected Results 1. Improve the precision of identifying who needs services, which services, and how much (i.e., who is at risk and what do they need). 2. Increase the timely implementation of quality treatment plans through utilizing a holistic/comprehensive view of the child and family and multiple levels of assessment. 3. Increase availability of research-based, outcome-driven best practices throughout the array of services, including behavioral, physical, educational, and mental health services. 4. Increase utilization of existing services by assessing available services and developing a set of tools for screening and assessment across systems. 5. Increase the use of prevention and diversion services.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 82

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Change Priority #2: Planning and provision of service should be guided by a timely comprehensive screening and assessment of the child and family and their needs. 1.

Action Steps and Time Frames The Legislature should provide funding for DHS to either purchase an existing, or contract for the development of, a comprehensive approach to screening and assessment. DHS will include the contractor in its partnership with other state agencies and the Tribal-state partnership in the development effort.

Time Frame: 2nd Quarter FY 2010: DHS budget recommendations include funding a comprehensive assessment development project in FY 2011.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) DCH DMB-Budget MDE SCAO FCRB.

1.

Specific Outcomes Funding is available for DHS to contract for the development of comprehensive screening and assessment approaches.

In Progress: A screening tool for mental health services is being piloted to determine effectiveness and applicability. Reform: Additional resources would be needed to provide a comprehensive assessment for each child.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 83

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

2.

Action Steps and Time Frames With contracted assistance, DHS and its partners should: a. Enlist consumer participation throughout the process of developing and implementing a cadre of tools. b. Review and build on the DHS/DCCH/CMH screening tools pilot for identifying social/emotional concerns using the screening tools Ages and Stages Questionnaire (for 0-5) and Pediatric Symptom Check List (for 6-17). c. Review and build on the Michigan Medicaid EPSDT requirements for physicians to administer a standardized developmental screening tool during well-child visits at timelines identified by the American Academy of Pediatrics. d. Examine the existing assessment programs and protocols (such as Structure Decision Making); tools like those used at the Family Assessment Clinic at the University of Michigan School of Social Work, the West Michigan Child Trauma Assessment Center at Western Michigan University, and the Wayne County Juvenile Assessment Center; and other assessment processes used successfully in Michigan or nationally. e. Determine which parts of these programs’ processes and protocols meet the requirements in the recommendation and are critical to obtaining both early screens and comprehensive assessments in a consistent, timely manner. Develop a final set of critical ingredients for the comprehensive cadre of tools. f. Plan for pilot implementation of the comprehensive processes, protocols, and tools. Establish a statutory or court rule amendment that requires judges to indicate on the record the reason court jurisdiction should be continued after a permanent placement has been established.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) DCH MDE DMB-Budget SCAO FCRB

1. 2.

In Progress: An initial pilot is underway using the Pediatric Symptom Checklist, potential to add more tools upon evaluation of the pilot. Reform: Additional resources are needed to provide assessment and screening. Development of tools and processes can be done collaboratively. DHS should work with other stakeholders to request expansion of EPSDT, may involve the need for additional funding/resources from Medicaid to expand the protocol. Additional resources would be required to conduct a comprehensive review, revalidation, or adoption of new assessment protocols.

3.

Specific Outcomes A project work plan with timeframes for the training and implementation of the tools is completed. Agencies agree on a comprehensive, prescribed set of tools that meet the following requirements: a. Tools are standardized, reliable, and validated and must cover all functional domains for each person involved in a child welfare case (child, parents, and other family members, as appropriate), along with screening and assessment of the family system domains. b. Within the prescribed set of tools, use of a mental health assessment tool that is sensitive to change and can measure outcomes of mental health services is required of mental health service providers. c. Tools will provide the information needed to begin planning for the child’s, youth’s, and family’s exit from the system in the initial case plan. d. The tools are unbiased, age appropriate, culturally sensitive and responsive, trauma informed, and oriented to identify the strengths of children and families being assessed. e. Screening and assessments are conducted by qualified staff. f. Competent screening and assessment administration is reinforced through casework supervision. g. Training is provided to develop worker competency in administration of the tools. h. The results of the screening and assessment tools are portable across the systems that serve child welfare needs. i. Families and children experience a reduction in the number of assessments needed to plan services because the process relies on a uniform assessment protocol and the use of sub-assessments, when indicated by initial screening. j. Use of the assessment tools includes a process that ensures full and accurate use of the results of the screening and assessments, along with all other relevant case information throughout the service delivery continuum. When appropriate, planning based on screening and assessment results should be cross disciplinary. Procedures are developed on when and how the tools are to be used.

Time Frame: 1st Quarter, FY 2011: Initiate comprehensive assessment development project.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 84

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

3.

Action Steps and Time Frames Implement a minimum of five pilot comprehensive screening, assessment, and case planning programs that address all requirements of the recommendation and ingredients identified by the analysis. Resolve obstacles and barriers that are encountered in the pilots and collect process and outcome evaluation information. Analyze process and outcome information, publish results, and use the results to make revisions to the model that improve its effectiveness.

Time Frame: 3rd Quarter, FY 2011: Initiate pilot assessment project.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) DCH DMB-Budget MDE SCAO In Progress: Screening tool in pilot now will guide the Department on next steps toward implementation Reform: Expanding screening and assessment to all children in five pilots will require additional resources.

1. 2. 3. 4.

Specific Outcomes Use of tools per procedures will result in behavior-specific treatment goals related to the reasons for DHS intervention for both parents and children. The approach will identify and document gaps in needed services in the pilot communities. Services will be initiated on a timelier basis, resulting in outcome decisions in line with statutory time frames in the pilot communities. The comprehensive screening and assessment model and its cadre of tools will be adjusted per results of the analysis to achieve improved results upon statewide implementation. Input is solicited from a diverse set of stakeholders in a systematic manner by the special child welfare advisory board and DHS in policy development. Input of community stakeholders is solicited at the local level for both community and caselevel planning.

Engaging external research partner to conduct outcomes evaluation will require additional resources.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 85

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

4.

Action Steps and Time Frames Implement this revised model in all counties or regions of Michigan.

Time Frame: 4th Quarter FY 2012

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) DCH DMB-Budget MDE SCAO Reform: Statewide implementation will require additional resources.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 86

1.

Specific Outcomes Successful results from pilot will be replicated statewide. a. Intermediate process outcomes: i. Service providers across systems will have a common language for understanding assessed needs and strengths of children and families. ii. Service-delivery staff will have necessary tools to measure functional improvement iii. Information will be available to determine case-level service needs and to prioritize system-level funding decisions. iv. The number of enrollment steps for each client is reduced, and children and families are able to move between systems more easily, resulting in a more timely delivery of services. v. Decrease to the system in the cost of multiple screenings for families and children. b. Long-term outcomes: i. Children and families will receive the services and treatments appropriate to their needs throughout the life of their cases. ii. The number of children requiring removal from homes as a result of a CPS investigation will decrease. iii. Children petitioned to court, placed out-of-home, and then successfully reunited with their parents will be returned home sooner, on average. iv. Children for whom reunification efforts are unsuccessful or inappropriate will have the court order the filing of a termination petition within 15 months in significantly more cases. In addition, this will occur within six months for more of these cases. v. The number of children placed in foster care who have no more than two placements will increase. vi. The current level of racial disparity within the child welfare system will decrease.

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Change Priority #3: Secure greater funding and use it more flexibly to achieve the structural system and service reforms. Specific Issue Michigan’s current child welfare funding strategy makes significant investments in out-of-placement and significantly less in community-based prevention and early-intervention services. Furthermore, the current approach does not maximize funding or provide opportunities to fill service gaps through the use of blended funding and other creative approaches.

Concise Recommendations 1. Improve coordination of fiscal planning and funding of services across systems for children and families involved in the child welfare system. 2. Institute comprehensive change in Michigan’s funding system for services that support the safety, permanency, and well-being of children and families. This change anticipates expansion of funding, along with reduction in the number of children placed in out-of-home care. Funds saved as a result should be reinvested in front-end services to preserve and support families. The new funding arrangement will provide for: a. Effective community services for prevention of abuse, neglect, and delinquency, and homeless youth. b. Effective family preservation services. c. Post-placement and post-permanency services for child abuse and juvenile justice. d. Medical, mental health, dental, and substance abuse treatment services. e. Transitional services for children and youth exiting foster care, juvenile justice, mental health and homeless youth. f. Educational services for children during and after exit from system. g. Reinvestment of state funds freed up by the federal stimulus adjustment of FMAP into community-based prevention and early intervention for at-risk families. 3. Advocate with Congress and federal agencies for expanded federal funding to increase the availability of community-based, in-home services for children and families. 4. Expedite planning and funding for Michigan’s federally-recognized tribes to directly access and administer federal Title IV-E funds, rather than requiring the funds to flow through a Tribal/State agreement (e.g., special child welfare advisory board, joint hearings by House and Senate appropriations subcommittees regarding cross-departmental system issues (HS, ED, DCH, DOC, Ombudsman, etc.) affecting youth/families in child welfare programs). 5. Target specific funding changes and advocacy efforts to enhance critical program needs. 6. That Michigan provide the required state match, starting in 2010, to draw down the funds made available by the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act. 7. DHS should support the expansion of the capacity of federally recognized Tribes and Tribal organizations to protect children by facilitating the planning and funding of services and coordinating state and Tribal programs. 8. Establish a State child abuse/neglect prevention, family preservation and juvenile justice community treatment fund supported by an increase in

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 87

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

the state excise tax on beer, equal to five cents per 12oz serving (reservation noted by Justice Maura D. Corrigan).. 9. Request that the state address the structural deficit that contributes to cutting safety net programs for children, youth and families; revenues continue to decrease and the need for programs continue to increase).

Expected Results 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Increase the use of flexible funding so resources can follow the child throughout the continuum. Increase collaboration around funding among state, Tribal and local partners. Decrease funding barriers to allow for flexible funding and to leverage all possible revenue sources to maximize available funds. Increase the use of data to help with decision making regarding how funds and resources are deployed. Increase the use of incentives through performance-based contracts that focus on family reunification. Increase the utilization of federal resources to preserve state and local resources; can be helpful for subpopulations like a. Dual wards b. Foster care 7. Increase the ability of the system to meet the immediate needs of families whose children have been placed into out-of-home settings.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 88

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Change Priority #3: Secure greater funding and use it more flexibly to achieve the structural system and service reforms. 1.

Action Steps and Time Frames a. Conduct annual joint interagency informational budget hearings, which include Tribal representation, with DHS, DCH, MDE, MSHDA, and DELEG, focusing on child welfare services and treatments.

Time Frame: 4th Quarter FY 2009: DHS leadership work with the chairs of the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees to plan and hold this hearing. b.

Charge the Governor’s Children’s Cabinet with coordination of budget, planning, and development with state government branches and agencies: i. Review current children’s services funding and program requirements. ii. Identify local policy and funding needs. iii. Develop agreement on inter-branch, cross-agency and crosssystem strategic policy goals for children and families served by the child welfare system. iv. Develop inter-branch and cross-agency budgets that reflect these strategic goals, leverage and maximize use of federal funds, and coordinate budget and spending plans to maximize the impact of available funding. v. Specify statewide accountability and outcome measures and goals for children’s services. vi. Blend Medicaid, child welfare, and other appropriate funding where possible. vii. Develop a systemic annual plan and implementation processes for addressing deficiencies. viii. Formulate a plan with priorities for joint ventures annually and then ask the independent clearinghouse (recommended below) to identify federal grant announcements that may support those priorities ix. Develop and prioritize funding proposals to support the race equity, training and other recommendations of the Child Welfare Improvement Task Force.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: Senate & House Appropriation Cmtes. (lead) Sen. & House Fiscal Agencies DHS (lead) DMB – Budget DCH MDE DELEG MSHDA DOC SCAO University Consortium

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

In Progress: DHS is investigating funding sources and utilization of local grants for prevention and reunification support services. Local MPCBs are involved in determining funding priorities.

10.

DHS is exploring the applicability, impacts and practicality of a System of Care model.

12.

Reinvestment: State executive branch agencies provide information and assistance to a combined children’s services budget process. Ensuring one collaborative body per community would require significant collaboration and buy-in at multiple state, county and local government levels.

11.

13. 14. 15. 16.

Specific Outcomes A legislative budget process based on knowledge of the relationships between agencies. Improved efficiency Reduction in redundancy. Increased services funding at the local level. Leveraging of private funding. Cost savings. Involvement by all government branches in planning and funding child welfare services. Funding decisions at the state and community levels driven by policy needs. Improved efficiency and reduced redundancy across all branches, agencies and levels of government. Funding of essential high-priority recommendations of the Child Welfare Improvement Task Force. Commitment from at least one non-governmental resource in each high-risk community to help leverage support for the prevention, treatment and community service recommendations. Communities increase leveraged funding for prevention (e.g., Child Care Fund). Information available to all parties to allow for informed decision-making. Complete information about federal, state and local funding options and opportunities available to all government branches, levels and agencies. Improved coordination of planning and service delivery at the local level will be improved. State and local dollar savings available to increase in-home and community-based services.

Reinvestment of “savings” would require funding, reporting and tracking changes.

Page 89

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Action Steps and Time Frames Time Frame: 3rd Quarter FY 2009: DHS recommend that the Governor charge the children’s’ cabinet with this responsibility. c.

Establish a relationship with the Office of Foundation Liaison to explore how foundations and other forms of philanthropy can assist in those communities with a significant percentage of youth and families at risk of abuse and neglect.

Time Frame: 3rd Quarter FY 2009 d.

Implementation Strategy Reform: Establishment and funding of an independent university base budget and policy information center will require new resources.

Specific Outcomes

DHS should initiate and provide information and assistance to a Children’s Cabinet to review policies, outcomes, funding, budgeting, blended funding, development of strategic plan. May require additional staff resources.

Institute a university consortium in partnership with the special child welfare advisory board recommended under Change Priority #6 (using the MPHI model) to provide an objective, independent clearinghouse to serve as a resource to all branches and levels of government. This clearinghouse will: i. Research information on the sources of and regulation for federal funding for services for children and families. ii. Develop a knowledge base of program funding and best practices to assure transparency and accessibility of information on policy and funding. iii. Provide technical assistance to the special child welfare advisory board regarding funding and policy alternatives. iv. Recommend and assist in developing approaches to maximize federal funding. v. Explore funding models of other states and best practices (e.g. Indiana Office of Federal Grants). vi. Assist agencies in identifying and applying for federal and private funding. vii. Support the special child welfare advisory board coordination of enterprise-wide child welfare budget and fiscal planning. viii. Identify new and emerging opportunities in addition to those identified in the annual plan.

Time Frame: 3rd Quarter FY2009: DHS initiate planning session with leaders of the child welfare consortium. 4th Quarter FY 2009: DHS coordinate with the Office of Foundation Liaison to

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 90

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Action Steps and Time Frames identify potential funders. e.

Implementation Strategy

Specific Outcomes

Incentivize and support collaboration efforts at the local level. i. Identify sources of flexible discretionary funding. Provide funds to local level counties/jurisdictions that agree to direct funds toward locally established goals. ii. Establish goals of safety, permanency, and well being of children and families, as required by federal funding sources, toward which local counties/jurisdictions direct discretionary spending. iii. Ensure a single collaborative is established for each community in the state to plan for cross-system and cross-agency child welfare services. Include the local United Way and local foundations, as well as human services agencies, and other public and private agencies, as participants in the collaboration. iv. Increase local allocations by reinvesting state and local savings -achieved through improved efficiencies, the reduction of redundancy, and the reduction in high-cost out-of-home placements -- into home and community-based services. v. Require reinvested funds, including state funds that freed up as a result of changes in federal match for Title-IVE funded programs, be used to expand and develop new community-based in-home service options.

Time Frame: 2nd Quarter FY 2009: DHS seek executive and legislative support to amend the FY 2010 budget to include this item. f.

Develop System of Care model demonstrations.

Time Frame: 2nd Quarter FY 2009: DHS seek executive and legislative support to amend the FY 2010 budget to include this item.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 91

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

2.

a.

Action Steps and Time Frames Explore, select and implement options to increase federal funding for services to juvenile justice youth. Options include but are not limited to: i. Establish law and process for courts to commit delinquent youth needing placement to DHS, while retaining probation staff oversight. This would shift the cost for placement of IV-E eligible youth in non-secure placements from the Child Care Fund to IV-E. ii. License court staff offices as child-placing agencies. This would allow for the courts to make an IV-E administrative claim for its probation staff. iii. Claim costs of supervising youth in the community to the extent they could be classified as candidates for foster care.

Time Frame: 2nd Quarter, FY 2009: DHS convene a special review committee including SCAO and sitting county judges to identify policy options and investigate practices of other states and local jurisdictions that have successfully changed Title IVE claiming practices in this area. b.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) DMB - Budget SCAO DCH. Reinvestment: Exploring options to qualify IVE eligible youth under court supervision for federally supported services may require operational or definitional changes while maintaining both single state agency requirements and accountability to courts.

3. 4. 5. 6.

8.

Legislature should authorize and DHS pilot an enhanced reimbursement percentage for the In-Home Care portion of the CCF (from 50% to 75%). i. To be eligible for that enhanced funding programs would need to meet a set of prescribed standards related to collaboration, practice, efficiency, effectiveness and outcomes. ii. Eligible programs would be required to address one or more of the following: (1) Mental health services (2) Substance abuse services (3) Sexual offender treatment (4) Community monitoring or tracking (5) School failure/truancy (6) Others to be determined

9.

10. 11. 12. 13.

The Legislature should authorize and DHS pilot a de-categorized funding stream for children and families not restricted by funding levels of the existing service categories. All or part of the money would be used for

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

2.

7.

Time Frame: 2nd Quarter FY 2009: DHS seek executive and legislative support to amend the FY 2010 budget to include this item. c.

1.

Page 92

Specific Outcomes Increase in IV-E eligibility for the juvenile justice population. Transfer of foster care costs from the Child Care Fund to Title IV-E funding. Savings for the Child Care Fund. Savings for the state due to the higher reimbursement federal rate. Improved prevention and family preservation outcomes. Development of new public and private agency business models for serving children adjudicated delinquent. Reduced cost to the Child Care Fund resulting in savings for both counties and the state. Programs achieve measurable outcomes in the following areas: a. Reduce out-of-home placements. b. Reduce P.A. 150 commitments. c. Reduce ratio of placements to commitments, petitions, and adjudications. d. Reduce historical growth rate. e. Reduce length of stay. The availability of home and community-based early intervention, prevention and treatment services for children and families will increase as a result of reinvesting savings into the communities. Increase the effectiveness of necessary out-of-state placements. Ensure appropriate child and family communication and visitation during placement. Ensure good use of state and county funds when out-of-home placements are necessary. Increase mental health services for children. a. The proportion of services that are covered through the Medicaid Program will increase. b. The proportionate number of eligible children and families in the child welfare system in need of mental health and substance abuse services who receive those services will increase.

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Action Steps and Time Frames the county’s community-based, in-home family preservation family foster care, group care, independent living, and adoption purchase of services.

Implementation Strategy c.

Specific Outcomes New funding or increases in funding result in an increase in services with no change in state funding.

Time Frame: 2nd Quarter FY 2009: DHS seek executive and legislative support to amend the FY 2010 budget to include this item. d.

The process for approving out-of-state placements should be improved to ensure that any such placement is appropriate to the needs of the child and for providing oversight during placement to ensure the child benefits from the placement as intended.

Time Frame: 2nd Quarter FY 2009: DHS seek executive and legislative support to amend the FY 2010 budget to include this item. e.

The state Medicaid policy should be revised to ensure that all DHS children identified as needing mental health services, through screening and assessment using standardized validated tools, receive effective and appropriate mental health treatment.

Time Frame: 3rd Quarter FY 2009: DHS seek executive and legislative support to amend the FY 2010 budget to include this item. f.

g.

Funds currently being spent on "mental health services" in DHS should be redirected and used for match to Medicaid, as appropriate, in order to maximize available resources to provide in order to maximize available resources and provide effective mental health treatment. Create a reinvestment fund to carry forward savings in state and private funding dedicated to serving children and families (including, but not limited to TANF, Medicaid, Social Services Block Grant, CCF) to expand in-home, community-based services.

Time Frame: 3rd Quarter FY 2009: DHS seek executive and legislative support to amend the FY 2010 budget to include this item.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 93

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

3.

Action Steps and Time Frames Advocate that Congress and federal agencies: a. Eliminate the ADC look-back for IV-E. b. Fund the full range of services with IV-E funding, regardless of child’s placement, matching the program’s business model with its goals. c. Increase funding to Safe and Stable Families that allows increased flexibility and funding for services for non-Title IV-E eligible children. d. Mirror requirements for relative guardianship subsidy to that of adoption subsidy: i. To remove the requirement for a 6-month licensed foster care placement prior to subsidized guardianship. ii. To remove the requirement that relative caregivers be licensed. e. Restore the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention grants for juvenile justice programming to FY 2002 funding levels. f. Increase in funding and flexibility in state administration of the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) block grant. g. Allow states receiving fiscal penalties as a result of Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR) deficiencies to reinvest the penalty dollars in correcting the shortcoming and improving the child welfare system. (As done in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – formerly Food Stamps). h. Focus additional funding on family preservation and prevention. i. Improve services for youth aging out of foster care to ease the transition to adulthood. j. Reauthorize the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA). k. Revise federal requirements for child welfare information systems to permit transferring data between public and private contract agency automated systems rather than require all data to be originally entered in the state’s data system.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) Governor’s Washington Office MI Congressional Delegation DMB - Budget In Progress: DHS advocated these change to the Obama transition team and is fully supportive of their adoption. Reform: Additional federal policy and funding required in order to authorize decategorization of funding and to restore the levels to 2002 funding.

1. 2. 3.

4.

Specific Outcomes Savings to counties and state. Development of new public and private agency business models for serving children and families. Children will achieve permanency in less time. Provision of early intervention and prevention services based on risk and without a mental health diagnosis. Permits use of modern technology, saves design and development costs and saves ongoing operation costs resulting form duplicate data entry.

Time Frame: 3rd Quarter FY 2009: DHS initiates communication with MI Congressional delegation re the implications of these changes to MI children.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 94

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

4.

Action Steps and Time Frames Expedite direct federal funding for Tribal organizations: a. Tribal Partnership group convene to identify options for individual tribes or Tribal consortia to administer funds, the technical assistance needed to develop plans and implement these options. b. Identify and arrange for technical assistance (TA), including that available from Department of Health and Human Services, Tribal associations and other TA providers, to assist in plan development and implementation. c. Develop plans and seek required federal approval. d. Implement plans upon receipt of federal approval.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS - Tribal Partnership (lead) DMB - Budget Local DHS offices Reinvestment: Partnership with Tribes to assure that they receive maximum support that they are entitled to under title IVE.

1. 2.

Specific Outcomes Intermediate term: a. Streamlines administration for tribes and state Long term: a. Increase ability of Tribal social service organizations to provide timely and culturally relevant services to the children, youth, and families they serve. b. Improve outcomes for children, youth, and families

Time Frame: 3rd Quarter FY 2009: DHS develop a strategy with the state – tribal partnership.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 95

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

5.

Action Steps and Time Frames To the extent practical within the resource limits available to the state, consider program-specific funding enhancements: a. Restore funding for a staff position to coordinate services for homeless, runaway and street youth, and educate federal policymakers on the importance of a coordinated voice for these youth. b. The Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program should be expanded to cover 2 years of supplemental rent for more youth. Support services must accompany rental support. Explore cooperative housing for high-risk youth, as is available for seniors, families, and college students. c. Provide financial support for a foster parent advocacy group. d. Provide support for a domestic violence advocacy group. e. DHS, together with private foundations, should seek ways to sustain and expand MYOI beyond the end of Casey funding in 2010, through additional appropriations and other sources.

Time Frame: 1st Quarter 2010: DHS consider these items in developing FY 2011 budget recommendations.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) MSHDA DCH Gov office Foundation Liaison In Progress: DHS is working with ACMH to expand their foster parent membership. ACMH already has birth parent and foster parent membership and is very involved in the joint programming in southwest Detroit. DHS will recruit parent volunteers from this group to participate in CWTI pre-service training for new workers.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Specific Outcomes Improved coordination of services for homeless, runaway and street youth. Increased understanding of needs of these youths Data collection demonstrates that the demand for housing is met by suitable and appropriate supply. Improved support for foster parents and domestic violence victims. Increased advocacy for needs of foster parents and domestic violence victims. Continuation of MYOI services for the foreseeable future, serving transitioning youth.

A large number of DV advocacy groups already exist statewide. These groups are often community or university-based groups. The DVP Board reaches out regularly through funding and programming to these groups. DHS is seeking to expand services to youth aging out and will engage in a pilot project to expand availability and funding for these youth. MYOI and YIT will effectively be merged to afford more youth access to targeted services. Reform: Statewide expansion of aging out services will require additional funding. Funding of advocacy groups would require additional funding and is sorely needed. Funding of a foster parent advocacy group – if solely DHS funded, would be subjected to the RFP competitive bid process.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 96

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

6.

Action Steps and Time Frames Amend Section 436.1409 of the Michigan Compiled Laws to increase the excise tax on beer by five cents per 12oz can or bottle ($16.53 per barrel). Revenues raised by this amendment will be deposited in the child abuse/neglect prevention, family preservation and juvenile justice community treatment fund. Annual appropriations from the fund in any fiscal year will be contingent upon an annual legislative appropriation from state funds for child abuse/neglect prevention, family preservation programs, 0-3 programs, and juvenile justice community treatment programs at least equal to state general fund and TANF expenditures for these programs in fiscal year 2008-09, adjusted for inflation (amendment to Funding work group report by Task Force action at the March 23rd meeting; reservation noted at the end of Appendix B by Justice Maura D. Corrigan).

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: Governor Legislature Reform: This recommendation will require amendments to MI law.

1.

Specific Outcomes Funding will be available to provide prevention and family preservation services across the state for children and their families at risk of or experiencing abuse/ neglect, delinquency and / or truancy.

Time Frame: 3rd quarter 2009: Identify legislative sponsors to draft and introduce bill. Develop stakeholder coalition to support legislation.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 97

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Change Priority #4: Racial, gender and cultural equity must become a priority for the child welfare system. Specific Issue Data for the state of Michigan documents the over-representation of Native American and African American Children statewide, as well as a double standard for female youths. These children and youth come into care at a higher rate than male children of European descent; they stay longer and are more likely to age out to lives of uncertainty. Recently Michigan undertook at study designed to document the dynamics underlying this problem for African American Children. Key findings included: 1. African American families do not receive necessary supports that could prevent or divert their involvement with the child protective system. Once involved in DHS, African American families often experience the services offered to them as irrelevant, difficult to access, or inadequate to support and strengthen their families. 2. African American families experience child welfare systems as intrusive interventions that do not fairly assess and appreciate their unique strengths and weaknesses and fail to adequately explore the least restrictive placement options for children. 3. African American youth and families are negatively characterized or labeled by workers in the child welfare system. Some of these labels follow them through their interactions with various new workers and ultimately negatively affect the outcome of their cases. 4. Advocacy on behalf of African American families and children is insufficient in helping them participate in, challenge, and negotiate the child protection system. 5. There are inadequate mechanisms for African American parents and youth to hold DHS, providers, and advocates accountable for equitable treatment and quality services. Tribal representatives have observed a lack of understanding about the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act and failure to correctly implement provisions of the Act. Tribal representatives also note a failure to demonstrate respect for Tribal sovereignty when planning programs and services that affect their children and families. The lack of resources for Tribal services continues to be a challenge.

Concise Recommendations 1. Provide the top leadership and managers of the organizations with the knowledge and skill needed to address institutional policies and practices that disadvantage females and African American and Tribal children, youth and families. 2. Clarify and implement existing policies and procedures in a manner that better serves diverse populations. 3. Assure that effective public and purchased services are available to families of color in their communities for prevention, early intervention as well as placement services. 4. Track and report to the public progress made reducing disproportionality and disparate outcomes. 5. Ensure compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act. 6. Provide state financial assistance to tribes for non federal match required under Title IV-E

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 98

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Expected Results 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Reduce disproportionality and disparities in the child welfare and juvenile justices systems. Increase the access to culturally/racially responsive and appropriate services. Increase the competency of staff to practice in manner that appropriately reduces disproportionality. Use data to track and manage the reduction in disproportionality. Increase the presence of preventive and early intervention services in over represented communities. Establishment of community partnerships to protect and support children and families. Decrease in the disproportionate number of female youths held in residential facilities for status offenses. 8. Compliance with ICWA

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 99

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Change Priority #4: Racial, gender and cultural equity must become a priority for the child welfare system. 1.

Action Steps and Time Frames Build the capacity to address disproportionality and disparate outcomes. a. Integrate and institutionalize recommendations by assigning responsibility within the child welfare agency for executing the action steps contained in this change priority. b. Provide training to agency and judicial leadership and key managers on disproportionality that includes a focus on: i. Trends in service provision by race. ii. History of racism in child welfare. iii. Leadership role addressing race equity issues. iv. Role of cross-system and community partnership. c. Create an internal work group composed of staff from various levels to monitor progress on increasing racial equity and the implementation of these recommendations, and to issue an annual public report on progress. d. Judicial officers should implement the tools developed by OJJDP and NCFJCJ and other organizations to address disproportionality. e. Front-line supervisors and workers should be trained in cultural competence and race equity so that the principles of fairness are integrated into their daily practices.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (co-lead) SCAO (co-lead)

1. 2.

Specific Outcomes Increase the number of competency-based trainings. Increase skills and competence of judicial and DHS staff and contractors to address factors contributing to disproportionality and disparate outcomes.

In Progress: The Race Equity staff of DHS will work with SCAO and private agencies to raise awareness of overrepresentation of children of color in child welfare and juvenile justice, and create training models and training content to be added to the required pre-service and on-going in-service training required for all workers.

Time Frame: July, 2009: Work plan will be initiated.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 100

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

2.

Action Steps and Time Frames Accountability: DHS must monitor and publicly report on progress in this area by adhering to the recommendations in “Change Priority Data and Reporting.” a. DHS’ new information system must have the capacity to report on the decision-making, service access and outcomes by race and ethnicity at the system, office, unit and worker level. b. DHS must monitor the effectiveness of providers by race and ethnicity and work with them to improve their outcomes across the continuum of care. c. DHS must use the data to develop more responsive strategies for group that are over- represented.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (co-lead) SCAO (co-lead)

1. 2.

Specific Outcomes Changes included on the checklist are developed, implemented, trained and monitored. Increased accountability through public education.

In Progress: The Race Equity staff of DHS will work with SCAO and private agencies to raise awareness of overrepresentation of children of color in child welfare and juvenile justice, and create training models and training content to be added to the required pre-service and on-going in-service training required for all workers.

Time Frame: Ongoing, see change priority # 7 action step 2.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 101

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

3.

Action Steps and Time Frames DHS should prioritize clarification and implementation of the following policies: a. The state statute on the Termination of Parental Rights must be reviewed/ revised and staff must be trained to assure that assessments of parental capacity are made to determine the appropriateness of parental termination. b. Kinship care policy needs to be reviewed for clarity and staff need to be trained in the policy and practice requirement for relative search, kinship care licensing criteria and supports available to families; the policy on family preservation should be expanded. c. Financial support should be made available to relatives who provide protection and support for children and youth, at the same level as is provided when the child is under the jurisdiction of the state. d. The risk assessment needs to be revaluated and revised to make sure that neglect is distinguished from poverty. Staff need to be trained on proper implementation of the revised tool. e. Quality assurance reviews should be conducted to assure that the implementations of the above policies are consistent with the expectations and reduce practices that contribute to overrepresentation. f. Establish a policy on dual wards to guide the case management of youth who are being treated in both the maltreatment and delinquency components of the child welfare system.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) SCOA

1. 2.

Specific Outcomes Disproportionality is decreased. Increased services and opportunities for children and youth in relative provided out of home care.

Reform: May require statutory revision of TPR standard. May require increased funds for relative provided out of home care.

Time Frame: 4th Quarter FY 2009: The DHS Director appoints a departmental policy review team with representation from SCAO and FRCB to review these policies with make a report detailing policy revisions and implementation steps within nine months.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 102

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

4.

Action Steps and Time Frames Partnership with communities. a. The county DHS agencies in collaboration with Multi-Purpose Collaborative Bodies should conduct forums to discuss the role of DHS, the importance of protecting children, relative care, tribes, nonprofits and the use of informal resources to assist children and families. b. The use of family group decision making (TDMs) with families of color should be monitored to ensure that the focus on family engagement and strengths is maintained.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Implementation Strategy State Partnership DHS (lead) Local DHS DCH DCH-Tribal Partnership

1. 2.

Specific Outcomes Increase public knowledge re state child welfare policies and practices. Community recommendations re more effective approaches to protect children and provide effective services.

Reinvestment: Information from forums provides opportunities for stake holder advice re effective community centered services.

Page 103

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

5.

Action Steps and Time Frames The use of family group decision making (TDMs) with families of color should be monitored to ensure that the focus on family engagement and strengths is maintained.

Time Frame: 1st Quarter FY 2010: Large Urban Counties 3rd Quarter FY 2010: Remaining 14 medium to large counties. 1st Quarter FY2011: Remaining counties.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) SCAO

1.

Specific Outcomes Increased parental, relative and youth participation in case planning and decision making.

In Progress: TDMs will increase and be mandated at key points in case planning. Beginning with largest Urban Counties and rolling out statewide.

Page 104

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

6.

Action Steps and Time Frames Appropriate representation for children and parents. a. Increase the adequacy and effectiveness of representation for children and parents by: i. Increasing the number of trained advocates and lawyers. ii. Adequately funding lawyers and advocates. iii. Evaluating the performance of advocates and lawyers.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: SCAO (lead) DHS FRCB

1. 2.

Specific Outcomes Improved representation. Joint planning and programming to increase legal representation for families and children/youth.

Time Frame: 2nd Quarter FY 2010: Initiate inter-agency policy planning with report to director DHS and Director SCAO by end of 4th quarter, 2010.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 105

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

7.

Action Steps and Time Frames Imbed race equity in the contracting process by requiring that applicants/providers: a. Demonstrate capacity to serve diverse populations. b. Report outcomes by race and ethnicity. c. Locate service in accessible neighborhood-based locations. d. Provide flexible hours. e. Participate in consumer feedback.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) DMB

1.

Specific Outcomes Selection of contractors that are more appropriately suited to meet the needs of the clients of the child welfare system.

Reinvestment: Development of contract language that address needs of child welfare program.

Page 106

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

8.

Action Steps and Time Frames Training: DHS must monitor and publicly report on progress in this area by adhering to the recommendations in “Change Priority Training and Workforce Development.”

Implementation Strategy Reinvestment:

1. 2.

Specific Outcomes Alternative measures that track with CFSR and settlement requirements. Increased public accountability.

Time Frame: 4th Quarter FY 2010: First DHS report.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 107

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Change Priority #5: Engage and empower consumers, children and youth, birth and adoptive parents, families, Tribes and Tribal organizations to ensure their involvement and voice as decisionmakers and respected partners in case planning, program/policy development, service delivery and systemic change efforts. Specific Issue Opportunities are not consistently provided for current and former consumers of service to be among the key decision makers in planning services in their own cases, or for their families to develop and improve programs, provide services or improve the systems of care that provide child welfare interventions.

Concise Recommendations 1. Strengthen staff intervention and response network at first point of contact with youth, children and families in order to respond to needs and build trusting relationships. 2. Ensure that youth, children and families are provided with: a. Solutions to remove barriers such as: i. Opportunities to actively participate in statutory hearings. ii. Timely information from workers (such as written reports) so that youth can participate, in an informed manner, in their statutory hearings. iii. A means to transportation so that they can attend their statutory hearings. iv. Appropriate attire when participating in statutory hearings. b. Opportunities to provide feedback through survey feedback. c. Adequate enforcement of legal representation. 3. DHS and SCAO should work together to establish training for jurists that provides an appropriate protocol for actively engaging youth “on the record” in statutory hearings. 4. Once permanent placement has been established, seek timely termination of court jurisdiction when appropriate. 5. Recognize and prioritize the role and contributions of families as service providers. 6. Fund a kinship association that will serve as a critical stakeholder in the development of case planning, program and policy development. 7. Fund parent and youth partners to serve as system navigators and peer mentors. 8. Maximize the use of family-preservation and reunification services and wraparound funding to reduce the number of children entering foster care and increase the timeliness of exits from care. 9. Review Michigan termination-of-parental-rights policies and recommend legislative amendments and executive actions to ensure that all appropriate actions for family preservation or kinship placements (licensed and unlicensed) have been fully considered before termination-of-

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 108

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

parental-rights action is considered. 10. Revise foster care licensing policy to strengthen outreach to kinship caregivers and to proactively apply federally authorized waiver of nonsafety-licensing regulations. 11. Implement TDM based decision making in each county. The TDM facilitator should not be the child’s case worker. 12. Encourage or promote the participation of Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs) in representing the needs and point of view of children in abuse/neglect cases. 13. DHS and SCAO should work together to ensure that children and youth in the Michigan Juvenile Justice System, including dual wards, are provided with adequate attorney representation and support to participate in the judicial process.

Expected Results 1. 2. 3. 4.

Facilitate better decision-making and therefore better outcomes for youth, children, and families. Increase the frequency with which families are used as viable service providers. Decrease trauma experienced by youth, children and families. Increase the use of kinship care.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 109

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Change Priority #5: Engage and empower consumers, children and youth, birth and adoptive parents, families, Tribes and Tribal organizations to ensure their involvement and voice as decisionmakers and respected partners in case planning, program/policy development, service delivery and systemic change efforts. 1.

Action Steps and Time Frames DHS should establish Quality Assurance process that ensures public and private child welfare workers are trained and prepared to engage children and families in a positive and collaborative manner.

Time Frame: 3rd Quarter FY 2009: Ongoing.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Implementation Strategy In Progress: This effort is in progress as part of the expansion of CWTI. CQI process in some counties will include client satisfaction surveys; eventual roll out to statewide implementation.

Page 110

1.

Specific Outcomes Families and children have the opportunity to report whether their experiences with child welfare staff are respectful and helpful.

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

2.

Action Steps and Time Frames DHS and SCAO should work with: a. Local DHS offices to establish a plan for efficient transport of children/youth to court hearings. b. Local DHS offices should establish a protocol for notifying youth of upcoming hearings and determining their desire to participate and/or the appropriateness for participation. c. Local courts should establish protocols to maximize opportunities for child/youth involvement including after school hours for hearings. d. SCAO staff should develop and implement a mechanism for monitoring child and youth participation in court hearings. e. Local DHS offices, local private agencies and courts should ensure that youth, children and families are oriented and educated about the child welfare system and process.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (co-lead) SCAO (co-lead)

1. 2.

Specific Outcomes Children and youth who desire to participate in their court hearings are offered that opportunity 100% of the time. Judicial decisions reflect the input provided by the child/youth.

In Progress: RFC contracts require that providers transport children to court. DHS could amend the PAFC contacts and adoption contacts to require transportation to court. Reinvestment: Establishment of local transportation plans, coordination and funding of those plans requires reinvestment focus. Re-assess procedure for hearing notifications, ensure that all youth are engaged and have opportunities to participate.

Time Frame: 4th Quarter FY 2009: DHS and SCAO review of contract provisions and procedures. Revise PAFC & adoption contracts. Issue field instructions. FY 2010: Ongoing monitoring of policy and practices.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 111

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

3.

Action Steps and Time Frames Establish a statutory or court rule amendment that requires judges to indicate on the record the reason court jurisdiction should be continued after a permanent placement has been established.

Time Frame: 1st Quarter FY 2010: DHS initiate discussion with SCAO.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: SCAO (lead) DHS

1. 2.

Specific Outcomes Children and youth achieve safe and timely permanency within related federal outcome standards on a consistent basis. Judicial caseloads are reduced.

Reform: May require statutory amendment and/or court rule.

Page 112

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

4.

Action Steps and Time Frames Involve stakeholders in planning of prevention efforts and family services at the macro and micro level.

Time Frame: Ongoing

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS DHS Child Welfare Advisory Board. In Progress: TDMs will increase and will be mandated at key points in case planning. Beginning with Urban Counties and rolling out statewide.

Page 113

1. 2.

Specific Outcomes Input in policy development is solicited from a diverse set of stakeholders in a systematic manner by the special child welfare advisory board and DHS in policy development. Input of community stakeholders is solicited at the local level for both community and case level planning.

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

5.

Action Steps and Time Frames DHS and DCH should: a. Seek funding to support system navigators and peer mentors. b. Establish a practice that involves system navigators in case management, programming and court process to assist children, youth and families as peer mentors.

Time Frame: 1st Quarter FY 2010: Develop and test policy and practices.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS DCH Reinvestment: DHS policy revisions to deploy system navigators and peer mentors in consultation with DCH/Mental Health.

Page 114

1.

Specific Outcomes Children, youth and families indicate that: a. Contacts with DHS are positive and helpful. b. Public and private providers seek their input when making decisions. c. They are able to make informed decisions

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

6.

Action Steps and Time Frames DHS should advocate that Congress and federal agencies: a. Eliminate the ADC look-back for IV-E. b. Fund the full range of services with IV-E funding, regardless of child’s placement, matching the program’s business model with its goals. c. Increase funding to Safe and Stable Families that allows increased flexibility and funding for services for non-Title IVE eligible children. d. Mirror requirements for relative guardianship subsidy to that of adoption subsidy: i. To remove the requirement for a 6-month licensed foster care placement prior to subsidized guardianship. ii. To remove the requirement that relative caregivers be licensed.(also in CP Funding)

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Implementation Strategy See Change Priority 3, Recommendation 3

Page 115

Specific Outcomes

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

7.

Action Steps and Time Frames To the extent practical within the resource limits available to the state, consider program-specific funding enhancements to restore funding for a staff position to coordinate services for homeless, runaway and street youth in Michigan, and educate federal policy makers on the importance of a coordinated voice for these youth (also in CP Funding).

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Implementation Strategy See Change Priority 3, Recommendation 5

Page 116

Specific Outcomes

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

8.

Action Steps and Time Frames DCH should lead a multi-stakeholder review of the state statute on the Termination of Parental Rights and develop legislative recommendations and administrative directives to: a. Ensure be that public and private child welfare staff are trained to assess the parental capacity in determining the appropriateness of parental termination. b. Clarify kinship care policy, particularly in the area of practice requirements for relative search, kinship care licensing criteria and supports available to families; c. Clarify and expand policy on family preservation including: i. Financial support for relatives who provide protection and support for children and youth, at the same level of support as is provided when the child is placed in licensed foster care. ii. Application of validated, standardized and culturally normed risk assessment tool that distinguishes neglect from poverty. iii. Quality assurance reviews, to ensure that family preservation policies are consistent with the expectations and reduce practices which contribute to overrepresentation. d. Management, supervisory and front line staff training on proper implementation of the family preservation policies. (see CP Racial Equity)

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Implementation Strategy See Change Priority 4, Recommendation 3

Page 117

Specific Outcomes

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

9.

Action Steps and Time Frames Maximize the use of family preservation and reunification services and wraparound funding to reduce the number of children entering foster care and increases the timeliness of exits from care. (Also in CP Array of services)

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Implementation Strategy See Change Priority 1, Recommendation 3d

Page 118

Specific Outcomes

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Action Steps and Time Frames 10. Increase the range and capacity of family foster and kinship care homes to meet the special needs of children who must be placed in foster care. (Also in CP Array of services)

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Implementation Strategy See Change Priority 1, Recommendation 3f

Page 119

Specific Outcomes

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Action Steps and Time Frames 11. In consultation with a committee of public and private child welfare foster and kinship care providers and national program experts, DHS should review rates paid to direct family care providers through the Determination of Care method and through levels of specialized care (such as TFC) and recommend changes that will promote improve outcomes for children in out-of-home family care. (Also in CP Array of services)

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Implementation Strategy See Change Priority 1, Recommendation 2

Page 120

Specific Outcomes

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Action Steps and Time Frames 12. DHS should proactively reach out to family members providing unlicensed and apply the appropriate waivers of non-safety-related licensing requirements.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Implementation Strategy See Change Priority 1, Recommendation 3g

Page 121

Specific Outcomes

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Change Priority #6: Foster a seamless approach to service delivery through cross systems collaboration and community partnerships to improve the conditions of vulnerable children and families. Specific Issue Current case planning and service delivery efforts do not ensure continuity of care across the systems that serve children involved in child welfare interventions or between and among the array of providers responsible for intervention and treatment services.

Concise Recommendations Appoint a special child welfare advisory board that reports directly to the Director of DHS to include representation from all branches of government and all agencies within each branch and the Tribal social service organizations having responsibility for planning, funding or delivery of services to children and families involved in the child welfare system. Membership should include the director and a point person (responsible for implementing decisions) within each agency to be charged with: 1. Reviewing and acting upon on improvement recommendations included in statutorily required periodic reports related to child welfare issues. 2. Directing the development and enhancement of collaboration in relationship to planning, funding and delivery of child welfare services in Michigan. Specifically, the advisory board will: a. Establish a model for statewide and local collaboration on child welfare issues. b. Facilitate the development of evidence-based models of collaboration. c. Establish standards for coordinating case processes and case flow across among state level and Tribal entities. d. Establish a shared strategic focus across all child and family serving organizations.

Expected Results 1. Community level coordination and integration of services is increased, thereby eliminating silos and duplication of efforts and addressing the needs of youths who are being served by multiple systems or providers (e.g. dual wards or dually diagnosed youth). 2. Increase the development of collaboratives that review & approve of strategies, and hold each other accountable. 3. Increase draw-down of public and private funds (e.g., better utilization of Title IV-E funds, increased Medicaid federal share dollars to support mental health and substance abuse services). 4. Increase the ability of DHS to serve as an agent of systems change. 5. Service consumers experience increased accessibility to and continuity of services.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 122

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Change Priority #6: Foster a seamless approach to service delivery through cross systems collaboration and community partnerships to improve the conditions of vulnerable children and families. 1.

Action Steps and Time Frames Concurrently plan and define complementary models for collaboration and seamless service delivery. Both models should: a. Focus on improved outcomes for children and families. b. Relate to the continuum of care. c. Provide for full strategic partnership between community and system resources and allow for flexibility to meet individual community needs. d. Operate across all levels of systems and communities. e. Provide for mutual ownership between systems and communities. f. Focus first on the child welfare needs of children and families. g. Specify tangible outcomes and accountability for achieving them. h. Establish guidelines and standards for operation. i. Reestablish a governance structure at the state level to guide the work of local collaborative bodies and communicate clear expectations in planning the use of local discretionary funding. j. Incorporate standards for timely movement of cases across systems, including incorporation of SCAO standards for timely court processing. k. Incorporate standards for timely movement of cases across systems. In order to accomplish this, SCAO will need to establish standards for timely court processing that recognize the interaction between court processes and the processes that DHS and other service providers must follow. The SCAO standards need to be a part of the overall standards for case-processing timeliness.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Implementation Strategy State partnership: DHS (lead) DMB-Budget DCH MDE DELEG MSHDA, Corrections SCAO. In Progress: Discussion in progress with DCH to develop mental health services for children in child welfare system. Program in place with MSHFDA to provide housing vouchers for aging out young adults. Reform: Revision of state policies re to support access to a continuum of services for all children / youth and families in the child welfare system appropriate to their needs and legal status.

Page 123

1.

Specific Outcomes Documented agreements in place from agencies represented in special child welfare advisory board to facilitate agency participation in local collaborative planning, decision-making, resource sharing and evaluation. a. A collaboration model is developed with the following essential features: i. Participation of all state level agencies and organizations that are responsible for directing services to address child and family needs in any of the functional domains that affect safety, permanency and well-being of children involved in the child welfare system. ii. A method for continuously obtaining input from communities about the needs of their at-risk children and families; the outcomes needed from service interventions; the degree to which current services deliver those outcomes; and program and funding strengths and barriers. iii. Identification of funding streams that can be directed toward the needs of children and families involved in the child welfare system. iv. Development of rules and guidelines that permit the greatest degree of planning, funding and service delivery pooling and coordination at the community level. v. Coordinated planning, development and funding requests for services and programs operated at the state level to meet community needs as identified through the community input process. vi. Coordinated administration, monitoring and evaluation of programs and funding among state-level agencies and organizations. b. Guidelines for seamless service delivery models are developed. The guidance will include: i. Essential elements of a system of care concept to ensure responsiveness to child and family needs through coordinated planning, development and delivery of services. ii. Services that provide safety, permanency and well-being of children without requiring formal entry to the child welfare system whenever possible. iii. For those children and families who require formal involvement in the system, services that provide necessary/timely; coordinated

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Action Steps and Time Frames Time Frame: 4th Quarter FY 2009: DHS initiates discussion with state cabinet re community collaborative for child welfare. Proposes a high level multi departmental planning & policy committee. 4th Quarter FY 2010: Planning committee reports child welfare community collaborative implementation plan to cabinet.

Implementation Strategy iv.

v. vi. vii. viii. ix. x. xi. xii. xiii.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 124

Specific Outcomes intake, screening and assessment; service planning and service delivery targeted to the identified needs. Use of proven practices within a well-defined collaborative practice framework to provide a continuum of services that addresses all relevant child, parent and family functional domains. This will require special attention to development or enhancement of collaborative services and programs in several areas, including: Abuse/neglect and delinquency prevention. Intake, screening and assessment Family preservation. Mental health and substance abuse treatment services. Educational services for children served by the child welfare system Recruitment and retention of foster and kinship care providers who have capacity to serve children with a wide range of special needs in a family environment. Mentoring support systems for parents, foster parents, adoptive parents and guardians. Transition and support services for children and youth in preparation for exit from foster care and for homeless and runaway children Use of cross-disciplinary teams as appropriate throughout the service planning and delivery process. Successful results from pilot will be replicated statewide.

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

2.

Action Steps and Time Frames Present and obtain buy-in using a business case for the models that: a. Provide essential data on service needs and impacts, including both risk and return-oninvestment considerations that point to incentives for participation. b. Identify costs and benefits of the models. c. Provide support for the models using data on impact from jurisdictions in which these approaches have been used successfully, considering existing and emerging models within and outside Michigan. d. Identify state and community decision-makers who need to approve or agree to use of models. e. Present business case to decision-makers. f. Address any additional barriers to approval.

Time Frame: 4th Quarter FY 2010: Business case model presented to department directors for approval.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) DMB-Budget DCH MDE DELEG MSHDA Corrections SCAO

1. 2. 3.

Specific Outcomes Decision-makers, practitioners and the public understand the costs and benefits of implementing the models. Barriers to implementation are overcome in several communities. Several communities approve and agree to pilot the implementation of the models.

In Progress: Service array exploration is in process. Needs assessment will contribute to identification of next steps. Pilot programs are under development with DHS.

Page 125

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

3.

Action Steps and Time Frames Pilot the implementation of the models: a. Community buy-in is required to participate in the pilot. b. Alternative local-level models may be established based on make-up and needs of communities, including local needs for collaboration between service-delivery systems and the courts. c. Include necessary requirements for federal and state level requirements including compliance with SCAO standards. d. Combine this approach with the Funding Work Group recommendations about funding flexibility pilots. e. Allow pilots to operate for sufficient time to demonstrate results (This could be 3 to 5 years). f. Analyze and evaluate pilot results. g. Adjust models based on results. h. Include members of public agencies and private agencies, and citizens with no agency affiliation

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) DMB-Budget DCH MDE DELEG MSHDA Corrections SCAO

1.

Specific Outcomes Outcomes achieved in pilot communities: a. Models and plans are tailored to local needs and players, including judges and other independent officials who are not bound by state agency rules b. Outcomes for children and families are improved c. SCAO monitoring of compliance is used to further improve more frequent and timely reunification and permanency for children. d. Models are improved based on results of pilot experience.

Reform: Resources required to support pilots.

Time Frame: FY 2011 – 12: Pilot counties

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 126

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

4.

Action Steps and Time Frames Sell the model to other communities: a. Provide training to develop core capacities and competencies in communities to develop both the collaboration and seamless service delivery models. This includes instilling vision/focus on the diverse needs of children and families from a broad range of racial, ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Also includes developing understanding of shared/pooling of resources. b. Communicate comparative results to key constituencies (Judges Association, etc). c. Present business case to key constituencies.

Implementation Strategy State partnership: DHS DMB DCH MDE DELEG MSHDA Corrections SCAO

1.

Specific Outcomes Increased number of community collaboratives trained.

Reform: Resources will be needed to conduct analyses and training of MPCBs.

Time Frame: FY 2012: Education session in non pilot counties.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 127

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

5.

Action Steps and Time Frames Replicate models across state.

Time Frame: FY 2013: State-wide implementation.

Implementation Strategy State partnership: DHS DMB DCH MDE DELEG MSHDA Corrections SCAO

1.

Specific Outcomes Pilot outcomes or better achieved in all communities in the state.

Reform: Resources will be required to support continuum of child welfare services across the state.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 128

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Change Priority #7: Improve the strategic use of data collection, analysis and reporting to improve performance of the system as measured by outcomes for families and children. Specific Issue The Department of Human Services and the courts of Michigan face major challenges in managing the child welfare and juvenile justice systems because of very limited access to information on the operation of programs, the status of individual cases at the state and county level and the impact of service on children and families. The Children’s Rights settlement requires the development of a SACWIS compliant system by October of 2012 to enable reporting on the Settlement requirements. In the course of complying with this expectation DHS, the courts and the private provider network need to build a system can be used to manage programs, services, resources and staff toward the desired outcomes and provide regular reporting of program to the agency and the public.

Concise Recommendations 1. DHS and the courts must build a Management Information System that: a. Supports decision making at the case, program and system level. b. Allows for the tracking of progress on race equity. c. Identifies Native American youth immediately d. Identifies services and resources by geographic area for service planning. e. Allows for the ongoing evaluation of all programs including the Reunification and MYOI. f. Links child welfare, juvenile justice and court data as well as private agency data. g. Supports the development of a public report card on agency and judicial performance, shifts in the service delivery system and outcomes for children and families. h. Uses validated instruments. i. Meets standards for quality and accuracy of data. j. Includes, and works in collaboration with, public sector services k. Can interface with other state data maintained by DHS, Department of Education, the courts, and other public data sources. 2. DHS and the Supreme Court/SCAO must issue an annual report card with outcomes for children and families, racial equity and progress on achieving performance standards outlined in the Task Force report. 3. DHS and SCAO will work with local counties, Tribes and Tribal organizations, and providers (with an emphasis on Wayne County due to the large number of children who reside in that county) to establish data-sharing agreements to improve the state’s ability to establish a statewide child welfare, juvenile justice and homeless and runaway youth database. 4. DHS should take the lead and collaborate with appropriate data collection partners to establish an integrated, state-wide child welfare, juvenile justice and homeless and runaway youth database (SACWIS plus).

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 129

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Expected Results 1. Increase the use of data to: a. Manage the system. b. Inform public stakeholders on the state of child welfare and current efforts. c. Increase accountability and effectiveness of programs d. Determine the long-term impact of policy and program changes. 2. Increase access to data at the case level to improve the quality of case practice (private agencies currently don’t have access to data). 3. Increase data sharing and case planning among service providers to improve quality, better service outcomes and establish benchmarks and standards. 4. Increase collaboration between DIT, SCAO, tribes, courts and DHS to allow for the implementation of critical system enhancements that will improve access to and analysis of data. 5. Increase the capacity to leverage funding streams.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 130

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Change Priority #7: Improve the strategic use of data collection, analysis and reporting to improve performance of the system as measured by outcomes for families and children. 1.

Action Steps and Time Frames The below efforts currently underway by DHS (the DHS Court Improvement SACWIS Project) should be supported, so that successful cross-systems collaboration is possible: a. SACWIS compliance. b. SACWIS planning RFP. c. RFP Award made. d. Grantee will evaluate the current database (SWSS), additional databases including but not limited to Families First and JJolt and make recommendations for next steps to improve the quality, ease of use and integration of data. They will complete a risk analysis and cost/benefit analysis on database options and report out one year later. e. An RFP for the next steps will be issued at that time. f. An interim step being considered is providing CPAs access to SWSS through a citrix thin-client environment.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) SCAO DIT Reinvestment: Revision of uniform state child welfare data system is critical to effective management of the program and quality services for children. Actions are underway to meet federal staff

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Specific Outcomes Increased transparency and greater public accountability. Statewide computer-based program that identifies services and resources. Data system for collection, analysis and evaluation regarding equity. The use of data in program planning and management. The development of resources consistent with the understanding of families’ needs. Using the data for better policy decisions and program changes. Data collected by DHS will be available to support or evaluate the new reunification model. User-friendly software so workers can access data. Data collection system ensures accurate data and evaluation, including that of follow-up data.

Time Frame: The state child welfare information system (SACWIS) will be in full compliance by FY 2012.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 131

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

2.

Action Steps and Time Frames DHS must establish performance standards and issue an annual report card on: the outcomes for children and families; racial equity and the progress on the systemic shifts outlined in this report.

Time Frame: 3rd Quarter FY 2009: Initiate planning and design for annual report. 1st Quarter 2010: Training DHS and court staff. 1st Quarter 2011: First report card publicly released.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) SCAO DIT

1.

Specific Outcomes Data demonstrates that all providers and agencies are utilizing validated instruments; outcomes are collected effectively; analyses completed by university partners, demonstrating significant improvements.

In Progress: Much of this work is in progress pursuant to the agreement with Children’s Rights. This agreement requires reporting on a number of outcomes for children on a regular basis Reform: The DHS data system includes many disparate and disconnected data sources. Full integration into the data warehouse for consolidated reporting will require investment of resources.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 132

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

3.

Action Steps and Time Frames Establish a process for regular cross-agency review of the data and action planning to improve the pace and quality of change.

Time Frame: The state child welfare information system (SACWIS) will be in full compliance by FY 2012.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) DIT SCAO In Progress: Performance-based outcomes and related data reporting are being developed for private and public providers. Disparity data for child welfare is captured, and reports will be developed to analyze and evaluate the data. Performance measures are already reported in the State CFSR report that is posted on the web. DHS will develop a more robust web presence to share performance data.

1.

Specific Outcomes The data system developed by DHS has the capacity to: a. Function as an integrated data system. b. Evaluate the programs. c. Identify services and resources by geographic area, for use by agencies and courts. d. Capture disparity data. e. Be user-friendly. f. Support the development of a public report on child welfare performance.

Reinvestment: Discussion regarding expansion of Michigan 211 is underway, but will require focused effort and realignment of resources. Reform: Improving the user-friendly interface of SWSS is part of the existing evaluation, but the actual implementation will require additional resources.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 133

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

4.

Action Steps and Time Frames Track outcomes of youth who have had successful placements and termination of court jurisdiction.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (co-lead) SCAO (co-lead)

1. 2.

Specific Outcomes More timely response to court orders. More reliable information re status of youth who have been placed in permanent settings or aged out of the child welfare system.

Time Frame: The state child welfare information system (SACWIS) will be in full compliance by FY 2012.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 134

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Change Priority #8: Provide opportunities for training and workforce development to ensure that judicial officers and public/private providers have adequate skills and competencies to effectively serve the needs of children, youth, and families. Specific Issue Clear standards for experience and competence have not been established for Michigan’s legal or social work practitioners in the field of child welfare. Nor have methods been established requiring these practitioners to demonstrate competencies in the practice of child welfare. Because of this, professional child welfare decisions and practice may be guided by insufficient information or knowledge resulting in less than optimal outcomes for children, youth and families who come into contact with the child welfare system.

Concise Recommendations 1. DHS will implement a statewide child welfare training consortium, including agency directors, supervisors, federally recognized Tribes and Tribal organizations, and private agencies. This consortium will assess and address the training needs for Michigan’s child welfare system and ensure that relative caregivers, foster families and public/private providers are provided the necessary training to move cases to safe and timely permanency. 2. DHS will collaborate with the State Court Administrative Office, Michigan Supreme court and Legislature to ensure that judges, referees and attorneys, assigned to child welfare cases, have the necessary training to move cases to safe and timely permanency. Comprehensive training regarding requirements of the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) and Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) should be required and provided upon appointment. 3. Fictive Kin/Relative caregiver (reflecting the cultural definition of family members; e.g. godparents or clan members) training should be expanded. 4. DHS should comply with the settlement provisions regarding qualifications, training and supervision to ensure that children and youth are provided with quality case management services. 5. Judges, jurists and attorneys will be trained on ICWA 6. Attorneys who represent youths in the juvenile justice system will be trained in how to provide better legal representation to those youths. 7. Measures of judicial performance should be established by SCAO and utilized as a tool for training and improving outcomes for children and youth. 8. DHS will facilitate and participate in cross training opportunities with MDCH/CMH, the Department of Education and other groups on such subjects as evidence-based practice interventions and even sub-specialty content for early childhood development, health care integration, parents with disabilities and children with disabilities.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 135

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Expected Results 1. Increase the number of lawyer guardians ad litem, other attorneys, judges, relative caregivers, and jurists who are trained on critical issues related to child welfare law and policy. 2. Increase the quality of care provided by judges, relative caregivers, foster families, jurists, public/private providers, attorneys, and lawyer guardians ad litem. 3. Improved outcomes for children and families in the areas of safety, timeliness of permanency, youth rehabilitation and child and family well being.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 136

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Change Priority #8: Provide opportunities for training and workforce development to ensure that judicial officers and public/private providers have adequate skills and competencies to effectively serve the needs of children, youth, and families. 1.

Action Steps and Time Frames The DHS Child Welfare Training Institute (CWTI) should: a. Establish a training and workforce development consortium. b. Identify and engage potential members of the consortium. c. Convene the first meeting of the consortium. d. Identify existing training and areas that need to be developed or built upon to enhance skills and competencies. i. SCAO should initiate an examination of all states presently requiring continuing education for jurists to evaluate best practices, barriers, fiscal implications and impact of training on improved outcomes in child welfare cases. e. DHS should commit to training that achieves: i. Cultural responsiveness. ii. Cultural competency. iii. Appropriateness. iv. Adherence to the Indian Child Welfare Act. v. Race equity. f. Training opportunities should be provided for: i. Private and public providers. ii. Judges. iii. Referees. iv. Attorneys. v. Jurists. vi. Foster families. vii. L-GALs. viii. Relative caregivers.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) SCAO In Process: CWTI is planning to launch the Training Consortium to be able to incorporate learning and training activities into an integrated calendar and effort to training workers in multiple organizations. CWTI is in the process of engaging stakeholders and determining membership in a consortium. DHS training capacity for private agencies has doubled. DHS is currently exploring training for relative caregivers and other foster and adoptive parents Reinvestment: New resources may be required to match additional federal (title IVE) funds. Part of the state match that has been freed up due to the federal stimulus funding should be redirected for this purpose.

Specific Outcomes Reduction in number of children in out-of-home care, 50% reduction in juvenile justice and foster care by 2020. 2. Reduction in the number of placement changes that a youth experiences while in the child welfare system (removal from home to permanency). 3. Reduction in the number of substantiated complaints against foster care homes, as a result of service array. 4. Reduction of the number of these complaints that result in an actual licensing violation. 5. Reduction in the number of changes in supervising caseworkers experienced by a youth during the duration of their case. 6. Establishment of a series of consumer satisfaction scales. Need to begin assessing satisfaction of both internal and external customers of the child welfare system (including, but not limited to, children, biological parents, foster parents, relatives, workers, courts, and service providers). 7. Fewer children will return to the attention of the child welfare system after reaching a planned, permanent living situation. The metrics for this outcome need careful construction and analysis since many factors could play into this occurrence. Still, it would be a measure of the success/failure of the overall system with a specific child. 8. Employee satisfaction scales centered on training and supervisory satisfaction. Baseline assessed and the reassessment at 6 months, 24 months etc. Identify appropriate instrument, use existing instrument if applicable. 9. Reduced racial bias. 10. Staff will be well-trained and will be receiving current training. 1.

Time Frame: 4th Quarter FY 2009: Consortium established. 1st Quarter FY 2010: Enhanced workforce development and training program initiated.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 137

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

2.

Action Steps and Time Frames Evaluations should be developed to secure consumer and community feedback on court proceedings.

Time Frame: 1st Quarter FY 2010: Initiated.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) SCAO

1.

Specific Outcomes Management information to assist judicial officers and the public in assessing quality of judicial proceedings.

Reinvestment: Low cost process to gain consumer and community feedback re judicial proceedings.

Page 138

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

3.

Action Steps and Time Frames DHS should develop a partnership with the Michigan Bar Association and judicial associations to develop training opportunities for attorneys and family court judges.

Time Frame: 4th Quarter FY 2009: Joint planning with state bar and judge’s association initiated.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) SCAO In Progress: DHS meetings with MI state bar ongoing.

1.

2. 3.

4.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 139

Specific Outcomes By October 1, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court will pass an administrative rule requiring initial and continuing education for all jurists presiding over child abuse and neglect cases, and for lawyers assigned to represent children, parents and the state in these cases By January 1, 2010, the SCAO will have established guidelines and courses for jurists and attorneys to attend to meet training requirements. By October 1, 2011, children and youth in child abuse and neglect cases will achieve safe and timely permanency outcomes consistent with the requirements set forth in the federal Child and Family Services Review and the Child’s Rights lawsuit settlement. Increase the number of judges and lawyers who are trained on critical issues related to child welfare law and policy.

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

4.

Action Steps and Time Frames DHS and SCAO should provide cross-training opportunities for SCAO, DHS, and private providers that prepare staff to fulfill their responsibilities in a competent manner: a. Develop training curriculum that outlines a protocol for educating and sharing information with children, youth, and families (e.g. in-home resources, prevention resources). b. Training resources should be dedicated to building the family facilitation skills of public and private providers. c. Criteria should be established for all supervisors, which includes the following: i. Reinvest in school (master’s level) scholarships ii. Supervisors/support management. iii. Performance management training system, evaluation and coaching. iv. Structure for regular case conferencing or review. d. Training on how to administer a TDM for judicial, public, and private participants in the process.

Implementation Strategy State Partnership: DHS (lead) SCAO

1.

Specific Outcomes Increased number of competent providers.

In Process: TDM training is being designed and statewide roll out is scheduled beginning with select counties. New supervisor training will be launched in April. Additional content pertaining to race equity and overrepresentation will be added to the CWIT training upon review and recommendation of the DHS Race Equity staff. Capacity for private agency training has doubled. Train the Trainer courses are in progress.

Time Frame: 4th Quarter FY 2009: Cross training project planning initiated.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 140

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 141

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Appendix C Evaluation of the Michigan Child Welfare Improvement Task Force charge and process

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 142

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Child Welfare Improvement Task Force Evaluation Report Prepared by: Richard D. Robinson, Ph.D. Prepared for Ismael Ahmed, Director Michigan Department Human Services April 2009

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 143

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Michigan Child Welfare Improvement Task Force Evaluation Report Background Michigan's child welfare system assumes the responsibility for protecting the state’s children who are most at risk. Working with families and their communities, the Department of Human Services investigates more than 16,000 substantiated, and more than 100,000 unsubstantiated, child protective services cases annually. Through its various agencies, foster care and adoption programs, as well as the juvenile justice system, DHS delivers services directly to tens of thousands of vulnerable children each year. The Task Force was created by DHS Director Ismael Ahmed. On April 22, 2008, Ahmed, along with former Director C. Patrick Babcock and Carol Goss, president and CEO of the Skillman Foundation, formally launched the Michigan Child Welfare Improvement Task Force. The purpose of the Task Force was to assess the full continuum of state-supported services for children and their families and to develop specific recommendations to improve the services delivered by the child welfare system. The recommendations were to include measurable action steps and outcomes. In the charge document (see Attachment 2) the DHS director and staff designated the specific direction for the final work products of the Task Force. The evaluation process was created to assist the Task Force in achieving its goals. Evaluation objectives The charge document delineates the fundamental principles for the construction of the evaluation plan and objectives (see Attachment 2): „ Examine the DHS child welfare philosophy: o To provide advice concerning its clarity and sufficiency for system-wide direction. o To develop and recommend guiding principles to determine the type and choice of services provided to children and their families. „ Review and assess the implications of current federal and state standards in developing state child welfare system outcomes. „ Develop and recommend clear, achievable, and measurable performance and process outcomes for the comprehensive state child welfare system and for each sub-system (prevention, community-based family services, out-of-home family-based care, adoption, residential care, independent living and transitional services). „ Recommend the essential high-yield actions that state government should take to address the program and process outcomes. This evaluation report documents the specific processes that were chosen by the Task Force and its work groups to accomplish their goals and objectives, and to develop their required work products. In consultation with the Task Force co-chairs, and with reference to the stated purpose of Task Force in the charge document (see attachment 2), the following core objectives of the evaluation plan were identified:

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 144

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

„ To document the Task Force and work group processes. „ To assess the functioning of Task Force and work group processes. „ To verify the fulfillment of work-product requirements. This formulation anchored the evaluation plan in the basic assumptions of the charge document, which was essential to the development of an accurate and effective evaluation plan. The evaluation plan identified a number of questions specifically related to the achievement of Task Force goals and objectives, which formed the focus of the analysis, such as: Did the Task Force members represent a diversity of background within the child welfare system, and did they perceive that the meeting goals were being achieved; or, were work group meetings comfortably designed and managed; and did the Task Force develop its stated work products? Evaluation methodology The evaluation plan incorporates both quantitative and qualitative methods. It utilizes three specific methodologies to accomplish its objectives (see Attachment 1: Evaluation Plan and Data Collection Matrix): „ Archival analysis: The review of all documents and literature presented to, or generated by, the Task Force and its work groups that relate to the evaluation questions. „ Survey analysis: The development and use of three separate instruments to gather information about the experience and interests of Task Force members. The three instruments are an initial Task Force survey (see Attachment 3, copy of survey), a postmeeting Task Force survey (see Attachment 4, copy of survey), and a post-meeting survey for work groups (see Attachment 5, copy of survey). „ Participant observation: Participant observation is a qualitative research technique that was used throughout the Task Force, work group, and staff meetings. Participant observation required participation in the activities under observation, informal interviews with individuals, and direct observation to collect the necessary information. Information from a sampling of participants was used to generalize the findings. Data collection process and analysis The evaluation plan was based on clear and concise questions, using specific methods to answer those questions (see Attachment 1, Evaluation Plan and Data Collection Matrix), such as: „ Do Task Force members represent a diversity of background within the child welfare system? „ Do a majority of Task Force members think that the goals are being achieved? „ Did the work groups develop their requested work products? Archival The archival information that was reviewed represents an array of sources. It includes records and archival documents that contain relevant information to verify the assorted evaluator research inquires as defined in the evaluation plan, e.g. completion of tasks and work products.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 145

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Task Force and Work Group Work Products

Task Force and Work Group Processes

Document Matrix „ General documents: Charge document, administrative documents „ Department of Human Services documents: Department settlement document; previous Task Force reports, best practices reports „ Task Force informational/presentation documents „ Work group reports/informational documents „ Miscellaneous: attendance/membership data, electronic communications, etc.

„ Task Force final report „ Work group final recommendations and report to Task Force

Survey The survey data collection process employed separate instruments (see above). The initial Task Force survey was administered one time to the entire Task Force. This survey gathered specific information about Task Force members regarding their experience with the child welfare system, their roles, and their issue interests. For example, Question 2 of the survey requests that

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 146

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

individuals choose the types of involvements they have had with the child welfare system. The highest categories of results were: „ Advocate „ Administrator „ Case worker

51.0% 46.8 % 25.5%

An analysis of the Task Force member list provided another perspective of the diversity of the membership, based upon members’ present organization affiliation: „ „ „ „ „ „

Advocate Professional/public-private Young adults Parents Judicial Public officials

10 47 16 4 3 5

This initial survey verified that the Task Force represented opinions of the diverse community served by the child welfare system (see Attachment 6, Initial Child Welfare System Survey Summary). The post-meeting survey for the Task Force was administered on five occasions (see Attachment 7, copy of the summary) to all members in attendance at Task Force meetings. The instrument, which included both closed and open-ended questions, measured members’ perceptions of the meeting process. Answers to open-ended questions yielded much detail and were especially useful in providing comments about alterations to the process and suggestions for improving the Task Force process. These responses provided a core of information that was shared in summary form with the Task Force co-chairs, steering committee members, and staff. The information gathered from this instrument enabled the leadership to make cogent decisions regarding the necessity and form of on-going improvements to the Task Force meeting format and function, as well as to facilitate the communication of essential information. The ability to make mid-course adjustments enhanced the Task Force process itself and helped the Task Force remain on track and achieve its objectives. Informally, regular Task Force members acknowledged the effectiveness of these efforts to improve communications and meeting protocol. The Task Force work group post-meeting survey was administered a total of 14 times (see Attachment 9, summary of work group meetings). This survey included both closed and openended questions and was administered to members of each of the work groups at sampled meetings. The results of these surveys show a high agreement response in both the “slightly agree” and “strongly agree” categories. The combined rates of approval in these categories across all seven of the work groups are: „ Question 1

84.6%

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 147

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

„ Question 2 „ Question 3

94% 89.4 5%

Although the information gathered was not regularly shared with the work group leaders, the results of the survey were discussed on a case-by-case basis whenever it was indicated that an adjustment to the work group process might be productive. Participant observation was used throughout Task Force and staff meetings and at a sampling of work group meetings. The participatory approach was especially useful to validate information provided by the surveys and to develop a sense of how well specific issues were being addressed in the Task Force and work group meetings. Task Force structure and process As previously noted, a central feature of the Task Force evaluation was the analysis of the Task Force and work group process. Because of the number of individual Task Force members and the complexity of tasks and objectives, it was agreed that the Task Force process should be monitored and adjusted as necessary. The Task Force created a committee structure: „ Committee of the Whole „ Steering Committee „ Work groups (one work group for each of the charge areas, with the addition of a funding work group and communication committee): o Prevention, Community Service and Treatment o Foster Care and Court Ordered Placements o Adoption and Permanency o Detention, Residential Care and Treatment o Transitional Support o Funding o Communication Committee „ Youth Group Committee „ Synthesis Committee In Task Force meetings, only members or their alternates could vote. In work group meetings, all members of the work group, which included Task Force members and invited individuals with expertise, could vote. Typical meeting composition for each of the committees: „ Committee of the Whole included all members of the Task Force, invited participants, observers, support staff and consultants. „ Work groups were composed of Task Force members, invited non-Task Force individuals with related expertise, support staff, policy researchers and consultants. „ Steering committee included work group chairs, Task Force co-chairs and senior staff, and consultants. „ The Youth Group committee, which represented an informal assemblage of young adults, was designed to secure their comments on specific issues as well as to encourage their continued involvement in the process.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 148

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

„ The Synthesis committee was made up of a cross section of Task Force members and work group members, as well as senior staff and consultants; it offered support for the chairs and was responsible for molding the recommendations of the work groups into final form. The Task Force Committee of the Whole had multiple functions: „ To gather and communicate information from multiple sources to members; the shared information took the form of individual and group presentations, panels and discussions of meetings, generating thoughts and proposals. „ To serve as a forum to discuss varied perspectives, concepts, ideas and approaches for the resolution of issues. „ To help build consensus around issues. The Task Force instituted a final report decision process to ensure that consensus would be reached on the final Task Force work products. The Task Force acted by consensus on final policy and practice recommendations. The recommendations were developed by the work groups and those in plenary discussions. The process assumed that a majority of Task Force members would support the recommendations as drafted. The Task Force finalized all aspects of the final report. Recommendations required a minimum of two-thirds’ vote of voting members to be accepted in the final report. If a recommendation did not reach the two-thirds threshold but was still an area of concern and under discussion, it would be considered later. Work group process The work group committees were first populated through self-choice by Task Force members. The diversity of the work groups was assessed and, when necessary, additional appointments were made by the co-chairs. The work groups performed the bulk of the sustained and serious work to define and develop the systemic issues, specific corrective recommendations, and SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time specific) outcomes for the Task Force (see Attachment 9, Work Group final reports). Work groups, during their deliberations, used a modified logic model to assist with the development their specific issues, recommendations, action steps and outcomes. A basic logic model is a general framework that can be used for describing activities and processes in an organization. A logic model analyzes activities and processes into four categories: inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes. These represent the logical flow from: INPUTS (RESOURCES) --> ACTIVITIES/PROCESSES --> OUTPUTS --> OUTCOMES

As used in this context, outcomes are observable or measurable changes resulting from the activities or processes required by the recommendations and their action steps. The work groups often developed unique and effective approaches. For example, the work groups first identified cross-cutting issues, e.g., issues that were present and in need of adjustment in each of the service delivery areas under review. The work groups held 35 meetings over a period of five months (August through December 2008), in order to fulfill their charge.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 149

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

The Steering Committee functioned as an executive committee and provided guidance to the staff and work groups between Task Force meetings. The Youth Group Committee was composed of young adults (under 22 years of age) and their adult handlers. The comments from this committee represented a unique perspective on issues relating to the child welfare system from within that system. The Synthesis Committee was formed late in the process to assist in the coordination and synthesis of information from the work groups. In addition, the committee was charged with ensuring that the recommendations and outcomes conformed to the standards set by the Task Force. The deliberative process of the Task Force and work groups, as it relates to final work products, was consistently based upon simple majority group consensus with considerable effort to include all viable perspectives in the final resolution of the issue, i.e., recommendations and issue priority. The general process for the Task Force and its work groups was both direct and efficient. The Task Force developed and disseminated information, provided direction for the other committees, and worked toward Task Force consensus. The work groups carried out in-depth analysis of issues and developed recommendations, including measurable action steps and outcomes to correct the issues. Findings The following findings are based upon the research questions and the methodologies used. In general, the Task Force structured and implemented processes that functioned to produce their stated goals and required work products. Task Force findings „ „ „ „

The Task Force achieved a diversity of membership representing a broad opinion base. The Task Force structure enhanced the achievement of Task Force charge goals. The Task Force process used mid-course adjustments to enhance its ability to meet its goals. A majority of members considered the Task Force process useful.

Work group findings „ The Work group structure and process were successful in enhancing the achievement of Task Force charge goals. „ The work groups used modified logic models for the development of recommendations and outcomes. „ The work group process was considered useful and productive to a large majority of members.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 150

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Work products findings The final work products of the Task Force satisfied the requirements of the charge document: „ Developed recommendations that included action steps, specific outcomes, and global systemic changes. „ Developed an implementation plan, which included high-yield actions for the achievement of the necessary outcomes. In conclusion, the Michigan Child Welfare Improvement Task Force as commissioned by Department Human Services Director Ismael Ahmed completed and satisfied all tasks and work products as defined in the Charge document.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 151

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Appendix C: Attachment 1 Evaluation Plan and Data Collection Matrix Evaluations

Formative Evaluation

Factor to Evaluate

Task Force and Work Group processes

Questions to Address

Method(s)

Has the Task Force Charge been communicated to the Task Force?

•

Has the comprehensive description of the process for the Task Force been designed? Has the comprehensive description of the process for the Work Group been designed? Has the comprehensive description of the process been communicated to the Task Force? Has the comprehensive

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Collection Timeframe

Measure of Success

Analysis of charge  documentation  Analysis of Task Force  communications  regarding charge   

Review completed  prior to Task Force  formation 

•

Identification of  Task Force Charge   

•

Design a  comprehensive  description of the  process for the Task  Force.   

Completed prior to  Task Force  formation 

•

•

Design a  comprehensive  description of the  process for the Work  Group.   

•

•

Communicate the  comprehensive  description document 

•

Completion of  document that  includes a detailed  description of Task  Force process,  deliverables and  activities  Completion of  document that  includes a detailed  description of Work  Group process,  deliverables and  activities  Communication of  documents to Task  Force and Work 

•

Page 152

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

to the Task Force.   

description of the process been communicated to the Work Group?

•

Communicate the  comprehensive  description document  to the Work Group. 

•

Initial Task Force  survey   

Group 

 

Do the Task Force members represent a diversity of background about the Child Welfare System?

Initial Survey ‐‐ Completed prior to  2nd  Task Force  meeting 

•

Responses that  represent a  diversity of  background with  the Child Welfare  System    

•

High level of  positive response  to achievement of  Work Force goals  and process  Low level of  negative response  to Task Force and  Work Group  decisions  Low level of major  disagreements with  majority decisions  

 

Do the Task Force members perceive that the meeting goals are being achieved?

• •

After Meeting survey  Participant  Observation 

Do the Work Groups members perceive that the meeting goals are being achieved?

•

•

Are the Task Force meetings designed and managed so that members are comfortable with the meeting process?

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

After Meeting  Survey  administered after  each Task Force  and Work Group  meeting:  On‐going  task 

Page 153

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Evaluations

Factor to Evaluate

Continued

Are the Work Group meetings designed and managed so that members are comfortable with the meeting process? Questions to Address

Are the Work Groups  following the meeting  protocols? 

Method(s)

• • • • • • •

Summative Evaluation

Task Force Did the Task Force work produce their required product work products? achievement

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

• • •

Collection Timeframe

Measure of Success

Participant  Observation  Confirm meeting  occurrence and  member attendance.  Review meeting  minutes   Review  summary  work documents  Review archival  documents    Evaluate compliance  with Work Group  Scope documents, etc.   Review Work Group  products 

On‐going tasks.   Analysis will  terminate when  Work Group  meetings are  completed. 

•

High level of  compliance with  Protocols 

Participant   Observation  Analysis of meeting  archival data  Review  Task Force   final report‐outs  concerning issues, 

Evaluation will initiate upon completion of Task Force activities

•

Compliance with Charge Document requirements

Page 154

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

desired outcomes,  action steps, and  outcomes  •

•

Work Did the Work Groups Groups produce their required work work products? product achievement

• • • •

•

•

Final Evaluation Report

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

• •

Identify supporting   resource document s  for final  recommendations   Verify final work  products  Participant   Observation  Survey data  Analysis of meeting  archival data  Review  Work Group   final report‐outs  concerning issues,  desired out comes,  action steps, and  outcomes  Identify supporting   resource document s  for final  recommendations   Verify final work  products  Summarize  and  analyze final data    Draft evaluation  section of final report 

Page 155

Evaluation will initiate upon completion of Work Groups activities

•

Development of recommendations that support the development of work products by the Task Force that comply with Charge Document requirements

Completed at final draft of Task Report

•

Completed Final Report Document

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Appendix C: Attachment 2 Task Force Charge www.michigan.gov (To Print: use your browser's print function) Task Force Charge The Michigan Child Welfare Improvement Task Force (MCWITF) is established to provide recommendations to the director of the Michigan Department of Human Services about the essential outcomes necessary to determine the efficacy of Michigan's child welfare services in the development and transition of children at-risk of, or receiving, child welfare services. The scope of the Task Force will include developing measurable outcomes for the full continuum of state-supported services for children and their families. This includes: • Community-based and child protective services for families. • Temporary placements such as shelter and detention. • Foster care, relative and other court-ordered home-based placements. • Residential care. • Adoption. • Independent living and youth transitional services. Building upon the recent work of the advisory committees and Task Forces noted previously, the MCWITF will: • Examine the DHS Child Welfare Philosophy: o To provide advice concerning its clarity and sufficiency for system-wide direction. o To develop and recommend guiding principles to determine the type and choice of services provided to children and their families. • Review and assess the implications of current federal and state standards in developing state child welfare system outcomes. • Develop and recommend clear, achievable and measurable performance and process outcomes for the comprehensive state child welfare system and for each sub-system (prevention, community-based family services, out-of-home family-based care, adoption, residential care, independent living and transitional services). • Recommend the essential high yield actions that state government should take to address the program and process outcomes. The MCWITF will include representation from youth, families, state legislative and executive policy makers, child welfare and health professionals, public and private service providers and advocates, as well as members of the other Task Forces on overrepresentation, children's justice, youth in transition and the youth opportunities initiative. The MCWITF will meet monthly, may appoint work groups (which may meet more than monthly) and issue a report to the Director of the Department of Human Services in March 2009. Copyright © 2009 State of Michigan

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 156

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Appendix C: Attachment 3 Task Force Survey

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 157

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 158

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 159

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Appendix C: Attachment 4 Task Force Meeting Evaluation Survey

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 160

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Appendix C: Attachment 5 Work Group Meeting Evaluation Survey

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 161

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Appendix C: Attachment 6 Initial Child Welfare System Survey Attachment 6

Summary Initial Child Welfare System Survey

Question 1 Question 2

Question 3

Response %

Number of Responses

Total # of Responses

Previous involvement on Task Force Yes

55.32%

26

47

Involvement with CWS Highest Advocate 2nd Highest Administrator 3rd Highest Case Worker

51.06% 46.81% 25.53%

24 22 12

47 47 47

Level of Knowledge Child Protective services Moderate Temporary placements, such as shelter and detention Moderate Community-based services High Degree Foster Care, relative and other Court-ordered homebased placements Moderate Adoption Some Independent living and youth transitional services Moderate Juvenile Justice Community Services Some Residential High Degree

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

25 22 20

20 19 18 17 16

Page 162

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Juvenile Justice out-ofhome/residential

Some

15

Highest number of responses Question 4

Effectiveness of CWS

Ensure the physical safety of children in foster and residential care Place children and youth with their existing family members whenever it is in their best interest. Create recommendations for the Child Welfare system that will assist in the placement of children in the Foster Care and court ordered care and Juvenile Justice in settings that are culturally appropriate. Assure that siblings will remain together when placed in Foster Care. Provide individualized community based services for families at risk for abuse/neglect -

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Moderately Effective

Moderately Effective

Moderately Effective Moderately Effective Moderately Effective

25

Provide tailored transitional services, such as and education, health care, jobs, financial services and mentors, for youth who are aging out of either the Foster Care or Juvenile Justice System Provide homeless and runaway youth with adequate services to safely and successfully transition back home, to Foster Care or to independent living

21

Mentor youth at risk to assist in the prevention of Juvenile Justice intervention

Not Very Effective

22

19

Assure that youth and their families have significant voice in placement and permanency decisions.

Not Very Effective

22

18

Assure that out-of-home placements are nurturing and stable.

Not Very Effective

20

Assure that case workers are adequately trained and have manageable caseloads.

Not Very Effective

20

25

Page 163

Not Very Effective

25

Not Very Effective

23

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Question 5

Provide adequate levels of community based services and supervision for delinquent children and youth at risk.

Not Very Effective

18

Provide individualized community based services for families at risk for abuse/neglect

Not Very Effective

18

Most Important Function of CWS Ensure the physical safety of children in foster and residential care Assure that case workers are adequately trained and have manageable caseloads. Assure that out-of-home placements are nurturing and stable. Provide individualized community based services for families at risk for abuse/neglect Provide tailored transitional services, such as and education, health care, jobs, financial services and mentors, for youth who are aging out of either the Foster Care or Juvenile Justice System Provide adequate levels of community based services and supervision for delinquent children and youth at risk.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

37

30

26

23

23

21

Page 164

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

total number of responses per column

Most Important Goal of the Task Force Question 6

Rank Require increased accountability for Child Welfare outcomes to youth, families, policy makers and the public. Develop a State Child Welfare strategy that reflects and builds upon the strengths of existing public and private providers. Stimulate a clearer understanding by the state officials and policy makers of child welfare goals and values. Develop clear expectations an increased support from Child Welfare services, including caseload reduction. Educate decision makers on the need for support for community based services for the families of children at risk of abuse and neglect. Increase support for youth aging out of Child Welfare/Juvenile Justice systems. Communicate the need to decision makers for regulatory, financial support and services for family based services and relative placement. Educate decision makers on the need for support for community based services for delinquent youth. Develop a strategy for siblings to remain together in the system and communicate a clear commitment to this end to decision makers. Strengthen the Child Welfare Service continuum to strategically address the needs of homeless and runaway youth

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

1

2

3

4

5

13

4

3

9

5

10

0

7

8

6

8

6

5

8

3

8

0

4

7

3

8

0

6

5

7

6

0

5

5

8

6

0

7

4

12

5

0

2

5

2

5

0

4

5

3

3

2

3

4

3

Page 165

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Appendix C: Attachment 7 Post Meeting Task Force Survey Questions

Responses

% Strongly Disagree

1. I was clear on the goals of the WG/TF meeting?

November October September August July

5.0 0 7.0 8.3 7.3

5.0 0 4.4 0 2.4

2.5 9.0 4.4 12.5 12.2

36.6 30.0 27.0 41.6 24.4

51.0 61.0 58.0 37.5 53.6

41 33 45 48 41

2. The process used in this meeting was favorable to achieving the meeting’s goals?

November October September August July

2.3 0 7.0 8.3 5.0

2.3 9.4 4.4 8.3 0

14.6 9.4 2.2 18.8 7.5

26.8 47.0 38.0 39.6 35.0

43.9 34.4 49.0 25.0 52.5

41 32 45 48 40

3. The overall objectives of this WG/TF meeting were accomplished?

November October September August July

5.0 0 0 6.4 4.9

5.0 6.1 4.4 4.1 0

24.3 21.3 15.5 31.3 17.1

24.3 48.5 42.2 33.3 36.6

41.5 24.3 38.0 25.0 41.5

41 33 45 48 41

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

% Slightly Disagree

Page 134

% Uncertain

% Slightly Agree

% Strongly Agree

Total Number of Responses

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Appendix C: Attachment 8 Work Group and Committee Meeting Dates, Time and Locations Prevention, Community Services & Treatment – Diana Sieger and Alice Thompson • • • • •

Thursday, August 21 Friday, September 5 Tuesday, September 16 Thursday, October 2 Thursday, October 16

10:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m.

DHS Training Center, Lansing DHS Training Center, Lansing DHS Training Center, Lansing

Foster Care and Court Ordered Placements – Joan Jackson-Johnson and Sylvia Murray • • • • • • •

Wednesday, August 27 Friday, September 5 Tuesday, September 9 Wednesday, September 17 Thursday, October 2 Wednesday, October 8 Thursday, October 16

10:00 – 1:00 p.m. 10:00 – 1:00 p.m. 10:00 – 1:00 p.m. 10:00 – 1:00 p.m. 10:00 – 1:00 p.m. 10:00 – 1:00 p.m. 10:00 – 1:00 p.m.

Foster Comm. Center, Lansing UAW Local 6000, Lansing UAW Local 6000, Lansing UAW Local 6000, Lansing UAW Local 6000, Lansing UAW Local 6000, Lansing UAW Local 6000, Lansing

Adoption and Permanency- James Novell and Addie Williams • • •

Thursday, September 11 Wednesday, September 17 Monday, November 10

10:00 – 4:30 p.m. 10:00 – 4:30 p.m. 1:30 – 4:00 p.m.

Hall of Justice, Lansing DHS Training Center, Lansing Spaulding for Children

Detention, Residential Care and Treatment – Sue Hamilton-Smith and Michael Williams • • • • • • •

Friday, August 15 Thursday, August 28 Friday, September 12 Monday, October 6 Thursday, October 9 Wednesday, November 5 Wednesday, December 12

10:30 a.m. 1:00 – 3:00 p.m. 10:00 – 12:00 a.m. 2:00 – 3:30 p.m.

Conference Call Conference Call Children and Family Services, Detroit Children and Family Services, Detroit

Transitional Support – Amy Good and Jonnie Hill • • •

Wednesday, August 27 Monday, September 8 Friday, October 31

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

10:00 – 4:30 p.m. 10:00 – 4:30 p.m.

Page 135

DHS Training Center, Lansing DHS Training Center, Lansing

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Funding – Senator Bill Hardiman and Representative Dudley Spade • • • • • •

Wednesday, August 27 Wednesday, September 10 Thursday, September 15 Thursday, October 16 Thursday, December 12 Thursday, December 18

8:30 – 10:00 a.m. 12:30 – 3:00 p.m. 10:00 – 12:00 p.m.

State Capitol, Room 161, Lansing State Capitol, Room 161, Lansing State Capitol, Room 161, Lansing

Communication Committee – Jack Kresnak and Margaret King Ahmed • • • •

Monday, September 17 Monday, December 1 Monday, December 8 Friday, December 19

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

4:00 – 5:00 p.m.

Page 136

Cadillac Place, Detroit

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Appendix C: Attachment 9 Work Group Survey Analysis Responses

Questions 

Strongly  Disagree 

Slightly  Disagree 

Uncertain 

Slightly  Agree 

Strongly  Agree 

Total Number of  Responses 

1. I was clear on the goals of this Work Group meeting? 

8.6% 

2.9% 

3.8% 

23.1% 

61.5% 

104 

1.96% 

0% 

4.0% 

32.7% 

61.3% 

101 

.97% 

5.9% 

3.9% 

36.0% 

53.4% 

103 

2. The process used in this meeting was favorable to achieving the meetings goals.  3. The overall objectives of this Work Group meeting were accomplished? 

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 137

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Appendix D Steering Team responsibilities ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Integrated the systemic cross-cutting issues that the Task Force identified. Reviewed and incorporated previous state Task Force and committee recommendations, federal and state mandates, and the child welfare values that the Task Force adopted. Identified promising practices in other states. Identified and recommended system supports, including program performance data requirements and recruitment, training, and retention of professional and executive staff. Identified and recommended relationships with education, mental health, substance abuse, and health systems. Identified interlocking issues and recommended priority actions to strengthen child welfare systemic outcomes in state licensing and regulatory policy; federal, state, and local categorical funding streams; and policies and practices in other state child welfare programs. Recommended measurable and clear outcomes (process, program interventions, and community) on its designated program area. Recommended high-yield policy and practice actions to trigger implementation of recommended outcomes.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 138

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Appendix E Bibliography of Reports Reviewed by Task Force “Adoption Facts.” Michigan Department of Human Services (2009). Adoption Oversight Committee. AOC Annual Report. Lansing, 2007. Ahmed, Ismael. Director, Department of Human Services. Speech given at Michigan Child Welfare Improvement Task Force meeting. Youthville, Detroit, MI, 17 Nov. 2008. Annie E. Casey Foundation. 2008 Kids Count Data Book. Baltimore, MD, 2008. Center for the Study of Social Policy. Racial Equity Review: Finding from a QualitativeAnalysis of Racial Disproportionality and Disparity for African American Children and Families in Michigan’s Child Welfare System. Washington DC, 2009. Children’s Defense Fund. Children in Michigan: Fact Sheet. Washington, D.C., November 2008. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. Final Report; Michigan Child and Family Services Review. Washington, DC, 2002. Department of Heath and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. Child Maltreatment 2006. Washington, DC, 2006. Dwayne v. Granholm. No. 2:06-cv-13548. Consent Decree. 24 October 2008. “Foster Care Fact Sheet.” Michigan Department of Human Services (December 2008). <www.Michigan.gov/doc/DHS-FosterCare-factsheet-131252-7pdf> Geen, R. The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoption Act:Implementation Issue and a Look Ahead at Additional Child Welfare Reforms. Washington DC: Child Trends, 2009. (working paper) Gilbert, Terri. DHS Children’s Services Update. Child Welfare Improvement Task Force meeting (January 26, 2009). Interdepartmental Task Force on Service to At-Risk Youth Transitioning to Adulthood. Report to the Legislature. Lansing, MI, 2006.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 139

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Ismael Ahmed. Michigan Child Protective Services 2007 Trends Summary Report. Lansing, 2008. Michigan Advisory Committee on the Overrepresentation of Children of Color in Child Welfare. Equity: Moving Toward Better Outcomes for All of Michigan’s Children. Lansing, MI, 2006. Michigan Child Death Review. Michigan Citizen Review Panels. Annual Report. Lansing, MI, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007. Michigan Committee on Juvenile Justice. 2003-2005 Report. Lansing, MI, 2006. Michigan Compiled Laws § 436.1409 (2008). Michigan Department of Human Services. AFCARS Adoption Reporting System. “State Ward Finalized Adoptions by Age Group,” report run March 2009. “Michigan’s January Jobless Rate Up Sharply.” Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth (2009). “Michigan Labor Market Information.” <www.milmi.org/?PAGEID=67&SUBID=200> Michigan Mental Health Commission. Final Report. Lansing, MI, 2004. Michigan Office of Juvenile Justice Services. Michigan Comprehensive Plan forJuvenile Justice Services. Lansing, MI, 1977. Novell, Jim and Carol Kraklan. Federal Child and Family Services Review. Child Welfare Improvement Task Force meeting (August 18, 2008). Office of Children’s Ombudsman. Simon, Sandy. “Re: Juvenile Life Sentence Data.” Statistics on Michigan inmates serving life sentences for crimes committed while under age 18. 25 March 2009. State Court Administrative Office. Michigan Supreme Court. Michigan Foster Care Review Board 2007 Annual Report. Lansing, 2007 State Court Administrative Office. Michigan Supreme Court. Michigan Foster Care Review Board 2006 Annual Report. Lansing, 2006.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 140

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Various participants. Speeches given at Native American Focus Group. DHS TrainingFacility, Gaylord, MI, 11 Feb. 2009. VOICE: discussing issues and concerns of Michigan’s foster youth (2005). VOICE 2: discussing issues and concerns of Michigan foster youth (2007).

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 141

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Appendix F Task Force Work Group and Committee Membership Prevention, Community Services & Treatment Work Group Diana Sieger, Co-Chair Alice Thompson, Co-Chair Jim Hennessey, Staff Judge Laura L. Baird** Montrelle Baldwin** Quientae Baker Lulu Beauchamp** Grenae' Dudley** Mike Flanagan Ted Forrest** Shirley Gray Ricardo Guzman Margaret King-Ahmed Sandra Lindsey Bill Memberto Dorothy Pintar JoAnne Racette** Mark Reinstein** Janet Reynolds Snyder** Osvaldo Riveria** Shannon Stotenburg-Wing** Stacey Tadgerson** John Tropman Annemarie Valdez Matthew Van Zetten** Evert Vermeer** Jane Zehnder-Merrell** Andy Zylstra

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Foster Care and Court Ordered Placements Work Group Joan Jackson Johnson, Co-Chair Sylvia Murray Co-Chair Damon Daniels and Jim Hines, Staff Gary Anderson Rep Brenda Clack Mary Chaliman** Marvis Cofield James Haveman James Henry Stephanie Hirchert-Walton** Jennifer Hopp Alan Kilar John Konke Judge Thomas J. LaCross** Chuck Ludwig** Kristin Putney** Verlie Ruffin Bill Schramm Peter J. Schummer, Jr. Shawn Semelsburger Carol Siemon Denneen Smith** Debra Porchia-Usher Frank Vandervort Melissa VanLuven** Steve Vagnozzi** Marcella Wilson** Maureen Winslow** Gorgeous Young

Page 142

Adoption & Permanency Work Group James Novell, Co-Chair Addie Williams, Co-Chair Paul Elam and Anita Peters, Staff Judge Susan Dobrich Richard Garcia** Carol Goss Kate Hanley** Ashley Harris Faye Harrison** Senator Mark C. Jansen Jane R. Johnson Susan Kelly Jami Moran** Jean Nieman** Dinia Nobles Kathryne O'Grady Jenifer Pettibone** Leslie Kim Smith** Tabitha Stauffer Christina Vadino

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Detention, Residential Care and Treatment Work Group Sue Hamilton-Smith, Co-Chair Michael Williams, Co-Chair Charles Corley, Staff

Transitional Support Work Group Amy Good, Co-Chair Jonnie Hill, Co-Chair Damon Daniels and Anita Peters, Staff

Funding Work Group Senator Bill Hardiman, Co-Chair Representative Dudley Spade, Co-Chair Jim Hennessey, Staff

Ahmed Patricia L. Captain Katherine Judge Charlene John Jerri Harold Judge Judy Jeriel Robert Jack Barbara Susan Robert Martin Vondie Robyn Angela Pamela Carl Margaret Robert

Beth Sherie Greg Sheryl Rob Angelique Grenae' Kate Senator Gilda Ashley Noble Mistie Mashelle Shannyn Jen Cory Janet Mark Rosemary John Gerald K. Sheryl Melissa Phyllis Kiefert Michelle

C. Patrick Kelly Sharon Justice Maura D. John Terri Michael Rob Cameron Susan Kathleen Christine Mary Anita David Representative Rick Gary

Alamman** Caruso Clausell** Elder Evans** Fisher** Gazan Hartsfield** Heard Heimbuch** Kresnak MacKenzie** McParland** Miles Mitchell Moore Woodbury Price Reyes** Smith** Taylor Warner Wollack

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Arnovits Bailey** Boyd** Calloway Collier Day** Dudley** Hanley** Jacobs Jones Kheder Klingelsmith Lawson** Lee Leedy Morgan Olszewski Reinstein** Sarri** Seita Smith Thompson Toppolewski** Vroom Watson Williams

Page 143

Babcock Bartlett** Claytor Peters Corrigan Evans** Gilbert** Head** Hilla Hosner Martin** McKee** McPherson** Mehren** Peters** Sanders Shaffer Tester

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force

Steering Committee Carol Goss, Co-Chair C. Patrick Babcock, Co-Chair Public Policy Associates, Staff Gary Anderson Chris Andrews** Charles Corley** Lisa Cylar-Miller** Beverly Davenport** Paul Elam** John Evans** Terri Gilbert** Amy Good Carol Goss Sue Hamilton-Smith Senator Bill Hardiman Jim Hennessey** Jonnie Hill Jim Hines** Joan Jackson-Johnson Jack Kresnak Sylvia Murray James Novell Anita Peters** Rick Robinsion** Elysia Rodriguez** Diana Sieger Rep. Dudley Spade Carol Spigner** Alice Thompson Willard Walker** Addie Williams Michael Williams

Synthesis Committee Carol Goss, Co-Chair C. Patrick Babcock, Co-Chair Public Policy Associates, Staff Beth Arnovitz Montrelle Baldwin** Kelly Bartlett** Sheryl Calloway Sharon Claytor Peters Lisa Cylar-Miller** Paul Elam** Sherie Falvey** Dan Fitzpatrick** Harold Gazan Michael Head Jim Hennessey** Cameron Hosner Susan Kelly Alan Kilar John Konke James Novell Anita Peters** Debra Porchia-Usher Elysia Rodriguez** David Sanders Jeanette Scroggins** Carol Spigner** Willard Walker** Kiefert Watson Jane Zehnder-Merrell**

Communications Committee Margaret King Ahmed, Co-Chair Jack Kresnak, Co-Chair Chris Andrews, Staff Gail Bagale** Gisgie Gendreau** John Konke Michael Layne** Susan Martin** Kiefert Watson

** Not a member of the Task Force.

Director Ismael Ahmed Improving Child Welfare in Michigan

Page 144

April 2009 Child Welfare Improvement Task Force