Implementing Family Team Conferencing into a System …centerforchildwelfare.fmhi.usf.edu/Training/2015cpsummit/Session D... · Implementing Family Team Conferencing into a System

Implementing Family Team Conferencing

into a System of Care:

Lessons Learned from a Federal GrantRobin Perry, Ph.D.

Toni Spoliansky, B.A.

2015 Florida Child Protection Summit

Orlando, Florida

Friday, September 11This project was funded through the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for

Children and Families, Children's Bureau, Grant # 90CF0021.

Introductions and

Presentation Objectives

• Presentation objectives– To provide contextual information about Partnership for Strong Families (PSF) and the

awarded federally-funded Family Connections Grant [Family Team Conferencing (FTC)

study]

– To provide an overview of the efforts, processes, protocols, and lessons learned that

contributed to the development of effective working collaborations as part of this FTC study

– To share strategies for effective working collaborations within:

• Model fidelity

• Family involvement and experience with each FTC model

• Organization culture and climate

• Evaluation and outcomes

– To discuss outcome findings and recommendations for FTC practices in Florida

– Partnership for Strong Families- Current FTC practice

Context: Privatization Milestones

1996: Pilot Legislation

1997: 1st CBC-YMCA Children, Youth & Family Services

1999: Statute Mandates Statewide Implementation

Statewide Roll-Out Schedule

Service Contracts for Community-Based Care Organizations by year:

2000 – 2 Contracts





Statewide completion of CBC complete in April 2005

Currently 20 Lead Agencies with Services Contracts

Catchment Area

Partnerships with Community Organizations

• Formal relationships consist of: Sub-recipient

Contracts, Vendor Contracts, Rate Letters

and MOUs

• Primary FTC Collaborations:

– Department of Children and Families

– Case Management Agencies

– Children’s Legal Services

– Guardian ad Litem

– Substance Abuse and Mental Health offices

– Service Providers and Consultants

Pre-Grant Context

• In 2007, Casey Family Programs partners with Florida to explore how to

safely reduce the number of children in care by 50% by 2020.

• In 2008, DCF and PSF staff in C3 and C8 (with technical assistance and

funding provided by Casey Family Programs) began a major system change

initiative called the “Foster Care Redesign” (Redesign).

• The Redesign initially focused: 1) on co-locating PSF staff with Child

Protective Investigator (CPI) staff to improve communication and

coordination; 2) new staff hires to access services for cases diverted from the

formal child welfare system, as well as in-home supervision and shelter cases;

3) new staff hires to coordinate multi-disciplinary decision team staffings to

ensure that a team of professionals was working together to help ensure that

all children who remained in their homes were safe and that those who were

removed were placed with relatives, if possible.

Pre-Grant Context

• While professional team decisions were becoming the norm for

many cases (especially high-risk), an internal examination of

practices suggested: 1) that the family had limited, if any,

involvement in decision making, case planning or ongoing

service provision; 2) re-referral rates in PSF’s service area were

higher than the state average; 3) families were being required to

complete an array of services that were often overwhelming; and

4) non-compliance with case plans was very high.

• Subsequently practice model changes Family Team

Conferencing, Solution Based Casework and Permanency

Roundtables introduced.

FTCs as a Pillar of Service

Partnership for Strong Families’ Pillars of Service include:

• Resource Centers– A hallmark of PSF's system of care is our belief that child

abuse is preventable. We have found that by providing resources and supports to

families in need on the front end, many can avoid reaching the crises that lead to

formal child welfare involvement. Not only is this best for the children, it is a

more cost-effective use of resources.

• The Permanency Roundtable – This program provides support to the

caseworker while taking an in-depth look at helping achieve permanency for

every child in out-of-home care, particularly teenagers who have had a difficult

time obtaining permanent placement solutions.

• Family Team Conferencing – This and other services help reinforce family

values, resolve conflicts, improve communication and provide parents tools to

cope with daily challenges.

Family Connections Grant

• Awarded to Partnership for Strong Families on September 28, 2009

• Grant awarded by the Administration of Children and Families/Children’s

Bureau

• Grant Award = $1.8 million over 3 year period (completed fall 2012)

• Purpose: Demonstration project designed to evaluate Family Team

Conferencing elements leading to a nationwide model

• Six new full-time positions created to facilitate and coordinate Family

Team Conferences

• Population includes In-home Supervision and Shelter Cases

• Each of the three research models include special attention and processes

for cases involving serious domestic violence, substance abuse and/or

mental health issues

Research Model Pathways

FTC as Usual

• Case worker plans and facilitates FTC

• Modeled after pre-grant process

FTC- New

• Grant staff plan and facilitate FTC

• Case worker participates as co-facilitator

• Service providers and family supports encouraged to attend

FTC- New + Family Alone Time

• Same process as FTC- new

• Additional time given where family is able to meet alone, without professionals, to develop their own service and safety plan

FTC Models

The key components of the proposed experimental FTC models are aligned with

the components of FGDM and other types of family meetings that have shown

the most promise or some evidence of success in specific jurisdictions. The key

components include:

• A non-case carrying facilitator who will facilitate each FTC

• The family will be prepared for the FTC

• The extended family and support system will be involved in the FTC

• Key service providers who can meet the family's needs will be involved in the FTC and

provide expedited services

• The family will have alone time to develop their own case plan

• A support person will prepare the victim and attend the FTC when there is domestic

violence involved

• Follow-up FTCs will be conducted at critical junctures throughout the life of each case

Overview of Topic Areas

• Model fidelity– Intake/assignment process

– Adherence to model timelines

– Comparison group FTCs

– Training all staff levels

• Family Involvement – Family alone time

– Empowering families and their

supports to drive the conference

– Parent’s legal counsel

• Org. culture and climate– Leadership support

– Case manager adjustment

– FTC drives case plans

– Tracking systems

• Evaluation and outcome

findings– Principle questions

– Select process evaluation findings

– Select outcome evaluation findings

Model Fidelity

Barrier

• Difficulty with staff following

intake process appropriately

– Intake notifications not sent timely

– Late notification of case initiation

• Ability to complete initial FTCs

within proposed timeframe

– Overwhelming schedules

– Initiating contact with families

– Family schedules

• Comparison group FTCs

– Administering informed consent

– Collecting research material

Solution

• Constant follow-up and reminders

to leadership, supervisory and front

line staff

• Implementation of new scheduling

process

– Helped with timeliness

– Impact: More FTCs without case

manager presence

• Offering of support

– Shadowing and case consultation

– Helpful hints tool and example packet

Model Fidelity

• There were no major modifications to the FTC models

made during project implementation.

• However, one major change to the system as a whole

that had implications for the project was the start of

Solutions Based Casework (SBC).

• Since that time, Florida has introduced a new practice

model-Safety Decision Making Methodology which

incorporates family centered practice and focuses on

standardizing the information collection process and

improving quality and consistency for decision making.

Family Involvement

Barrier

• Families not taking advantage of

Family Alone Time

• Professionals, rather than family,

driving the FTC

– Families are withdrawn, quiet during

FTC

– Professionals come to FTC with own

agenda

– Difficulty getting informal (family

supports) to the FTC

• Opposition from client legal

counsel

– Concern clients will agree to

inappropriate services

Solution

• Addressing/explaining Family

Alone Time at onset of FTC

• Participation of family’s support

system makes big difference

– Best practice to have more family

supports than professionals around the

table

– FTC Coordinators research case to

determine which informal supports

would be appropriate to participate

• Inclusion of defense attorneys

– Invitations to FTC, where appropriate

– Processes implemented in response to

some attorneys reluctance to allow

clients participation in FTCs

Organizational Culture and Climate

• Leadership support

– Executive leadership buy in

– Leading by example

• Case Manager adjustment

– Professional case manager

approach to family centered

approach

– Scheduling/ FTC champions

– Permanency staffing timelines

– Frequency and length of FTCs

• FTC drives Case Plans

– Family now has a say in

services

– Build on strengths to address

needs

• Tracking systems

– Implemented and improved

tracking systems

– Process streamlined across

service sites

– P-Kids

Evaluation

Principal Main Process Evaluation Questions:

• Was the FTC model implemented with fidelity?

• To what extent were linkages made between

community partners?

• To what extent were family members involved

in the FTC process; did families have a real

voice in the process?

Evaluation

Principal Main Process Evaluation Questions:

• What was the role of the Family Service

Facilitator (FSF), Family Team Conference

Coordinator and primary caseworker/Family

Care Counselor in the FTC?

• Did the availability (or lack thereof) of

community resources impact the FTC process?

Evaluation

Principal Outcome Evaluation Questions:

• To what extent did each FTC model impact

removal or re-entry into foster care for In-Home

Supervision cases?

• To what extent did each FTC model meet the

needs of children and parents/caregivers?

• Did the FTC model affect the rates of

reunification, guardianship and permanent

placement with relatives?

Evaluation

Principal Outcome Evaluation Questions:

• Does immediate engagement with families and

engagement throughout the life of the case lead

to desired outcomes for children and families?

• Does utilizing a separate entity to exclusively

provide FTCs impact child and family

outcomes?

• Does a skilled approach (using specially trained

staff) to connecting families to services impact

child and family outcomes?

Evaluation

Study Participants and Primary Data Sources/Tools

Families/children (in conjunction with each FTC):

• Goal Attainment Scale (GAS)

• Protective Factors Survey (PFS)

• Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)

• Questionnaire for Family Members and Professionals

(QFMP)

• Focus groups and interviews

• Independent observation of randomly selected FTCs

Evaluation

Study Participants and Primary Data Sources/Tools

Family supports*:

• Questionnaire for Family Members and Professionals (QFMP)

*Family supports are other family members, friends or family advocates who are invited by the

family to participate in the FTC.

Professionals:• Questionnaire for Family Members and Professionals (QFMP)

• Key informant interviews of randomly selected Family Care Counselors and FTC Facilitators

• Independent observations of FTCs in all pathways

• Focus groups with community partners/professionals

• Survey of community partners/professionals

Evaluation

Secondary Data Sources

• Florida Department of Children and Families’

Florida Safe Families Network (FSFN), the

SACWSIS system for Florida

• Partnership for Strong Families’ P-Kids Data

System (service utilization and case monitoring

database)

Population and Sample Info.

• A total of 1,894 FTCs (across all Pathways) were conducted with 1,156 unique

cases/families.

• Of these cases/families, 623 agreed to participate in the formal evaluation.

• With the 623 family participants, 1,252 FTCs were conducted.

47.20%

21.60%

12.60%

7.80%

10.80%

Initial Month 4 Month 7 Month 10 Other

Population and Sample Info.

141

266 270

42.50%

63.90% 66.00%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Pathway 3

Par

tici

pat

ion

Rat

e

Num

ber

of

par

tici

pan

ts

DemographicsThe demographic characteristics of the families served were as expected. Overall, there

were no statistically significant differences in these characteristics across the Pathways.

Examples:

Gender of Parent Participants

Ethnicity of Parent Participants

Pathway 1 Pathway 2

F: 68.9%M: 31.1%

Pathway 3

F: 72.2%M: 31.1%

F: 80%M: 20%

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00%

Pathway 3

Pathway 2

Pathway 1

Other Hispanic/Latino African American White

Demographics

Examples:

Age of Parent Participants

Pathway 1 (n=75), Mean Age = 31.53 (SD=8.13)



Relationship Status of Parent Participants

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% 50.00%

Pathway 3

Pathway 2

Pathway 1

Unable to Determine/Other Separated Unmarried Couple Single Male Married Couple Single Female

Substance Abuse and D.V. History

Referral history involving Domestic Violence

Pathway 1: 32.0% (n=24)

Pathway 2: 37.7% (n=86)

Pathway 3: 36.9% (n=89)

Referral history involving Substance Abuse

Pathway 1: 53.3% (n=40)

Pathway 2: 51.8% (n=118)

Pathway 3: 42.7% (n=103)

Process Evaluation: Service Referrals

Service

Service

Referrals Service

Service

Referrals

Biological Parents (Totals) n=1107 Biological Children (Totals) n=733

Mental Health 822 Mental Health 549

Domestic Violence 337 Domestic Violence 0

Substance Abuse 185 Substance Abuse 5

Parenting Classes 829 Parenting (includes children) Classes 605

Other 43 Other 35

Totals Service Referrals 2,216 Totals Service Referrals 1,194

A total 3,410 service referrals were provided to those participating in FTCs (across

Pathways) over the course of the study.

There were no statistically significant differences in the average number of services and

service units authorized and delivered for each service classification across the three

Pathways.

Process Evaluation: Service Costs

In total, $1,437,655.13 was spent on referred services for study participants across all three

Pathways.

There are no statistically significant differences in the average expenditures across service

categories for services delivered to cases across FTC Pathways. The greatest expenditures

(and number of cases receiving services) are for mental health services followed by

parenting classes and supports and substance abuse services.

The project cost data suggests that the costs of service are equal across all Pathways in

terms of average service costs (to the system) that result from case plans and service

recommendations. The amount, type and cost of service referrals did not change as a

result of a family’s participation in any FTC Pathway.

Process Evaluation: Service Costs

Average Costs for Services for Applicable Cases/Families Across FTC Pathways

Process Evaluation: QFMP

• A total of 1,202 QFMP surveys were completed by study participants

(associated with 422 study cases) following the completion of each FTC.

• Study participants agreed that FTCs across all three Pathways were

implemented with fidelity, participants were adequately prepared and the

family was clear on their role, the family members were active participants

and empowered, participants (including family members) were satisfied with

the process and the outcomes (especially related to case plans) were

appropriate, clear and in keeping with the goals and objectives of Family

Team Conferencing.

40.20%

44.40%

15.40% mothers

all other familymembers/supports

professionals

Process Evaluation: Independent Observations

• Occurred in the early implementation phase of the project

• The FTC Facilitators demonstrate high fidelity to the FTC models with respect to

facilitating the FTCs and engaging families in the decision-making process.

• Some families were not aware of the purpose and goals of the FTC. Also, few families

invited their supports to attend the FTC. There seemed to be inconsistent and at times

insufficient communication about the FTC purpose and goals. As a result of this

finding, the procedures for contacting families and providing more information to

better prepare families for the FTC was revamped.

• Some FCCs were uncertain about their role in the FTC. They were unaware of the

partnership between themselves and the FTC Facilitator in facilitating the FTC. As a

result of this finding, this partnership was emphasized in trainings with FCCs on the

FTC models and grant implementation.

Process Evaluation: Focus Groups

The parents in the focus group responded positively to FTCs, as did the service

providers from both Circuits, but identified glitches in how, when and by whom

FTCs are implemented suggest that a number of improvements could be made

(for example, processes that reinforce the invitation of family supports).

A larger-scale and longer-term area of improvement is the idea of “culture

change” that was raised in the focus groups. Despite promising features of the

FTC models that have been identified from various sources, there is the bigger

challenge of culture change (among FCCs and others to put into practice the

philosophy and approach of FTCs) that is necessary for FTCs to be successful

and sustainable. All in all, the information collected to provide insights into this

challenge suggested that culture change is attainable and that current practices

through FTCs and other means are evidence of culture change.

Process Evaluation: Community Partners Survey

• The Community Partners Survey results showed that service providers

support the FTC philosophy and approach; praise the FTC Facilitators for

their skilled facilitation; believe families are respected during the FTCs and

support greater flexibility in the timeframes for FTCs.

• These positively perceived features, however, were counter-balanced with

perceived challenges to implementation, impact and sustainability of Family

Team Conferencing from the perspective of survey respondents.

• The ambivalence of survey respondents about the impact of FTCs on their

own work and whether a cultural change has occurred to fully promote FTCs

across the entire system presented the need to modify the FTC program to

assure sustainability.

Outcome Evaluation: Protective Factors

• Protective Factors Survey were used to measure and monitor: Family

Functioning/ Resiliency, Social Emotional Support, Concrete Support, Child

Development/Knowledge of Parenting, Nurturing and Attachment.

• A total of 653 Protective Factors Surveys were completed over the course of

the study with 124 (19.0%), 246 (37.7%) and 283 (43.3%) of the sample

associated with Pathway 1, Pathway 2 and Pathway 3 (respectively).

• The vast majority (79.5% or n=519) of these were completed at the baseline

(i.e. Initial FTC) with no follow-up measure. The willingness of study

participants to complete this instrument at follow-up periods was low.

Outcome Evaluation: Protective Factors

• The panel of cases (for which there was a baseline and follow-up

measure[s]) included a total of only 10 Pathway 1 cases, 65

Pathway 2 cases and 59 Pathway 3 cases for which change in

Protective Factors could be measured over time. The very low

follow-up response rate (especially for Pathway 1) does not allow

valid comparisons across Pathways (especially between Pathway

1 with Pathway 2 or Pathway 3).

• For Pathway 2, the protective factor of family functioning

increased over time; for all other scales of the PFS, there were no

statistically significant changes over time. For Pathway 3, there

were no significant changes over time to any protective factor.

Outcome Evaluation: Reunification Rates

Reunification within 12 months of entry into care was also analyzed

using SACWIS Data. The reunification rate for Pathway 1 (58.8%)

was significantly higher than the rate observed for Pathway 3

(36.6%) but not Pathway 2 cases (50.3%). The reunification rate for

Pathway 2 cases did not differ significantly (column proportions

test with Bonferroni correction) from Pathway 1 or Pathway 3

cases.

58.80%50.30%

36.60%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%


Outcome Evaluation: Re-entry into Care Rates

The outcomes of permanency and stability were analyzed using secondary data

from the state SACWIS system. The results suggest that the re-entry rate for

Pathway 3 cases (30.4%) was significantly higher than the rate observed for

Pathway 2 (10.2%) cases but not necessarily for Pathway 1 cases (14.9%).

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%


Number of Placements

When the actual number of placements was examined,

there were no significant differences in the average

number (and variance) of placements of children from

Pathway 1 (Mean=1.56, SD=1.094, Range 1-9),

Pathway 2 (Mean=1.63, SD=.893, Range=1-5) and

Pathway 3 (Mean=1.57, SD=1.031, Range=1-8).

Outcome Evaluation: SDQ Results

The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire asks about 25

attributes, some positive and others negative that are divided

between 5 scales measuring:

1) emotional symptoms (5 items)

2) conduct problems (5 items)

3) hyperactivity/inattention (5 items)

4) peer relationship problems (5 items)

5) prosocial behavior (5 items)

The first four sub-scores are added together to generate a total

difficulties score.

Outcome Evaluation: SDQ Results

• A total of 1,103 Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaires were completed over the

course of the study. These apply to 617 individual children, who may have been rated

by one or more caregivers at any point in time. In total there were 503

unique/individual caregivers (within 293 unique study cases) that rated 617 unique

children for a total combination of 822 unique child and rater cases. The vast majority

of these ratings were associated with Initial FTCs. When follow-up data is considered,

there are 178 children with multiple measures over time.

• Using panels of cases for available baseline and follow-up scores on the Strengths and

Difficulties Questionnaire, Pathway 2 children were rated as having a significant

reduction in Hyperactivity. The average Total Difficulties scores for Pathway 2

children showed a significant reduction from an average score within the “abnormal”

range to an average score within the “borderline” range. With respect to Pathway 3

children, there was a statistically significant reduction (a positive trend) in the average

scores measuring Emotional Symptoms, Conduct Problems, Hyperactivity and Total

Difficulties.

Outcome Evaluation: G.A.S. Results

• Each family (as part of the FTC) developed their own Goal Attainment Scale (GAS) to gauge the

level to which specific service and personal goals were obtained.

• Although the goals are individualized, the level of progress over time is measured via the

standardization and comparison of scores.

• Among the 1,667 goals established for 644 separate Goal Attainment Scales with 423 separate

(non-duplicate) families (or 67.9% of all study cases), those issues of most prominence included:

• Among the 423 families, 73 were assigned to Pathway 1 FTCs, 165 were assigned to Pathway 2

FTCs and 185 were assigned to Pathway 3 FTCs. These figures represent 51.8%, 62% and 68.5%

of all Pathway 1, Pathway 2 and Pathway 3 study cases (respectively).

23.20%

24.80%

14.00%

8.20% 7.70%

5.40%

4.10%

2.90%

3.10%

3.40%

2.80%12.20%

mental health needs

case planning issues/needs

substance abuse issues

domestic violence issues

housing needs

employment

education

daycare

visitation

Outcome Evaluation: G.A.S. Results

• There were 157 families (37.1% of 432) for which

multiple measures using the GAS were available; 15, 66

and 76 families assigned to Pathway 1, 2 and 3

(respectively) are represented in this sub-sample.

• Findings from the Goal Attainment Scale suggest that

Pathway 2 and Pathway 3 cases to have a more

significant impact in moving families toward plan of

care goals. These same effects were not manifested with

Pathway 1 cases (imbalance in sample size).

Recommendations for Future Similar Projects

• Use the dedicated facilitator model (Pathway 2) that separates the primary role

of the FTC Facilitator from the role of the Family Care Counselor.

• Allow for quick/immediate engagement of families regarding the FTC

process.

• Encourage but not require follow-up FTCs.

• Encourage family members to seek and involve family and other supports in

the FTCs and as part of their broader service plan.

• Minimize the role of Family Care Counselors in data collection activities apart

from that which is mandated by state statutes.

• Engage in regular and effective communication between FTC project and

administrative staff and key service providers to help facilitate achievement of

family and case goals.

• Encourage a culture change that embraces the philosophy of FTCs in the day-

to-day practices of FCCs.

Recommendations to the Child Welfare Field

• Consider a staggered introduction of major system or practice

changes over time so that sufficient information regarding the

impact of one intervention or system change can be assessed

before another practice or system change is introduced.

• Have in place a well-structured and user-friendly Management

Information System to monitor and evaluate any newly

introduced practice or system change.

• Be prepared for a major time commitment to changing practice

to involve families in decision making that is genuine and

meaningful.

FSDMM and FTCs- Current Agency Practice

• Current FTC staff includes 2 full time Facilitators and a Department Manager

• FTC practice and timeline is complementary to FSDMM

• The Facilitators are responsible for engaging clients in the FTC planning process, as well as facilitating the meeting

• Case Managers act in a co-facilitator role during the FTC

• FTCs are scheduled to occur within 25 days after PFSF has accepted the case from DCF

• FTC prep staffing occurs 14 days after case transfer and before the FTC is completed

• Follow up FTCs can occur at any time during the case, as requested by the family team

• The family Team is built by the biological family- they choose who is invited to the FTC.

FSDMM and FTCs- Current Agency Practice

• Families are asked if they want to invite CPI and Guardian ad Litem Staff

• Time, date and location is set based on what works best for the family, however it is preferable for the FTC to occur at a neutral location (e.g.: school, church, community center)

• Age appropriate children should be included in the FTC and if they are not present, should be the focus of the goals discussed at the FTC.

• For cases involving Domestic Violence, separate FTCs are offered for both the victim and the aggressor and DV advocates are included if possible.

• Family Alone Time is offered to the family, although is not a

mandatory part of the process

• Exemptions to the FTC process are considered when an FTC is not

possible for the family or the family declines participation

Questions/Comments

5950 NW 1st Place, Suite AGainesville, FL 32607352-244-1500pfsf.org

Partner. Foster. Adopt.

Engaging Families Through Family Team Conferencing Replication Manual

Children’s Bureau Family Connections Grant 2009-2012: Family Team Conference Project

We would like to thank the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau for funding this project. Without their support and guidance, the work outlined in the following pages would not be possible. Also, we would like to thank the Florida Department of Children and Families, the staff of our contracted Case Management Agencies and our numerous service providers and private practitioners. Finally, a special thanks to Dr. Robin Perry of the Institute for Child and Family Services Research, Dr. Jane Yoo of Clarus Research, Mona Gil de Gibaja of United Way of North Central Florida and the grant-funded staff members who participated in this project for their hard work and dedication to this project.

The contents of this manual do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Children’s Bureau.

PSF’s Grant Team - From Left to Right:Cherie Watters - FTC Facilitator; Cynthia Reneke - FTC Coordinator; Patricia Murphy - FTC Coordinator; Toni Spoliansky - Project Director; Gillian Nassau - FTC Facilitator; Rhonda Abercrombie - FTC Facilitator

Abstract:

In September 2009, Partnership for Strong Families (PSF) was awarded a $1.8 million grant from the Children’s Bureau to conduct an evaluation of Family Team Conferencing (FTC). The purpose of this research project was to test different approaches of FTC. FTC was already an established part of services provided by PSF, however different models of FTC are practiced and researched elsewhere, and PSF wanted to learn more about these different models and how they could benefit clients within their system of care. The project tested the FTC approach utilized at Partnership for Strong Families prior to receipt of the grant with two alternative models to see if each produced different results or were perceived and valued differently by all participants, especially the family.

The results that were of interest to the study included: increasing child and family safety at home, reducing time frames to achieve permanent homes for children, improving child and family well-being, greater family involvement in case planning and decision making and other service goals and outcomes deemed of value by families working with service providers. In order to test these different models, an experiment had to be conducted. The results of this study were of major importance in helping Partnership for Strong Families evaluate the value of FTC in achieving desired outcomes and improving services with children and families.

Table of Contents:

Section 1: Introduction 1 Project Overview FTC Structure Project Goals

Section 2: Implementation 3 Staff Roles and Responsibilities Implementation Timeline

Section 3: Procedures 6 FTC Intake and Case Assignment Process Family Information Tool Informed Consent and Data Collection Family Plans and FTC Exemptions

Section 4: What we discovered 9 Process Evaluation Outcome Evaluation Discussion and Results

Section 5: Dissemination Activities 14

Section 6: Appendices 16 Family Information Tool Protective Factors Survey Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire Goal Attainment Scale Questionnaire for Family Members and Participants Family Plan FTC Exemption Form FTC Brochure

PSF-Partnership for Strong Families * FTC-Family Team Conference * FCC-Family Care Counselor * CPI-Child Protective InvestigatorEE-Early Engagement * GAL-Guardian ad Litem * FSF-Family Service Facilitator * DCF-Department of Children and Families

Section 1: Introduction

Florida’s Child Welfare System:

Florida’s provision of child protective services is unlike any other system in the nation. In 1998, the Florida legislature made the bold decision to move toward privatization of most child welfare functions, handing them over to nonprofit organizations in local communities. This transformation was completed in 2003. Today, 19 Community-Based Care agencies across the state are responsible for the provision of services ranging from child abuse prevention and protective supervision all the way to foster care and adoption. The Department of Children and Families still maintains the oversight, contract management, abuse hotline and initial investigations of abuse.

Privatization has enabled Florida to go from being of the worst performing in the nation in terms of child welfare outcomes to being one of the top performers whom other systems are trying to emulate. It has also opened the door for innovation, both at a community and a state level. Perhaps one of the best examples has been the increased ability for Community-Based Care agencies like Partnership for Strong Families to obtain grants such as the one funding this project, where best practice models can be developed and implemented. Systemic change in the last decade has been dramatic, but there is still work to do.

Project Overview:

The Family Connections Grant, titled Engaging Families through Family Team Conferencing, was awarded to Partnership for Strong Families September 28, 2009, by the Federal Government (Administration of Children and Families). Federal funding provided $1.2 million over a 3 year period (with a $600,000 agency match). The project’s purpose was designed to evaluate Family Team Conferencing elements leading to a nationwide model. The project focused on a random sample of over 700 families from the 13 counties comprising our catchment area who are receiving case management services. PSF’s catchment consists of Alachua, Baker, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Levy, Lafayette, Madison, Suwannee, Taylor and Union Counties (please insert map of catchment area within Florida). All In-home Supervision and Shelter Cases were considered for inclusion in the study. Two experimental models were compared to a control model of Family Team Conferencing. The control model, FTC as usual, left the responsibility of planning and facilitating the FTC to the Family Care Counselor. This is the manner in which FTCs were conducted prior to the receipt of the Grant. The first experimental model, FTC- New, provided designated, trained staff to plan and facilitate the FTC. The second experimental model also provided the specialized staff and added a component of Family Alone Time to the FTC. Please see the chart on next page for a better detailed comparison of the three FTC models, as well as what the structure of an FTC looks like.

What is Family Alone Time?Family Alone Time is a part of the second experimental FTC model, where the core members of the family are given as much time as they need to meet, without professional involvement, to discuss case planning activities during the FTC. This practice is based on the Family Group Decision Making (FGDM) model. Family alone time can include non-blood relatives if the other members of the group agree to their inclusion.


1

Welcome

•Purpose of meeting•Introductions•Confidentiality document is signed

Groundrules

•Establish rules to be kept during the FTC•Examples: no interrupting, no foul language, be honest, etc...

Desired Outcomes

•Discuss goals for the FTC•Ensure family identifies desired outcomes

Family's Story/ ID strengths

•Allow family to tell their story•Give family members opportunity to ID strengths of the family•Support may then ID strengths of the family.

Identification of needs

•Allow family to identifiy areas in which they need assistance.•Empower family members by allowing them to identify their own

needs, rather than supports or other participants identifying the needs.

Family Alone Time

•This will only occur on FTC's assigned as "FTC New + Family alone Time•Family will have alone time to develope their plan•Plan will be implemented as long as it addresses safety concerns

Develop Plan and assign

responsibilities

•Details of who, what, when...•Discuss any safety concerns not addressed in the family plan•What could go wrong?- Develope contingency/ back-up plans•Trouble shoot potential barriers

Closing appreications

•Take time to thank Family and support for participation•Closing ritual (if family desires)

Structure for Family Team Conferencing FTC-As Usual

• Occur within 14 days of CTS • Facilitated by FCC, not

outside facilitator • Service providers may or

may not be in attendance • No Family alone time

FTC- New

• Occur within 5 business days of VPS/ Early Engagement visit or within 10 business days of the shelter hearing

• FCC and FSF will work together with the family to invite all participants to the FTC through face to face contact, phone calls, letters or email.

• Providers who are currently working with the family may be invited to participate

• FTC is scheduled at a time and location convenient to the family

• FSF will facilitate the FTC • No family alone time • Cases will have follow up

FTC’s at 4, 7 and 10 months; and/or prior to an adoption/ permanency staffing.

FTC- New +Family Time

• Includes all components of the ‘FTC-New’ model plus family alone time

• Family is given alone time to develop their plan

• Plan is approved by FCC, family and attorneys as long as all safety concerns have been addressed.


Project Goals and Objectives:

Goal:To respectfully engage families in decision-making and case planning through a strength-based, family-centered, culturally appropriate system of care that includes initial and ongoing Family Team Conferences for every new in-home supervision and shelter (removal) case.

Objectives:1. Hire and train four full-time Family Service Facilitators (FSF) who will serve as the facilitators

for all initial and ongoing FTCs for a random sample of new in-home supervision and shelter cases. Hire two full-time Family Team Conference Coordinators to help coordinate all of the planning and logistics for the FTCs.

2. Ensure meaningful participation in case planning and decision-making of families participating in an initial and ongoing FTC.

3. Increase participation of children and extended family members in initial and ongoing FTCs for families with new in-home supervision or shelter cases.

4. Increase participation of service providers at initial and ongoing FTCs who can meet the immediate and ongoing needs of families with new in-home supervision or shelter cases.

5. Ensure expedited services are provided to all of the families who participate in initial FTCs.6. Improve Goal Attainment Scale score for the families who participate in an initial and ongoing

FTC (measured by completing and monitoring the Goal Attainment Scale).7. Increase protective factors for the families who participate in an initial and ongoing FTC

(measured by administering the Protective Factors Survey).8. Reduce re-referral rates among families who have received an

initial and ongoing FTC.

Section 2: Implementation

Staff Roles and Responsibilities:

Project Director:• Provides day-to-day management of operations related to the project• Receives notification of case assignment from designated point of contact for each service site• Enters case information into data management system for tracking of assignments and due dates• Through random assignment, determines which type of FTC will be designated to the case• Assigns FTC to Coordinator and Facilitator staff• Manages and cleans data to be provided to evaluation team• Manages quality assurance and project fidelity• Ongoing communication and collaboration with IT and Finance departments• Participates in Grant Operations Team• Troubleshoots any barriers• Mentors FTC staff for purposes of training and certification• Provides ongoing support and training to FTC staff

PSF-Partnership for Strong Families * FTC-Family Team Conference * FCC-Family Care Counselor * CPI-Child Protective InvestigatorEE-Early Engagement * GAL-Guardian ad Litem * FSF-Family Service Facilitator * DCF-Department of Children and Families 3

FTC Facilitator:• Reviews available case information upon assignment of an FTC• Communicates with FTC coordinator regarding participants and attendance confirmations• Facilitates Family Team Conferences to engage the family and assist in the development of an

appropriate family plan• Maintains integrity of the Family Team Conference process• Ensures Family Plan is completed • Addresses any safety concerns• Ensures all participants have signed plan• Assists families in completing some of the grant-required evaluation tools (Goal Attainment

Scale, Protective Factors Survey and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire)• Recommends services for family based on needs identified during FTC• Maintains information regarding the services available in the family’s area • Authorizes service allocation and coordinates service delivery with providers and community

resources• Oversees the authorization and utilization of services to ensure resources are maximized• Fosters relationships with service providers, hospitals, courts, education system, Domestic

Violence and Substance Abuse & Mental Health agencies • Participates in staff meeting and coordinates activities between various stakeholders within the

System of Care

FTC Coordinator:• Responsible for all logistical planning of FTC, including:• Coordinate date and time of FTC• Engage and invite all attendees to participate in FTC• Consider the need for professional staff to be in attendance• Coordinate the schedules of all FTC attendees• Reserve a location for the conference that is safe and allows for open dialogue • Address need for and arrange daycare services, in the situation in which the children of the

family are not able to attend the FTC• Organize the research materials and appropriate forms to be completed at each FTC• Input data associated with FTC in the appropriate PSF data management systems (P-Kids, FSFN)• Export data from data management systems for tracking and performance measures• Ensure evaluation materials are stocked, organized, and well maintained• Participate in staff meetings to address any concerns associated with the project• Link with professional staff to ensure appropriate attendance by domestic violence, substance

abuse and mental health experts as needed

Training StrategiesOngoing training was offered to PSF and partner agency staff throughout the entire grant period. Trainings occurred with new case management staff on a semi-annual basis and as requested by management staff. Nearly 20 formal trainings, in addition to informal discussions, took place during the three year grant period. Each case manager who completed the training was provided with an ‘FTC Grant’ binder, which contained helpful hints, necessary paperwork and procedural information.


Implementation Timeline:

Task/Activity Completion DateHire StaffPost positions for 2 Family Team Conference Coordinators 10/16/09Post positions for 4 Family Service Facilitators for FTCs 10/16/09Hire 2 FTC Coordinators 11/15/09Hire 4 Family Service Facilitators for FTCs 11/15/09Roles and ResponsibilitiesEstablish FTC Implementation Team and set up meeting schedule 10/16/09Establish FTC Operations Team & set up meeting schedule 10/26/09Finalize roles and responsibilities for FTC Coordinators, Family Service Facilitators, DCF and PSF staff and community partners in FTC process

11/20/09

Protocols and ProcessesFinalize FTC protocol and schedule for initial and follow-up FTCs 11/15/09Finalize and organize process for administering all research materials 1/30/10Goal Attainment Scale (GAS) 1/30/10Protective Factors Survey (PFS) 1/30/10Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) 11/30/09Finalize detailed budget and quarterly reporting process for expenditures

12/1/09

Finalize IT & data entry process for all research tools and collection and reporting of other data needed

12/15/09

Finalize data tracking and reporting schedule and process 1/1/10Training and OutreachIn-Service Training for all direct staff (FSFs, FCCs and FTC Coordinators) on roles and responsibilities and FTC process, protocol and research tools

11/30/09-12/15/09

In-Service Training for all appropriate DCF (including CLS and SAMH) and PSF staff on roles and responsibilities and FTC process, protocol and research tools

12/15/09

In-Service training for all key community partners (i.e.: DV & SAMH) 12/20/09Community Outreach/Education to key stakeholders & potential partners

11/1/09-12/31/09

Data Collection and ResearchApplication submission to Western Institutional Review Board (WIRB)

10/31/2009

Approval from WIRB 5/6/2010Commencement of Data Collection 5/24/2010


5

Section 3: Procedures

FTC Intake and Case Assignment Process:

1. Child Protective Investigator (CPI) commences investigation2. CPI staffs case with Decision Team Consultant at a decision team staffing or appropriate team

meeting and determines if ongoing case management is necessary. Case progresses to either: a) In-home supervision b) Shelter

3. CPI sends e-mail to ‘[email protected]’ with the following information: a) Name of the case b) Tentative Early Engagement (EE) date for in-home supervision cases or shelter date for court cases c) Abuse report number d) City and County of location

4. Project Director inputs information into P-Kids a) P-Kids randomly assigns which FTC path the case will receive b) Project Director assigns FTC to facilitator and coordinator

5. Case Management Program Director assigns case to unit supervisor and Family Care Counselor (FCC) and notifies Project Director of assignment

6. Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) program assigns staff or volunteer guardian and notifies FCC and assigned FTC coordinator

Note: Steps 4, 5 and 6 occur simultaneously in this process7. Case Management Program Director, GAL staff member and Project Director communicate

with each other (via e-mail) which staff have been assigned to the case8. Project Director sends e-mail to assigned FTC Facilitator and Coordinator, notifying them of

the case assignments. Copied on this e-mail notification are: a) Family Care Counselor assigned to manage the case b) Case Management Program Director and FCC Supervisor c) Child Protective Investigator involved on the case d) GAL assigned or Senior AA of the GAL program if guardian is not yet assigned

9. Initial staffing occurs for shelter cases (these staffing notes along with DTC notes should be obtained)

10. Joint Early Engagement visit occurs for in-home supervision cases

11. FTC coordinator, facilitator and FCC begin communication regarding the case info, participants involved and FTC elements

12. FTC coordinator begins the scheduling process and notifies both the FCC, GAL and Facilitator of any barriers

13. Finalized conference time and location is sent by Coordinator to all involved in the case and clearly denotes who has been invited to the conference

14. FCC and/or FTC Facilitator complete Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and Protective Factors Survey (PFS) with family prior to initial FTC (can be done at the location of


the FTC prior to the start of the FTC)15. FTC occurs with FCC and Facilitator (and all other individuals invited by the family). The GAL

program is discussed at FTC if assigned GAL is not present. The FTC occurs: a) Within 5 business days of initial joint visit (in-home supervision cases) b) Within 10 business days of shelter hearing (shelter cases)

16. FCC and/or FTC Facilitator complete Goal Attainment Scale (GAS) that aligns with family plan 17. Two week follow-up staffing occurs with Quality Operations Manager18. FTC Facilitator completes two week follow-up call with family to address barriers and engagement

*No formal data collection for grant in this step19. FCC completes first progress update of Goal Attainment Scale (GAS), which is completed

within 30 days of Initial FTC

Family Information Tool (FIT):

FTC Coordinators used the Family Information Tool (FIT) to help organize case information when planning an FTC. The FTC Facilitators used this completed form to assist with their preparation for the FTC. The FIT included case participants, demographic and contact information, as well as pertinent case information such as abuse/neglect allegations, prior reports and safety concerns. Special considerations regarding transportation, child care and visitation were also noted on the FIT. Additionally, family and individual needs, as identified in previous staffing, were also outlined on the FIT. A full copy of the FIT document can be found in the Appendix section of the manual.

Informed Consent and Data Collection:

Prior to the beginning of an initial FTC, clients are asked whether or not they would like to participate in the FTC research study. The FCC and/or FTC Facilitator explains the informed consent document, explaining to the family that their participation is voluntary and that they will have access to an FTC and services regardless of whether or not they consent. The family is also informed that there is no monetary reward for participation as well as no foreseeable risk in participating. Families are given the opportunity to review the entire document, which is written at a 4th grade reading level, before making their choice to consent or not. Regardless of their choice, the FTC is completed. If the family consents, the Protective Factors Survey, Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, Goal Attainment Scale and Questionnaire for Family Members and Participants are administered before and after the FTC. If the family declines participation in the research study, these instruments are not administered. Copies of these instruments can be found in the Appendix section of this manual.

Quality Assurance Process for Informed Consents and Data Collection:

1. Informed Consent is obtained prior to the Family Team Conference (FTC) and reviewed by the assigned FTC Facilitator/Family Care Counselor (FCC) to ensure it is signed appropriately

2. Prior to the dissemination of any instruments, the FTC Facilitator/FCC will verify based on completed Informed Consent documents who is to receive which instrument(s)


7

3. Upon completion of the FTC, assigned FTC Facilitator and/or FCC verifies that all research instruments have been completed by the client as appropriate

a) This verification is to occur prior to all parties leaving the FTC b) If the research instruments are incomplete, the FTC Facilitator and/or FCC will ensure that all necessary corrections are made

4. Assigned FTC Facilitator and/or FCC submit the signed Informed Consents and completed research instruments to the assigned FTC Coordinator for data entry

5. Assigned FTC Coordinator reviews the Informed Consents and research instruments to verify they are complete and appropriately signed

a) If they are not complete or appropriately signed, the FTC Coordinator notifies the assigned FTC Facilitator/FCC of the error b) The assigned FTC Facilitator, FCC and FTC Coordinator work together to contact the client, as necessary, to obtain missing signatures/missing information c) If missing signature on the Informed Consent is unable to be collected, the associated client will not be counted as part of the research pool

6. Upon verification that the Informed Consent and research materials are complete, the FTC Coordinator inputs the data into P-Kids and scans the Informed Consent and research material packet into PSF’s secure electronic record keeping system

7. Monthly, the Project Director and FTC Coordinators review documents in the secure electronic record keeping system to ensure that data entered into P-Kids matches information electronically filed in the record system

8. If information in P-Kids does not match what is filed in the secure electronic record keeping system, steps will be taken to ensure data in P-Kids is corrected

9. Documentation of all changes is kept in a data cleaning log

Family Plans:

The Family Plan is the document produced as a result of the FTC. The Family Plan includes a list of the family’s strengths as well as individual and family level needs that are identified at the FTC. The Family Plan also outlines steps to be taken and person(s) responsible to address the identified needs. Participants sign the Family Plan, acknowledging their identified responsibilities and agreeing to confidentiality. The Family Care Counselor uses the Family Plan as a basis for writing the court approved Case Plan (for cases with court involvement). For in-home supervision cases, the Family Plan is used as the Case Plan. A copy of the Family Plan can be found in the Appendix section of this manual.

FTC Exemptions:

It is the policy of Partnership for Strong Families for Family Team Conferencing to occur with all families receiving supervision and case management services from PSF. Only under extreme circumstances should a family be determined not appropriate for the FTC process. Such circumstances would include situations in which conducting an FTC would be detrimental or harmful to the child, family member, Family Care Counselor or another member of the FTC team. Research indicates that


children benefit from Family Team Conferencing even if their parents are not willing to participate and/or are deemed to be exempt from the FTC process. Children can be empowered by others in their lives to assist them in meeting their goals and permanency plans. Foster parents, relatives, school teachers, Guardians ad Litem, siblings and others can assist the children through the FTC process. A copy of the FTC Exemption form can be found in the Appendix section of this manual.

Determination of Family Team Conferencing Exemptions:

1. Designated FTC staff, the Family Care Counselor Supervisor and the Case Management Program Director, in conjunction with the Family Care Counselor, is responsible for ensuring the Family Team Conference Exemption Form is completed, documenting the reason the case is not appropriate for FTC. This form must be signed and dated by the staff person documenting the information.

2. Once complete, the Family Team Conference Exemption Form must be reviewed and signed by the assigned Family Care Counselor Supervisor and Case Management Program Director. The exemption form is then submitted to the FTC Project Director or another approved administrative staff for final approval.

a) If form is complete and presents adequate reason for exemption, it will be signed for approval. b) If form is incomplete or is lacking adequate reason for approval, it will be returned to the submitting staff member for revision. c) The designated FTC staff member will sign and approve completed and appropriate Family Team Conference Exemption Forms within 72 business hours of submission.

3. Once approved, the designated staff member will ensure the Family Team Conference Exemption Form is sent to Data Management.

4. The data manager will scan the form into the PSF database and will place the document in the client’s file.

Section 4: What We Discovered

The evaluation of the Family Connections grant was multi-faceted. A variety of methods and sources of data were used as part of a comprehensive process and outcome evaluation.

Process Evaluation:

The process evaluation examined the extent to which the FTC models were implemented with fidelity, the strengths and limitations of each model (in the eyes of all participants) and the perceived value and utility of each model in light of practice realities. The process evaluation involved a variety of activities, including independent observations of randomly selected FTCs (across all Pathways), focus groups with participant families and service providers, surveys of community partners, structured interviews


9

with FCCs and FTC facilitators and standard surveys given to participants after the completion of each FTC.

Outcome Evaluation:

The outcome evaluation examined the impact of each FTC on a number of indicators of child and family well-being and service effectiveness. Standardized measures, service utilization data, examination of service goal accomplishment, as well as other data were used to measure the extent to which there was a meaningful/statistically significant change for participant children and families (across each Pathway) as such relates to:

1. A reduction of emotional, conduct, hyperactivity and peer problems of children and youth (measured via the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire - SDQ)

2. An improvement in positive social behaviors of children and youth (measured via the SDQ)3. Improvements in a variety of protective factors with the family, including measures of family

functioning/resiliency, social supports, concrete supports, levels of nurturing and attachments and parental knowledge of child development and parenting skills (measured via the Protective Factors Survey)

4. Attainment of family service and plan of care goals (using the Goal Attainment Scales)5. Attainment of service outcomes linked to select statewide performance measures associated

with reunification, child safety and permanency indicators.

Discussion and Results:

Through the end of the study, a total of 1894 FTCs (initial and follow-up) were scheduled with 1156 individual families, of whom 623 (53.9%) agreed to participate (in whole or part) in the formal study/evaluation.

Select findings (see the forthcoming final report for all findings and recommendations) from the process evaluation are revealing. The focus groups with parents and service providers and the FCC and FTC Facilitator interviews reveal similar strengths and promises associated with FTCs.

Specifically, FTCs are generally well received, and there is strong support for FTCs with respect to the philosophy and approach. The FTC Facilitators also are praised for their skilled work, and the independent observations and responses to process questions following each FTC affirm the fidelity to which FTC Facilitators are implementing the FTC models. Among FCCs and FTC Facilitators, the FTC – regardless of the Pathway – was perceived to be an integral part of managing both in-home supervision and shelter cases. Among those interviewed, both FCCs and FTC Facilitators unanimously believed that the FTC engaged families in decision-making and linked families to services that families themselves identified as potentially helpful.


“Everything I’ve expressed concerns about, they’ve brought in resources to help. They are really good.”

- A Parent and FTC Participant

There was a strong preference among FCCs for Pathway 2 FTCs, which involves the FCC and FTC Facilitator as co-facilitators. This FTC model utilizes the skills of FTC Facilitators to facilitate FTCs with families and promotes direct and immediate linkage of services through the FTC Facilitators. The FTC Facilitators were perceived to play an important supportive role for the FCC. Pathway 3 is identical to Pathway 2 with respect to the FTC Facilitator roles, but the FCCs supported Pathway 2 over Pathway 3. They believed that families under utilize family alone time and that family alone time is redundant to the FTC itself.

It should be noted that FTCs are not perfect in practice overall. The parents in the focus group responded positively to FTCs, as did the service providers from both Judicial Circuits covered by the agency, but glitches identified in how, when and by whom FTCs are implemented suggest that a number of improvements could be made. For example, the interviews, observations and focus groups all suggest that families are not inviting their family members and supports to participate in the FTCs. Therefore, there could be better communication with families about this goal, as well as a concerted effort to work with families in inviting their supports (including professionals) to the FTCs. Some service providers highlighted they are challenged by the logistics of scheduling and participating in FTCs. As to the impact of FTCs, select service providers are uncertain as to whether FTCs truly give decision-making power to families when they are typically outnumbered by professionals during the FTCs. Also, they highlighted barriers to service linkages (e.g., lack of transportation, limited availability of certain services and low family motivation) that potentially undermine the goal of FTCs to better connect families to services.

A larger-scale and longer-term area of improvement is the idea of “culture change” that was raised in the focus groups and feedback from select professionals. Despite promising features of the FTC models that have been identified from various sources, there is the bigger challenge of culture change (among FCCs and others to put into practice the philosophy and approach of FTCs) that is necessary for FTCs to be successful and sustainable. All in all, the information collected to date that provides insights into this challenge suggests that culture change is attainable and that current practices through FTCs and other means are evidence of culture change.

Yet despite these concerns, the majority of respondents/participants believe in FTCs and feel strongly that FTCs should continue. It is rare that changes in practice are instituted quickly and without big challenges. Therefore,


11

“With FTC, I can speak my mind and they [FTC Facilitators] don’t turn around what I say. They took what I said and then said ‘This is what I can do to help you.’ Every time, the facilitator repeats back what I say so that I am clear that she is hearing me. She makes sure she understands what I am saying.”


“I got the help I need. I had all eyes focused on me, and everyone listened.”


“Before we became FTC focused, we just went in and said ‘This is what we want you to do – no ifs, ands or buts.’ [An FTC] allows the families more freedom to communicate and not just for us to take the information in.”

- A Family Care Counselor

the pace of acceptance by service providers and others to the FTCs model is expected to be steady if not slow at times. The results of the process evaluation show the expected mixed reactions to implementing a new practice model. However, overriding these mixed reactions has been a generally positive sentiment about FTCs and the potential of Family Team Conferencing to have a positive and meaningful impact on families.

With respect to the outcome evaluation, analyses suggest that there is a significant disproportion in the likelihood that those families originally assigned to Pathway 1 (20.7%) will participate in the study than those originally assigned to experimental Pathway 2 (40.1%) or Pathway 3 (39.2%) groups. This disproportion in participation rate limits the extent to which Pathway 1 may be a legitimate comparison/control group for which select results from Pathway 2 and Pathway 3 cases can be compared.

Using data through December 31, 2011, among the 1,375 goals established for 506 separate Goal Attainment Scales with 332 separate (non-duplicate) families (or 97.4% of all study cases at that time), those issues of most prominence included mental health needs (23.8% of all goals), case planning issues/needs (23.1%), substance abuse issues (12.8%), domestic violence issues (8.4%) and housing needs (8.3%). Other goals focused on employment (5.7%), education (4.6%), daycare (3.3%), visitation (3.3%), dental and medical needs (3.1%) and safety planning (2.8%). Analysis of GAS scores over time with a panel of cases reveals there is no significant measured change in the rate of improvement for Pathway 1 cases; however, noteworthy and significant changes exist for families assigned to Pathway 2 FTCs and Pathway 3 FTCs. These preliminary findings suggest that Pathway 2 and Pathway 3 FTC models have a more distinctive effect on moving the family (in a favorable direction) toward agreed upon service goals.

Findings from analyses of data (through the end of the study) from the Protective Factors Survey suggest that Pathway 2 FTCs have the most significant impact on protective factors for families.


“I am a firm believer in FTC… Having families take a look at who they are and where they were before the problems started. Usually people have some strengths. I see the FTC as being the catalyst for acknowledging the family’s strengths. Once you get people to look at their power then you can get them to look at changes that are needed.”


“I’ve had quite a few FTCs with [one of the FTC Facilitators], and I was so impressed. Her level of organization is superb, but her ability to respect the client…I remember being astonished because one of the clients was being disrespectful and belligerent and not entirely honest. She was consistently respectful. It was an outstanding example of her continuing to say, ‘Well, what more can we do?’ She did the most remarkable job of meeting that person and respecting them and wanting to know what we could do to make them feel better. It brought a sense of everyone coming together and a structure that gave me a sense of clarity regarding my part and what I am working on. I felt it has made the clients feel more equal and respected. It’s a more humble approach.”

- A Service Provider

Using data through December 31, 2011, cases in Pathway 2 demonstrated statistically significant improvement in family functioning and resiliency, nurturing and attachment and increasing parents’ knowledge about “what to do as a parent.” By the end of the study, significant improvement in family functioning was maintained for Pathway 2 cases with no significant changes/improvements in other protective factors across all Pathways.

Using data throughout the entire study, the observed aggregate counts (across all pathways at the start of service) of children assessed (via the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire) as “borderline” and “abnormal” for each symptom scale suggest the highest proportions (rank ordered) of concerns are associated with Conduct Problems (41.4% of children are score at borderline or abnormal), Peer Problems (35.3%),

Hyperactivity (32.0%), Emotional Symptoms (22.8%) and Pro-Social Behaviors (i.e. absence thereof) (14.2%). When the Total Difficulties Scale scores are examined, 70.0% of all children and youth score at the “borderline” (18.5%) or “abnormal” (51.5%) level. Select analyses to date suggest there is no significant change or improvement over time for children in Pathway 1 FTCs that are assessed at the start of service as borderline or abnormal on each strength and difficulty. However, thus far, analyses suggest significant improvement on all SDQ measures for children involved in Pathway 2 FTCs. With respect to Pathway 3, select analyses suggest significant improvement with respect to conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer problems and total symptoms. These findings suggest that Pathway 2 and Pathway 3 FTCS are demonstrating a positive impact upon child behavior and difficulties as reported by caregivers and teen self-reports.

Preliminary analyses on data through the fall of 2011 found no significant differences on select permanency, family reunification and placement stability outcomes across FTC groups and in contrast with those families not receiving an FTC (pre-study cases and those exempt from FTCs). In sum, findings thus far suggest Pathway 2 and Pathway 3 (more so Pathway 2) have demonstrated a positive influence on plan of care and service goal attainment, select child well-being/behavior indicators and on family functioning. Findings generated from additional analyses on other outcomes will be presented in the final evaluation report.

13


“The FTC is set up where we are listening to the family. We are asking them what they need and what they want to see happen. So the family feels that “they’re really listening to me and they want to hear from me.” It really helps to build that relationship between the family and the FCC because it feels like we’re working together. We’re not here to make decisions for you or tell you want you need. So I think the FTC is a great foundation for the relationship between the FCC and the family.”


“I feel like they ask my opinion and [the plan] is developed right as we are sitting there. I think everyone puts in their two cents and talks about what’s been accomplished and what still needs to be done.”


Section 5: Dissemination Activities

Throughout the grant period, PSF took several steps to ensure that the evolution of the project was shared, both internally and externally, on a local, state and national level.

PSF’s website, www.pfsf.org, had a special page, which contained information related to FTCs and the Grant.

This area of the website provided an overview of the study project, as well as staff information and monthly data reports. Success stories, as well as the current Friends of the Grant recognition recipients were also highlighted on the web page. The Friends of the Grant award was an acknowledgement, given quarterly, to thank a Family Care Counselor for going above and beyond to ensure a meaningful FTC process for their clients. This award’s purpose was to serve as an incentive to motivate FCC staff to be more involved in the FTC and study project processes.


Success Story: FTC Provides Hope and a Plan to Overcome AddictionSubmitted by an FTC Facilitator

I recently met with a mother whose rights to her two children were terminated several years ago in another state; she then moved to Florida, gave birth to a third child, and the baby was sheltered as a result of the mother’s ongoing substance abuse. At the initial FTC, the mother relayed that she had previously made several unsuccessful attempts at substance abuse treatment; she truly had the desire to be drug-free but never had a plan of action and didn’t know who she could turn to for support. At the FTC, conversation focused not only on local treatment providers, but also about building a strong support system for the family, the importance of establishing a relapse plan and the need for ongoing after-care upon completion of a treatment program.

Eight months later, at a follow-up FTC, the mother proudly announced that she had been drug-free since the initial FTC. Additionally, she was able to share that she had utilized the resources discussed in the first FTC to acquire stable housing, part-time employment and was planning on returning to school. More than anything else, the mother was excited to celebrate having recently been granted unsupervised visitation with her child and told staff that those visits were going so well all parties anticipated that the family would be reunified at the next court hearing.

When asked, the mother noted that the clear outline of a plan of action, the development of a strong support system established at the beginning of the case and an overall tone of helping, teamwork, positive affirmations and celebrations of success as being essential components that were instrumental to her overall success. These interactions, she said, were in stark contrast to her previous involvements with the dependency system, during which she felt blamed, chastised and looked down upon.


15

A brochure was created to introduce families to the concept of Family Team Conferencing and to provide an overview of the grant. These brochures were distributed to families at the inception of their case so that they had some understanding of what an FTC was before being contacted to schedule the conference. A full copy of the brochure can be found in the Appendix section of this manual.

Three national level presentations were made during the Grant period. In June 2011, Grant Management and Evaluator staff travelled to Las Vegas, NV to present at the American Humane Association’s 2011 Family Group Decision Making Conference. In March 2012, evaluator Dr. Robin Perry provided a summary of the study design and processes at a Community of Child Welfare Scholars meeting at the University of Toronto. This meeting was hosted by Dr. Aron Shlonsky who is one of the lead authors in a systematic review of Family Group Decision Making sanctioned by the Campbell Collaboration Social Welfare Group. The project was invited to present final findings to this group upon conclusion of the study. Finally, in June 2012, PSF Grant Management staff gave a presentation regarding their dissemination activities at the 2012 National Grantees Conference in Washington, DC.

Additional dissemination activities included articles in PSF’s newsletters, as well as highlights in the PSF E-Blast e-mail, which is distributed to more than 400 recipients, including 90 service providers, 200 employees and 129 community partners and PSF board members.

Family Team Conference Family Information Tool – 2010 1 | P a g e

Family Information Tool Date:

Case Name: Case Type: Shelter Pathway: FTC - with Alone Time DV Involved Assignment Date: FTC Due Date: Coordinator: Facilitator: FCC: PI: Mother’s Attorney: Father’s Attorney: Parents DOB SS Relationship DV Role Mother Choose One Father Choose One Caregivers DOB Relationship Other Case Participants DOB Relationship (Please note any sexual offenders)

Child Names DOB Over 10? SS Gender/Race FTC Core Person: Phone(s): Home Address: County: City: Placement Address, if different from above: Placement Type: Non-Relative Name: Phone(s): Address:

APPENDIX A: Family Information Tool


County: City:

FTC Participants (Grandparents, cousins, aunts/uncles, neighbors, friends, teachers/coaches, church leaders) Name Relationship Phone Location Invited Not

Invited

(Please note any sexual offenders)

Attendee Breakdown Caregivers/Parents Supports Professionals 50% Rule Met

Schedule FCC Available Times: Facilitator Available Times: Family Available Times: Possible Locations

Name Address Booked/Chosen

Childcare Is child care needed? Yes No Babysitter: Notes:

17


Final FTC Arrangements Date: Time: Location: Child care arrangements: If at Client’s Home, please input reason: Notes:

Current Allegations: Date of Intake: Intake Number: Investigation/Assessment Implications Signs of Present Danger Child Vulnerability Protective Capacities Criminal History Summary and Implication for Child Safety Prior Intakes/ Previous Agency Involvement Safety Actions Overall Safety Assessment Visitation and Visitation Restrictions No Contact Orders/Restrictions

Transportation Are there transportation issues? Yes No Notes:


Safety Plan and Safety Concerns Services Recommended at DTC Staffing/Early Engagement/Shelter Hearing Service Referrals Submitted/Services Commenced/Services Completed FLOs ILOs Mother’s Needs Father’s Needs Children’s Needs Family Strengths Potential Barriers Notes: Coordinator Notes:

19

APPENDIX B: PROTECTIVE FACTORS SURVEY

PROTECTIVE FACTORS SURVEY Page 1

Case Name Parent/Caregiver Name ____________________________ Date Completed ________________ (Completing Survey)

Part I. Please circle the number that describes how often the statements are true for you or your family. The numbers represent a scale from 1 to 7 where each of the numbers represents a different amount of time. The number 4 means that the statement is true about half the time.

NeverVery

Rarely Rarely About Half the Time Frequently

Very Frequently Always

1. In my family, we talk about problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. When we argue, my family listens to “both sides of the story.”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. In my family, we take time to listen to each other. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. My family pulls together when things are stressful. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. My family is able to solve our problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Part II. Please circle the number that best describes how much you agree or disagree with the statement. Strongly Disagree

Mostly Disagree

Slightly Disagree Neutral

Slightly Agree

Mostly Agree

Strongly Agree

6. I have others who will listen when I need to talk about my problems.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. When I am lonely, there are several people I can talk to. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. I would have no idea where to turn if my family needed food or housing.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. I wouldn’t know where to go for help if I had trouble making ends meet.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. If there is a crisis, I have others I can talk to. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. If I needed help finding a job, I wouldn’t know where to go for help.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

This survey was developed by the FRIENDS National Resource Center for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention in partnership with the University of Kansas Institute for Educational Research & Public Service through funding provided by the US Department of Health and Human Services.

PROTECTIVE FACTORS SURVEY Page 2

Part III. This part of the survey asks about parenting and your relationship with your child. For this section, please focus on the child that you hope will benefit most from your participation in our services. Please write the child’s age or date of birth and then answer questions with this child in mind.

Child’s Age ____________ or DOB ____/____/____

Strongly Disagree

Mostly Disagree

Slightly Disagree Neutral

Slightly Agree

Mostly Agree

Strongly Agree

12. There are many times when I don’t know what to do as a parent.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. I know how to help my child learn. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14. My child misbehaves just to upset me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Part IV. Please tell us how often each of the following happens in your family.

Never Very

Rarely Rarely

AboutHalf the

Time Frequently Very

Frequently Always

15. I praise my child when he/she behaves well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. When I discipline my child, I lose control. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17. I am happy being with my child. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18. My child and I are very close to each other. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19. I am able to soothe my child when he/she is upset. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

20. I spend time with my child doing what he/she likes to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

This survey was developed by the FRIENDS National Resource Center for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention in partnership with the University of Kansas Institute for Educational Research & Public Service through funding provided by the US Department of Health and Human Services.

21

Case Name: P or T4-10

Date:

Thank you very much for your help © Robert Goodman, 2005

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire For each item, please mark the box for Not True, Somewhat True or Certainly True. It would help us if you answered all items as best you can even if you are not absolutely certain. Please give your answers on the basis of the child's behavior over the last six months or this school year. Your Name: ______________________________________ Parent / Teacher / Other (Please specify): __________________

Child's name: _________________________________ Male/Female

Not True

Somewhat True

Certainly True

Considerate of other people’s feelings □ □ □ Restless, overactive, cannot stay still for long □ □ □ Often complains of headaches, stomach-aches or sickness □ □ □ Shares readily with other children, for example toys, treats, pencils □ □ □ Often loses temper □ □ □ Rather solitary, prefers to play alone □ □ □ Generally well behaved, usually does what adults request □ □ □ Many worries or often seems worried □ □ □ Helpful if someone is hurt, upset or feeling ill □ □ □ Constantly fidgeting or squirming □ □ □ Has at least one good friend □ □ □ Often fights with other children or bullies them □ □ □ Often unhappy, depressed or tearful □ □ □ Generally liked by other children □ □ □ Easily distracted, concentration wanders □ □ □ Nervous or clingy in new situations, easily loses confidence □ □ □ Kind to younger children □ □ □ Often lies or cheats □ □ □ Picked on or bullied by other children □ □ □ Often offers to help others (parents, teachers, other children) □ □ □ Thinks things out before acting □ □ □ Steals from home, school or elsewhere □ □ □ Gets along better with adults than with other children □ □ □ Many fears, easily scared □ □ □ Good attention span, sees work through to the end □ □ □

APPENDIX C: STRENGTHS AND DIFFICULTIES QUESTIONNAIRE

Goal

Attai

nmen

t Sca

le

Case

Nam

e: __

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

Com

pleted

By:

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

_ To

tal sc

ore a

t initia

l: ___

____

____

____

__

Date

of ini

tial: _

____

____

____

____

_ To

tal sc

ore a

t follo

w-up

: ___

____

____

____

___

Date

of fo

llow-

up: _

____

____

____

____

__

Go

al He

adin

gs an

d Go

al W

eight

s

Chec

k whe

ther

or n

ot sc

ale h

as b

een

mut

ually

neg

otiat

ed b

etwe

en cl

ient a

nd

PSF

staff

mem

ber

Ye

s N

o

Ye

s N

o

Ye

s N

o

Ye

s N

o

Ye

s No

Goal

Atta

inm

ent L

evels

Go

al 1

Goal

2

Goal

3

Goal

4

Goal

5

mo

st un

favor

able

servi

ce/

inter

venti

on ou

tcome

thou

ght li

kely

(-2

)

les

s tha

n exp

ected

succ

ess w

ith

servi

ce/in

terve

ntion

(-1

)

ex

pecte

d lev

el of

succ

ess w

ith

servi

ce/in

terve

ntion

(0)

mo

re th

an ex

pecte

d suc

cess

with

se

rvice

/inter

venti

on (

+1)

be

st an

ticipa

ted su

cces

s with

se

rvice

/inter

venti

on (

+2)

Com

men

ts/ S

core

:

APPENDIX D: GOAL ATTAINMENT SCALE

23

FTC Participant Survey

PARTNERSHIP FOR STRONG FAMILIES FAMILY TEAM CONFERENCE MEETING

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FAMILY MEMBERS AND PROFESSIONALS

The following questions will be administered to all those that participated in a Family Team Conference. These questions will be administered by the Family Service Facilitator (FSF). These questions will be distributed via survey form, however may be administered via in-person or telephone interviews, or through focus group meetings with select groups or sub-groups of FTC participants. The venue for asking questions will be at the discretion and preferences of the FTC participants (as a means of enhancing response rates and involving/empowering their participation in the evaluation design). Case Name: _______________ Date: _______________ 1. In what way have you been involved in Family Team Conferences with Partnership for Strong Families (including member and affiliated agencies)? Sometimes people have been involved in more than one way; let us know about that too: A. Circle your relationship to child(ren)/youth [Circle all that apply]

a) Mother b) Stepmother c) Maternal Grandparent d) Maternal aunt/uncle e) Mother’s Domestic Partner

f) Father g) Stepfather h) Paternal Grandparent i) Paternal Aunt/Uncle j) Father’s Domestic Partner

k) Foster Parent

l) Child or teen for whom meeting is being held m) Sister n) Stepsister o) Brother p) Stepbrother

q) Other biological family

r) Godparent

APPENDIX E: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FAMILY MEMBERS AND PROFESSIONALS


s) Representative of faith community t) Friend of child/youth u) Family friend/close support (e.g., relative, friend) for family v) Neighbor w) Guardian Ad Litem x) Parents’ lawyer y) State Attorney’s office z) Magistrate aa) Judge bb) Family Service Facilitator (FSF) cc) Family Care Counselor dd) PSF Staff (other than above) ee) Service provider [specify] ____________________ ff) Trainer gg) Policy maker hh) Evaluator ii) Other [specify] __________________________________

2. Gender: Male Female 3. Age (fill in): _________ 4. I describe my ethnic background as… (Circle all that apply):

a. White, Caucasian, Anglo, European American; not Hispanic b. Hispanic or Latino/a, including Mexican American, Central American, and others c. Black or African American d. Asian or Asian American, including Chinese, Japanese, and others e. American Indian/Native American f. Other (describe): __________________ (e.g., Eastern/Indian Arabian, etc. )

5. Please answer Yes/No (circle one) to each question regarding your the Family Team Conference meeting.

Was the conference conducted in a language (e.g., English, Spanish) you understand?

Yes No

If no to last question, was a translation provided? Yes No 6. After the part of the conference was completed with all parties, did the facilitator allow the family to meet alone as part of the formal process of the conference?

Yes No

25


7. We want to ask you about the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements about Family Team Conferences. Rate your level of agreement on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) up to 5 (strongly agree). If you don’t know (DK) or the statement doesn’t apply (NA), let us know that too. Statement about Family Team Conference meeting

1 Strongly Disagree

2 Disagree

3 Neutral

4 Agree

5 Strongly

Agree

DK NA

1. Everyone at a meeting understands why it is being held.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

2. Families are prepared for taking part in the meetings (e.g. the purpose of the conference was clearly explained and reason for attending understood, etc.).

1

2

3

4

5

DK

NA

3. Service providers are not well prepared for taking part in the meetings.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

4. People who are family or feel like family are at the meetings.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

5. Only one parent’s side of the children’s family takes part in the planning.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

6. More service providers (“professionals”) are at the meetings than family and their close supports.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

7. The meetings are held in a place and at a time that was convenient for the family.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

8. All the people that needed to be included attended the conference.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

9. The meetings have enough supports and protections to make the participants feel safe and comfortable.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

10. Coordinators organized the meeting well.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

11. Facilitators run the meetings well. 1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

12. Families have a real say in the planning.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

13. Plans build on family’s strengths or good qualities.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

14. Plans can be revised when the family’s needs change.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

15. The plans include ways that relatives, friends, or other close supports will help out.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

16. The plans include ways that community or neighborhood organizations will help out.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

17. The plans include ways that Partnership for Strong Families’ agencies and other agencies will help out.

1

2

3

4

5

DK

NA


Statement about Family Team Conference meeting

1 Strongly Disagree

2 Disagree

3 Neutral

4 Agree

5 Strongly

Agree

DK NA

18. The plans use local or neighborhood resources

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

19. The facilitators do not consistently follow up to see if the plans are being carried out.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

20. I am aware of the resources available (in my community) to support the family.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

21. There are adequate resources to meet the goals/objectives of the family plan.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

22. The family’s strengths were clearly described.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

23. The family’s needs were clearly identified.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

24. My family traditions were respected.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

25. I felt respected by the facilitator. 1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

26. I felt respected by the Family Care Counselor (FCC).

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

27. I felt I had NO choice about participating.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

28. The conference was well-organized.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

29. The facilitator was knowledgeable and had a good understanding of family issues.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

30. The facilitator was clear. 1 2 3 4 5 DK NA 31. I feel I fully participated in the process.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

32. I am satisfied with the placement of the child(ren).

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

33. I have a better understanding of how the family can ensure the safety of this/these child(ren).

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

33. The interests of the child(ren) was/were the primary focus of discussions and decisions made.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

34. I am satisfied with the plan that was made and think the family plan goals are achievable.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

35. I am clear about and accept my role within the plan that was made.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

36. I felt I was able to say what was on my mind.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

37. I feel supported by the DCF or PSF staff.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

38. I am confident that the plan ensures the child(ren)’s safety.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

27


Statement about Family Team Conference meeting

1 Strongly Disagree

2 Disagree

3 Neutral

4 Agree

5 Strongly

Agree

DK NA

39. Overall, I am satisfied with the Family Team Conference.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

40. I was satisfied with the way the meeting was run.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

41. I felt comfortable sharing my thoughts and concerns in this meeting.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

42. I felt the group listened when I spoke.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

43. I understand what will happen if the plan is not followed.

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

Thank you for participating in this survey!

FA

MIL

Y PL

AN

PS

F-10

1 (1

/4/2

010)

P

age

__ o

f __

Cas

e N

ame:

___

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

D

ate

of F

amily

Tea

m C

onfe

renc

e: _

____

____

____

__

Initi

al

Fol

low

up

Fa

mily

Str

engt

hs: _

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

__

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

__

N

eeds

If

new

info

rmat

ion

rega

rdin

g th

e ca

se b

ecom

es a

vaila

ble,

act

ions

out

lined

bel

ow

may

be

amen

ded.

A

ctio

n St

eps

Pe

rson

(s) R

espo

nsib

le

Ta

rget

Dat

e

Initi

al(s

)

APPENDIX F: FAMILY PLAN

29

Fam

ily N

ame:

___

____

____

____

____

____

Fa

mily

Pla

n

Dat

e of

Con

fere

nce:

____

____

____

___

PSF-

101

(1/4

/201

0)

Page

__

of _

_ Co

nfid

entia

lity

Agre

emen

t: A

ll in

form

atio

n pr

esen

ted

and

shar

ed w

ithin

the

Fam

ily T

eam

Con

fere

nce

mus

t be

kept

con

fiden

tial.

I ha

ve

been

info

rmed

of t

he c

onfid

entia

lity

guid

elin

es fo

r PSF

Fam

ily T

eam

Con

fere

nces

, and

her

eby

agre

e to

hol

d al

l inf

orm

atio

n re

gard

ing

the

child

ren

and

fam

ilies

ser

ved

conf

iden

tial.

If

new

info

rmat

ion

rega

rdin

g th

e ca

se b

ecom

es a

vaila

ble,

act

ion

step

s ou

tline

d ab

ove

may

be

amen

ded.

Sign

atur

e be

low

den

otes

dis

cuss

ion

and

agre

emen

t to

conf

iden

tialit

y. Y

ou w

ill b

e as

ked

to in

itial

any

abo

ve it

ems

that

you

are

resp

onsi

ble

for.

Addi

tiona

l not

es a

nd T

eam

Mem

bers

to in

vite

to fo

llow

-up

Fam

ily T

eam

Con

fere

nce

(incl

ude

nam

es a

nd c

onta

ct in

form

atio

n):

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

Nam

e Ro

le

Phon

e Si

gnat

ure

Date

Fam

ily C

are

Cou

nsel

or

FTC

Fac

ilitat

or

FA

MIL

Y TE

AM

CO

NFE

REN

CE

– EX

EMPT

ION

__

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

PSF

101

b (3

/24/

2011

)

1

Fam

ily D

eter

min

ed N

on-A

pplic

able

for F

TC:

D

ate

of D

eter

min

atio

n:

C

ase

Nam

e:

AD

ULT

FA

MIL

Y M

EMB

ERS:

C

HIL

DR

EN:

Nam

e R

elat

ions

hip

N

ame

Cus

tody

Sta

tus

Perm

anen

cy G

oal

Shel

ter C

ase

Dat

e of

she

lter:

In

-Hom

e Su

perv

isio

n C

ase

Dat

e of

initi

al jo

int v

isit:

INIT

IAL

INFO

RM

ATIO

N R

ECEI

VED

IND

ICAT

ES E

XEM

PTIO

N F

RO

M F

TC IS

WA

RR

AN

TED

?

YES

N

O

PRES

ENTI

NG

CO

ND

ITIO

NS:

Wha

t wer

e th

e ab

use

alle

gatio

ns a

nd is

sues

resu

lting

in D

CF/

PSF

invo

lvem

ent w

ith th

e fa

mily

?

EFFO

RTS

MA

DE

TO F

AC

ILIT

ATE

PAR

TIC

IPAT

ION

IN F

AMIL

Y TE

AM C

ON

FER

ENC

E: P

rior t

o a

dete

rmin

atio

n fo

r exe

mpt

ion

the

follo

win

g ef

forts

wer

e m

ade

to e

ngag

e th

e fa

mily

in th

e Fa

mily

Tea

m C

onfe

renc

e pr

oces

s:

R

EASO

N F

OR

EXE

MPT

ION

TO

FAM

ILY

TEAM

CO

NFE

REN

CIN

G:

Spe

cific

reas

on(s

) and

circ

umst

ance

s w

hich

just

ify e

xem

ptio

n fro

m F

TC:

St

aff m

embe

r mak

ing

dete

rmin

atio

n:

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

__

Si

gnat

ure

D

ate

R

evie

win

g FC

C S

uper

viso

r:

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

_

Si

gnat

ure

Dat

e

Agen

cy:

PSF

C

HS

D

ever

eux

FP

S

Cam

elot

Uni

t:

Rev

iew

ing

Cas

e M

anag

emen

t Pro

gram

Dire

ctor

:

___

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

__

Sign

atur

e

D

ate

Appr

ovin

g U

M S

taff

Mem

ber:

__

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

Sign

atur

e

D

ate

APPENDIX G: EXEMPTION FORM

31

PSF

101

b (3

/24/

2011

)

2

Inst

ruct

ions

: To

be

com

plet

ed b

y th

e Fa

mily

Car

e C

ouns

elor

or b

y FT

C C

oord

inat

or w

hen

and

exem

ptio

n fro

m F

amily

Tea

m C

onfe

renc

ing

has

been

det

erm

ined

to b

e ap

prop

riate

. Th

e sp

ecifi

c re

ason

(s) f

or th

e ex

empt

ion

mus

t be

reco

rded

on

the

form

. Th

e fo

rm m

ust b

e si

gned

by

the

Fam

ily C

are

Supe

rvis

or a

nd P

rogr

am D

irect

or, p

rior t

o be

ing

subm

itted

for U

tiliz

atio

n M

anag

emen

t app

rova

l. T

he s

igne

d an

d co

mpl

eted

form

is

then

sen

t to

the

FTC

Pro

ject

Man

ager

or D

irect

or o

f Util

izat

ion

Man

agem

ent f

or fi

nal a

ppro

val a

nd w

ill th

en b

e lo

gged

into

Pki

ds.

NO

TE:

It is

the

Polic

y of

the

Par

tner

ship

for S

trong

Fam

ilies

for F

amily

Tea

m C

onfe

renc

ing

to o

ccur

with

all

fam

ilies

rece

ivin

g su

perv

isio

n an

d ca

se m

anag

emen

t ser

vice

s fro

m P

SF.

Onl

y un

der e

xtre

me

circ

umst

ance

s sh

ould

a fa

mily

be

dete

rmin

ed n

on-a

pplic

able

for a

FTC

. S

uch

circ

umst

ance

s w

ould

incl

ude

situ

atio

ns in

whi

ch c

ondu

ctin

g a

FTC

wou

ld b

e de

trim

enta

l or h

arm

ful t

o th

e ch

ild, f

amily

mem

ber,

Fam

ily C

are

Cou

nsel

or o

r ano

ther

mem

ber o

f the

FTC

team

. Pl

ease

kee

p in

min

d ch

ildre

n of

age

can

ben

efit

from

Fam

ily T

eam

Con

fere

ncin

g ev

en if

thei

r pa

rent

s ar

e no

t will

ing

to p

artic

ipat

e an

d/or

are

dee

med

to b

e ex

empt

from

the

FTC

pro

cess

. C

hild

ren

can

be e

mpo

wer

ed b

y ot

hers

in th

eir l

ives

to

ass

ist t

hem

in m

eetin

g th

eir g

oals

and

per

man

ency

pla

ns.

Fost

er P

aren

ts, r

elat

ives

, sch

ool t

each

ers,

Gua

rdia

ns a

d Li

tem

, sib

lings

and

oth

ers

can

assi

st th

e ch

ildre

n th

roug

h th

e FT

C p

roce

ss.

Visi

t us a

t pfs

f.org

Hea

dqua

rter

s . 5

950

NW

1st

Pla

ce, S

uite

A .

Gai

nesv

ille,

FL 3

2607

. 35

2.24

4.15

00

PRIN

CIP

LES

OF

TH

E C

HIL

D A

ND

FA

MIL

Y T

EAM

PR

OC

ESS

•T

he fo

cus

is o

n th

e ne

eds

rath

er th

an th

e sy

mpt

oms.

•Pe

ople

are

cap

able

of

chan

ge

•A

ll pe

ople

and

fam

ilies

hav

e st

reng

ths.

•A

sol

utio

n th

at a

fam

ily g

ener

ates

with

a te

am

is m

ore

likel

y to

fit t

hat f

amily

.

•A

fam

ily is

mor

e in

vest

ed in

a p

lan

in w

hich

th

ey b

elie

ve.

•Fa

mily

mem

bers

and

frie

nds

can

iden

tify

solu

tions

that

no

form

al s

yste

m w

ould

be

able

to

gen

erat

e.

•Fa

mily

and

frie

nds

prov

ide

love

and

car

ing

in

a w

ay th

at n

o fo

rmal

hel

ping

sys

tem

can

.

•W

hen

you

brin

g to

geth

er a

num

ber

of c

arin

g pe

ople

in th

e sa

me

room

you

obt

ain

ener

gy

that

fuel

s th

e en

gine

of

chan

ge.

Cor

e Prin

ciples

of

Eng

agin

g Fam

ilies

and

Fam

ily

Team

Con

feren

cing i

nclu

de:

Resp

ect

Aut

hent

icity

/Gen

uine

ness

Em

path

yFa

mily

Tea

m C

onfe

renc

ing

APPENDIX H: FTC BROCHURE

33

The

Fam

ily

Team

Fa

mili

es n

eed

help

in

times

of

crisi

s, so

the

y dr

aw

toge

ther

peo

ple

who

m t

hey

trus

t an

d w

ho c

an h

elp

in

resp

ondi

ng to

the

issue

s th

ey fa

ce. A

lmos

t eve

ryon

e ca

n id

entif

y a

time

whe

n th

ey f

orm

ed a

tea

m,

som

etim

es

involvingprofessionalhelpers,tomeetaspecificneed.

Like

wise

, mos

t pe

ople

who

hav

e dr

awn

a te

am a

roun

d th

em a

re w

illin

g to

bec

ome

cont

ribut

ors

to s

uch

a te

am

or c

ircle

of

frie

nds.

Fam

ily T

eam

Con

fere

ncin

g is

an

activ

ity a

ll fa

mili

es r

eceiv

ing

serv

ice

at P

artn

ersh

ip f

or

Stro

ng F

amili

es h

ave

an o

ppor

tuni

ty to

par

ticip

ate

in. I

t is

a pr

oces

s in

whi

ch p

artic

ipan

ts:

•Le

arn

wha

t the

fam

ily h

opes

to a

ccom

plish

•Se

t rea

sona

ble

and

mea

ning

ful g

oals

•Recognizeandaffirmthefamilystrengths

•A

sses

s fam

ily n

eeds

•Fi

nd so

lutio

ns to

mee

t fam

ily n

eeds

•D

esig

n in

divi

duali

zed

supp

orts

an

d se

rvic

es

that

mat

ch t

he f

amily

’s ne

eds

and

build

s on

the

ir st

reng

ths

•A

chie

ve c

larity

abo

ut w

ho is

resp

onsib

le fo

r agr

eed

upon

task

s •

Agr

ee o

n th

e ne

xt st

eps

The

FTC

is alr

eady

an

esta

blish

ed p

art o

f se

rvic

es

prov

ided

by

PSF,

alth

ough

diff

eren

t mod

els o

f FT

C ar

e pr

actic

ed a

nd re

sear

ched

else

whe

re.

The

proj

ect

plan

s to

test

the

curr

ent m

odel

util

ized

by

PSF

with

two

alter

nativ

e m

odel

s:•

Will

eac

h m

odel

pro

duce

diff

eren

t res

ults

?•

Will

par

ticip

ants,

esp

ecial

ly th

e fa

mily

, per

ceiv

e an

d va

lue

each

mod

el d

iffer

ently

?

Resu

lts o

f in

tere

st to

the

stud

y in

clud

e:•

Incr

easin

g ch

ild a

nd fa

mily

safe

ty a

t hom

e•

Redu

cing

tim

elin

ess t

o ac

hiev

e pe

rman

ent h

omes

fo

r chi

ldre

n•

Impr

ovin

g ch

ild a

nd fa

mily

wel

l-bei

ng•

Gre

ater

fam

ily in

volv

emen

t in

case

plan

ning

and

de

cisio

n m

akin

g•

Oth

er se

rvic

e go

als a

nd o

utco

mes

dee

med

of

valu

e by

fam

ilies

wor

king

with

serv

ice

prov

ider

s

The

resu

lts o

f th

e st

udy

will

be

of m

ajor i

mpo

rtan

ce

in h

elpi

ng P

SF e

valu

ate

the

valu

e of

FTC

in a

chie

ving

de

sired

out

com

es a

nd im

prov

ing

serv

ice

with

chi

ldre

n an

d fa

mili

es.

Plea

se re

view

the

Info

rmed

Con

sent

For

m. I

f yo

u ha

ve

any

ques

tions

rega

rdin

g th

is st

udy

and

your

pos

sible

part

icip

atio

n, p

leas

e co

ntac

t Dr.

Perr

y at

(850

) 322

-19

01; I

nstit

ute

for C

hild

and

Fam

ily S

ervi

ces R

esea

rch,

14

00 V

illag

e Sq

uare

Blv

d., S

uite

3-2

58, T

allah

asse

e, FL

32

312;

or R

obin

_Per

ry_P

hd@

com

cast

.net

.

STU

Dy O

N F

amil

y Te

am C

ON

FeRe

NCi

NG

The

Part

ners

hip

for

Stud

y Fa

mili

es

is

cond

ucti

ng

an

eval

uati

on o

f Fa

mily

Tea

m C

onfe

renc

ing

(FTC

). a

sum

mar

y of

the

Stu

dy a

nd P

urpo

se i

s de

taile

d be

low

. Pl

ease

see

th

e in

form

ed C

onse

nt F

orm

(pr

ovid

ed w

ith

this

bro

chur

e)

for

mor

e de

tails

reg

ardi

ng t

he s

tudy

and

you

r po

ssib

le

part

icip

atio

n. y

ou w

ill h

ave

an o

ppor

tuni

ty t

o ta

lk w

ith

a Fa

mily

Tea

m C

onfe

renc

e Co

ordi

nato

r (w

ho w

ill c

all

you)

ab

out

FTCs

and

the

stu

dy a

nd m

eet

and

disc

uss

this

stu

dy

befo

re s

igni

ng a

ny c

onse

nt f

orm

.

SUm

maR

yYo

u an

d yo

ur fa

mily

are

bei

ng a

sked

to p

artic

ipat

e in

a re

sear

ch st

udy

on se

rvic

es p

rovi

ded

by th

e Pa

rtne

rshi

p fo

r Stro

ng F

amili

es (h

erei

n re

ferr

ed to

as P

SF).

The

inde

pend

ent e

valu

ator

/Prin

cipa

l Inv

estig

ator

for t

his

stud

y is

Robi

n Pe

rry,

Ph.D

. fro

m th

e In

stitu

te fo

r Chi

ld

and

Fam

ily S

ervi

ces R

esea

rch.

You

wer

e se

lect

ed a

s a

poss

ible

par

ticip

ant i

n th

is st

udy

beca

use

you

are

curr

ently

invo

lved

with

the

Flor

ida

Stat

e D

epar

tmen

t of

Chi

ldre

n an

d Fa

mili

es (D

CF) i

n-ho

me

supe

rvisi

on

or o

ut-o

f-hom

e ca

re in

Circ

uit 3

and

8.

PURP

OSe

OF

The

STU

DyTh

e pu

rpos

e of

the

stud

y is

to te

st d

iffer

ent a

ppro

ache

s of

Fam

ily T

eam

Con

fere

ncin

g, a

mee

ting

that

invo

lves

va

rious

par

ticip

ants.

Par

ticip

ants

can

incl

ude,

but a

re n

ot

limite

d to

: par

ent(s

), ca

regi

ver(s

), th

eir

child

ren,

oth

er

fam

ily m

embe

rs, f

riend

s of

the

fam

ily a

nd p

rofe

ssio

nals

from

DCF

, PSF

and

oth

er c

omm

unity

-bas

ed a

genc

ies.

Visit us at pfsf.org to learn more about the innovative ways we’re changing child welfare!

5950 NW 1st Place, Suite A Gainesville, FL 32607

www.pfsf.org

Documents

Implementing Family Team Conferencing into a System …centerforchildwelfare.fmhi.usf.edu/Training/2015cpsummit/Session D... · Implementing Family Team Conferencing into a System