1

Fifteen Years of Progress Working with Families

Sustaining it for Another Fifteen Years and Beyond

Larimer County Department of Human Services

Fort Collins, Colorado

Larimer County Practice Model

2

2002Restorative

Justice Principles

2004

Family Options /Neutral

FacilitationsCommunity

InclusionPaired Team Model

Family Engagement 2008

Olmstead Model

2009Signs of Safety

Family Assessment

Planning Team (FAPT)

Solution FocusSkill

Techniques October 2010

Differential Response

InvestigationFamily Assessment

Applied to Child

Welfare

Group Decision Making

Red Teams Consultation Teams

3

Remain Home *

FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 Q1 FY 11

Q2 FY 11

70.0%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

92.8% 93.7% 92.8%94.7% 94.5%

79.9%77.7% 78.1%

79.7%76.6%

Larimer CountyColorado Large

Start of RED Teams

*Children who were not initially (first 30 days) in OOH placement and did not enter an OOH placement during the case involvement.

Out of Home Placements versus Family Meetings

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY100

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

568

898

1521

18221958

667

640 596492

381

Children in Family MeetingsChildren Placed Out of Home

43% reduction inplacements since FY06

4

Start of Family Options

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

620577

649678

751776 770

660

599

498

380

Number in Care By Year

Number in Care

5

Family EngagementNo Decision About Me, Without Me

Inclusion of children/youth in all family meetings – physically present, by letter, drawing, etc.

Search /inclusion of fathers and fathers’ families

Use of genogramsUse of the frameworkDevelopment of risk statementFamily driven plans

6

Types of Family MeetingsFamily Safety and Resource Team - FSRTEmergency placement of child/youthEmergency change of placementEmergency preservation of placementFiling of D&N and/or SubstantiationSex offending Youth/DA/DHSFamily Unity Meeting - FUMNon-emergency change of placementDevelopment of Treatment plan/Service planNon-emergency need to discuss case progress,

placement, etc.

7

8

Support Network at Case Open

Mother

Maternal Grand-

mother

Maternal Uncle

Maternal Great Aunt

Paternal Grandparents

9

Support Network at Case Closure

Mother

Hospice

Maternal Grand-mother

PaternalAunt

Extended Maternal

FamilyUncle Family

Drug and Alcohol

Counselor

Great Aunt AA

Sponsor

Friend Daycare

AA Community

In-Laws

Ongoing Therapist

Husband

PlayGroup

Lunch Mom at Child’s

School

Uncle’s Girlfriend

Types of Family MeetingsFamily Group Conference – FGC Develop concurrent plan with family Transition planning Reunification planning Any decision the family group can plan for on their own

with the guidelines from agency, Court, etc. Private family meeting timeMediation Parents and children in conflict Co-Parenting planning Between foster/kin parents and birth parents Between relatives

10

Family Assessment and Planning Team (FAPT)

Multi-disciplinary, community teamReducing and preventing TRCCF and out of

home placementsChild focused, family centered service and

support plans designed by the familyYouth currently placed in TRCCF: 10

11

12

Referral

Red Team

Assignment

Closing at Assessment

Develop Risk

Statement with Family

Develop Safety

Plan with Family

1. Plcmt F / K 2. D & N 3. Substantiation4. High Risk5. Emergency

change of placement

ReviewRisk

Statement

ReviewRisk

Statement

1. Increase in child vulnerability

2. Decrease parental capacity

3. Substantial regression of progress – compromise safety

4. Non-emergency change in placement

FSRTIntake Consult

FGCFUM

Ongoing Consult

1.Svs. request

2. If open for ongoing services

beyond 60 days

FSRT1. If track change2. High * Mod Risk

FAR or PA 4 Track

Traditional Track

FSRT FUM / FGC

FGC

Close

Close

Close

Close

FGC

•High Risk = High Child • Vulnerability Low Parental Capacity

Family Meeting Timeline

Family may request a family mtg. any timeOOH provider may request a family mtg.

Numbers from assessment tool

Consult

FAPT1. TRCCF or risk

of2. Out of County

Plcmt (other than kin)

ReviewRisk

Statement

13

Larimer County Assessment ToolResources Used to Develop Likert Scale

Minnesota Family Assessment of Needs and Strengths The Vulnerable Child – Action for Child Protection, Inc Child Safety – American Bar Association Colorado Safety Continuum

Child Vulnerability Based upon age, medical limitations, developmental limitations, risk to

self and ability to self protect

Safety Physical, sexual or emotional abuse, neglect, domestic violence,

supervision of child, child’s relationship with parent

Parental Capacity Emotional or mental health issues, physical health, criminal activities,

parenting skills, communication, support system, housing and employment

Consultation = Group Decision Making

RED team – Review Evaluate & Direct

Intake Consultation team

Ongoing Consultation team

Group Supervision

Group decision making using an applied framework that starts a direction of a balanced assessment!

(Established in Olmsted County, Minnestoa)

RED TEAM

14

Foster Care Kinship TRCCF/RTC0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

304

72

100

235

81

107

270

89

135

269

106

149

291

124

177

310

171

125

300

217

100

273

175

89

293

140

67

246

112

64

219

78

42

Children In Care By Service Type

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 201015

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

278234

342

309325

314 324303

270

172

158

277 270 280

252

289

330

413

331

273 279

159

Exits and Entry Into Care By Year (Chapin Hall)

Removals Exits16

Kinship Program for Relative CaregiversFormal Non-Certified Placements:

Kinship caseworker is assigned to meet with caregivers and complete a self-assessment inventory to determine appropriateness of placement (not a formal home study, but still provides valuable information)

Provides quarterly TANF paymentProvides support from Kinship caseworkersProvides access to TANF Diversion funds

Informal Placements with no Child Welfare involvement:Letter sent to caregiver informing them of the

program and providing access to a kinship caseworker as needed

Provides quarterly TANF paymentProvides access to other TANF resources

17

Certified vs Non-Certified Kin Placements

Feb-1

0

Mar

-10

Apr-1

0

May

-10

Jun-

10

Jul-1

0

Aug-1

0

Sep-

10

Oct

-10

Nov

-10

Dec-1

0

Jan-

110

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

CertifiedNon-Certified

18

Specialized Foster Care (SFC) Program

Why did we develop the program? Observed children lingering in residential care for extended periods

of time Institutionalized children were not successful integrating back into

their families or their community Children were being placed in residential much of the time because

a family setting could not be found not because the youth required that level of care

Core Principles of the program Providers receive advanced skill training Regular support – home visits 20 hours/week in home support staff provided by the mental health

center Respite – Planned and emergency No eject/No reject level of commitment (modeled after Hampton VA)

19

Outcomes in the first year – 30 youth placed

Discharge (15 Youth)9 discharged to home or other permanency (60%)2 discharged to another foster home (13%)4 discharged to a higher level of care (27%)

3 to DYC (1 committed, 1 detained, 1 returned home) 1 hospitalized

Juvenile Justice Outcomes23 were on probation at time of placement7 successfully terminated probation during placement in

SFCZero received new charges during placement in SFC

20

Core Services and House Bill 1451 Spending ComparisonJuvenile Delinquents (PA4) vs Child Protection (PA5&6)

FY06 1st yr of HB1451 FY10 Projected$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$952,920

$1,855,234

$1,422,950

$1,932,830

PA4 Core /HB1451PA5/6 Core /HB1451

21

94.7% increase in spending for PA4 since FY0635.8% increase in spending for PA5&6 since FY06

22

Fiscal Year 2010Average Cost of Services Per Child

Average Cost per Child for Institutional Placement = $25,477

CSU Research Results – HB1451 Overall Rankings

Six HighestPrevention PlusFamily Group

ConferencingCase ManagerTruancyJuvenile Sex Offender

ProgramFFT

Six LowestDay TreatmentMSTTRCCFFAPTSubstance AbuseMental Health

23

Larimer County – Reunification in 12 MonthsFederal Goal = 75.2% or more(FY06 – FY10)

24

25

Absence of Abuse/Neglect Recurrence*

FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 Q1 FY 11

Q2 FY 11

91.0%

92.0%

93.0%

94.0%

95.0%

96.0%

97.0%

98.0%

99.0%

100.0%

95.1%

96.2%

97.4%

99.1% 99.0%

95.4%

94.2%

96.2%95.6%

95.0%

Larimer CountyColorado Large

Federal Goal 94.6%

Start of RED Teams

*Children who do not experience repeat maltreatment within 6 months of a confirmed report of Abuse or Neglect

Larimer County – No Re-Entry in 12 MonthsFederal Goal =90.1% or more(FY06 – FY10)

26

Hispanic Non-Hispanic0

100

200

300

400

500

600

143

467

126

436

142

455

163

461

183

505

217

503

197

503

153

459

146

421

135

337

123

235

Children In Care By Ethnicity

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 201027

What does the future hold?

Continue Family Engagement Strategies

Family Consumer Council Faith Based Partnerships Needs Assessment Focus Groups

Group Supervision – Sue Lohrbach

Zero TRCCFCSU Research – Develop new

programs Nurses Family Visitors Peer Specialists In Home Supports Family Substance Abuse Treatment Coaches

Cross-Over YouthSettlement HousesExpand Kin/Foster CareCSU Research – ARCHDifferential Response (DR)

SOS Training Training Screeners Un-training Academy DR Model Poster Practice Coaches

HB1451 CommunityChild Vulnerability and

Parental Capacity

28