Upload
madeline-daniels
View
880
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
1
SPARC WebinarSeptember 5, 2012
Family Wellness CourtJudge Erica Yew
California Superior CourtSanta Clara County
2
Trauma-Informed CourtExtension of Problem-Solving Courts
What is it and WHY? Therapeutic alliance
Vivian Brown: 50 to 60% of outcome rests upon a positive therapeutic alliance
Only 1 to 2% is related to the treatment model or methodology used
20 years of adult drug court research indicates that the #1 incentive for people is their relationship with their judge or their probation officer
3
Considerations for a Trauma-Informed Court
Taking your time, even if it is an illusion Reduce waiting if possible Noise Setting Listening and validating where possible HONESTY RESPECT HOPE TRANSPARENCY: Clear communications and
expectations
4
Trauma-Informed Systems
FWC values statement includes trauma-informed system
Commitments by Partner Agencies Provider education Continual system assessment and
modification – 360 assessment Trauma specific services: DADS
Seeking Safety (PTSD and addiction), Mental Health trauma based cognitive behavioral therapy
5
FWC Overview
Target population: Pregnant women and parents, with children 0 to 3, whose abuse of methamphetamine and other substances have placed their children in or at risk of out-of-home placement.
Ten year experience, repeated subsequent pos-tox births
Started with grant in March 2008
6
FWC Primary Partners for GrantUS$ 6.3 million over 5 years
Superior Court Social Services Agency (SSA), SSA’s Department of
Family and Children’s Services (DFCS) and SSA’s County Counsel
First 5 Department of Drug and Alcohol Services (DADS) County Mental Health (MH) Legal Advocates for Children and Youth (LACY) –
children counsel Dependency Advocacy Center (DAC) – parents counsel
7
Primary FWC Goals (1)
Early identification of and intervention for the needs of pregnant women and parents with substance use disorders.
Rapid engagement and successful retention in treatment and care
Reduction in subsequent pos-tox births
8
Primary FWC Goals (2)
Early identification and intervention for developmental delays, disabilities and concerns for children 0-3 whose parents come before the FWC
Creation of a comprehensive System of Care across all systems serving children in or at risk of out-of-home placement as a result of parents’ methamphetamine and other substance abuse
9
FWC Eligibility Criteria
The parent has given birth to an infant that has been exposed to methamphetamine or other substance abuse during the pregnancy; OR
The parent has a child under the age of three that was either born drug exposed or has been raised in a substance abuse afflicted environment with documented abuse and/or neglect; AND
The parent does not demonstrate intractable mental health issues as presented in the filed petition; AND
The parent is not likely to face long term incarceration
10
FWC Customer Characteristics Fast-track cases History of CWS
involvement as children
40% were foster children themselves
Prior cases in CWS, many with prior termination of parental rights, 9 prior births, multiple pos-tox births
11
More Customer Characteristics
Extensive trauma history (give examples – multiple deaths, abandonment, kidnapping, prostitution as 8 yo)
80% cross over with DV 90% incarceration
history
12
More about Customer Characteristics
Methamphetamine primary drug of choice: national, state and local data indicate that 75-80% of child welfare
cases are drug and alcohol related. In Santa Clara County the drug of choice is methamphetamine where preference is around 64-67%.
Homeless or living in substandard housing, 65% chronic homelessness
Extremely low income, 66% have annual income of less than $10,000 TWD $ 285,000 Average California income US$ 61,017 Average U.S. income US$ 52,029 Federal Poverty Level for parent and 1 child US$ 14,570
13
FWC Services (1) Therapeutic court environment, with regular reviews Early connection to TANF, food stamps, other programs Case management by the court Legal representation Early drug and alcohol assessment and treatment Residential inpatient-treatment for women; and for
women with their children Transitional Housing Units (THU) for women, men,
children Mentor Parent support Domestic violence advocacy and services Transportation assistance (bus tokens, bus tokens for
children, bicycles, car seats) Linkages to shelter and housing
14
FWC Services (2) Limited funding to assist with barriers to case plan
completion (books, birth certificates, funeral transportation)
Linkages to employment and benefits services, record clearance
Coordination with Criminal Court partners, fine conversion
Therapeutic services, dyadic and PCIT included Pregnancy prevention education Comprehensive developmental and behavioral
screening, assessment and interventions for all children
Child appointed special advocates (CASA’s) for many children and parents = an extension of role
15
FWC Services (3) Linkage to health coverage and primary care
physicians Linkage to dental and vision care through charitable
organizations Access to a wide array of parenting classes Home visitation and Public Health Nurses with regular
reporting – transparency Diapers, children’s and adult clothing & shoes,
hygiene products, groceries/meals, milk, books, toys, strollers
Early care and education services GED assistance Language assistance Budget and nutrition information and workshops Medical and dental health care for children Tattoo removal and MORE….
16
Children’s Services Overview
Funded by FIRST 5 Santa Clara County Medi-Cal/EPSDT (Early Periodic Screening and
Diagnosis and Treatment) is leveraged MHSA (Prop 63: Mental Health Services Act – 1%
income tax on excess of personal income of $1 million), County General Fund and reimbursement via public
children’s insurance programs are also utilized for Mental Health services
System of Care: Tiered system based on level of need as determined by screening and assessments utilizing standardized tools and evidence-based practices
17
FWC Multidisciplinary Team/MDT
Judge Court Resource
Manager DV/Trauma Therapist Victim Witness
Advocate♦ Eligibility Worker Child Advocate DADS rehab counselor Adult MH Coordinator♦ First 5 Specialist
Social Work Liaison County Counsel Child’s Attorney Parent Parent’s Attorney &
Mentor Social Worker Therapist Home Visitor Public Health Nurse
Special Support People(SARC, parent advocates)
18
FWC Hearings
Hearings may occur daily, weekly, twice a month or once monthly depending on parent progress
Staffings are held with the court team prior to the hearing to discuss case progress, concerns and develop joint recommendations – COMPREHENSIVE
Incentives or Sanctions may be given Resources given
19
FWC Data
Doors Opened March 14, 2008 As of April 2011, data below:
1 to 2+ years of services per family (FR → FM)
290 parents served 3 re-entries (mental health and housing) in 3 years 11-12% re-entry rate in California 1 subsequent pos-tox births in 3 years (despite
many births and population that had repeated prior pos-tox births, mothers with 8 children previously removed)
20
More about the Results
Santa Clara County Reunifications Rates2009 = 48%, no separate tracking for Fast
Track cases
2010 = 53%, FWC may be improving general outcomes
FWC as of September 2010 for Fast Track cases = 71%
350 children served100% of children whether parents succeed or
not
21
Primary Keys to Success
Commitment at highest agency administrative levels
Shared values Passion and commitment of involved staff Comprehensive service model Service model that evolves as additional client
needs are identified Incorporation of the parents’ voices (through
mentors and the actual parents before the court – surveys, court experience)
Promoting the parent-baby bond
Joanne Moore, DirectorWashington State Office of Public Defense
Why was the Parents Representation Program Started?
1999 Report for the Legislature: State of Parents’ Attorneys
Excessive Caseloads and Low Pay Little Time to Communicate with Parents or Help them Engage
Frequent Continuances and Case Delays
Program Model
Reasonable Attorney Caseloads Program Social Workers Funds for Independent Experts Frequent Trainings Central Support
OPD Parents Representation Program
Pilot 2000‐2005 Expanded to 2/3 of Washington State
6,700 Open Cases Fully Funded by State Funds – Right to Counsel
New Practice Standards
Parents Representation Program Standards Addressed Substandard Practices
Standards Lead to Improvements: Enhanced Communication Early Parent Engagement Increased Access to Services and Visitation Timely Case Resolution
Evaluations and Data Four Small Evaluations During the Pilot 2010 OPD and 2011 Washington State Center for Court Research
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
OPD Counties Non OPD Counties
OPD Program Counties Improved Reunification Rates While Non‐Program Counties Did Not
Pre Program Period Post Program Period
Child Welfare System Impact Before Parents Representation Program, parents and their attorneys were virtually absent from the statewide policy decisions
Policy contributions over the last decade by the Parents Representation Program include: Membership in statewide committees such as the state Supreme Court Foster Care Commission and Catalyst for Kids’ Washington State Parent Advocacy Committee
Collaboration with the department and other stakeholders to develop Expert and Evaluator Guidelines
Local projects such as visitation centers and family treatment court
The Permanency Project
The TeamAnne Marie Lancour, M.A.T., J.D.
Heidi Redlich Epstein, J.D., M.S.W.Mimi Laver, J.D.
Kathleen McNaught, J.D.Elizabeth Thornton, J.D.
Cristina Cooper, J.D.Jeffrey Adolph, J.D.Margaret Burt, J.D.
Honorable Stephen Rideout (ret.) , J.D.Scott Trowbridge, J.D.
Goal: Reduce children’s stay in foster care
• Help children in foster care find safe, permanent homes, faster
• Identify and break down system barriers to permanency
• Save scarce state and county dollars
• Train on best practices that promote permanency
• ABA measures success through Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI)
• ABA identifies system changes to improve permanency outcomes
• ABA visits counties monthly during project period and develops tools and procedures
• ABA develops county network and shares solutions statewide
••
Our CQI Process
Key Project Components
• Advisory BoardComprised of family or juvenile court Judges and Masters, local child welfare agency administrators, attorneys, key agency staff, and a range of other stakeholders.
• ABA Project DirectorVisits the project county monthly to work with the Advisory Board
• Permanency Planning Specialist
Our Approach
• Develop local action plan• Recognize small steps add up to change• Keep permanency planning focus• Identify children's needs early• Refine court procedures in permanency areas• Provide legal analyses and technical assistance
Project Tasks
The project undertakes five major tasks:
1. Identifying and analyzing delays;
2. Interactively developing recommendations and implementing reforms;
3. Establishing written protocols, procedures, and providing multidisciplinary training;
4. Monitoring reforms and changes; and
5. Sharing project results throughout the state.
Overcoming Barriers• Missing or unidentified parents• Relatives entering the case late• Increase in teen population• Lack of training on permanency planning issues• Late starts in offering services• Inadequate concurrent planning• Difficulty in obtaining evaluations and/or expert
testimony• Delays in court procedures
Case Data Drives Change
• Staff analyze cases, tracking how long it takes a child to achieve permanency
• Collect data and detect trends to both create solutions and measure outcomes
• Project targets key skills and topics for improvement based on data review
• Over 20 project counties
• Children in PA project counties have saved an average of 9 months in foster care before finding permanent homes.
• Counties have saved a total of $9,460,000 - and counting - in foster care costs.
• Better court-agency communication and increased investment in improved outcomes for children and families.
Pennsylvania Results••
The Project has provided over 35 unique trainings in Pennsylvania counties
Examples include:• The relationship between ASFA, permanency, and substance abuse treatment • Trial testimony skills for caseworkers and service providers• Strategies to meet the education needs of children in foster care • Older youth in foster care and APPLA as a permanency goal as well as alternatives to it
Pennsylvania Results, Cont.
PA Results: County Examples
• Blair County develops a Family Treatment Drug Court
• Northampton County develops an Interim Court Directive/Permanency Plan to eliminate delays in service referrals
• Lackawanna County introduces a new court procedure, the Dependency Compliance Conference, to increase accountability and expedite permanency
• Westmoreland County initiates a 90-day multidisciplinary case conference process
Overall OutcomesSince 1989, more than 40 counties across four states have saved time and money with the Permanency Project:
• $25 million total saved in foster care costs
• Over 2200 kids benefitted directly
• Average of one less year waiting in foster care
New York - $15,272,000 saved, 15 month average time reduction
Wyoming - $704,000 saved, 11 month average time reduction
Kentucky - $237,600 saved, 9 month average time reduction
Harnessing the Results1989 – A focus on adoption casesTermination Barriers Project begins with funding from the New York StateDept. of Social Services and the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services.
1991 – NYS Office of Children and Family Services continues to fund theProject for the next 13 years.
2004 – The project is successfully completed in 20 small, medium, and largecounties throughout NYS.
2004 – New focus on all permanency types, emphasizing reunificationPennsylvania contracts with ABA for largest Permanency Barriers Project to date. KY and WY also contract with the Project.
2005 – ABA wins Adoption Excellence Award for work on the NYPermanency Barriers Project
Expanding the Program
• Working with former project counties to provide additional TA and “refresher” trainings
• Engaging new locations
• Increasing the focus on and tracking of child well-being indicators
Questions/Contact Information
Anne Marie LancourABA Center on Children and the Law
740 15th Street, NWWashington, DC 20005
(202)662-1756 [email protected]
www.americanbar.org/child