Wyoming Mini-CFSR

1. Wyoming Mini-CFSR How are we doing? How are the children doing?

2. Review Instrument • Adapted from Federal CFSR instrument • Face Sheet • Three sections (color coded tabs) • Safety (all cases) • Permanency (foster care only) • Well-being (all cases)

3. Layout • Outcome at top of the page • Item listed below • Where to find the information • Is this case applicable? • Core questions • Rating – Strength, Area Needing Improvement, NA • Rating criteria for each item • Reason for rating & documentation • Exploratory questions

4. General issues • Names used only in face sheet • Asterisk after the name of the target child for foster care cases • Main reason addresses only item under review • Main reason must support the item rating • Rate all relevant items • Main reason should contain enough information to fully explain the rating • Examine exploratory questions before writing the main reason

5. Safety Outcome 1: Children are Protected Item 1: Timeliness (all cases/all children) • Reports over life of the case • Reports during the period under review (PUR) • Timely initiation • Timely face to face with the children • Reasons for delays • Priority assigned • Source of information

6. Timeliness Examples of reasons for rating • This item was rated as ANI because the report during the PUR was assigned a priority level of Immediate response, but face-to-face contact with the child was not made for three days. • This item was rated as a strength because the report during the PUR was assigned a priority level of Immediate, it was initiated and the child was seen within 2 hours. • The item was rated as NA because there were no substantiated or indicated reports of maltreatment to any children in the family during the PUR.

7. Safety Outcome 1: Children are protected Item 2: Repeat Maltreatment (all cases/all children) • Applicable • During PUR at least 1 substantiated or indicated maltreatment report, or • Alternate response - referred for assessment & case opened for services to address safety concerns • 6 month look before & after • Same or similar circumstances • Maltreatment in foster care • Source of information

8. Repeat maltreatment Examples of reasons for rating • There was a substantiated (or indicated) report during the PUR, and there was another substantiated or indicated report within 6 months of that report with similar circumstances (ANI); • There was a substantiated or indicted report during the PUR, but there was no other substantiated or indicated report within 6 months of that report (Strength); or • There was no substantiated or indicated report during the PUR (NA). Concerns about reports being screened out or not investigated should be addressed in Item 4.

9. Children are protected Rating Safety Outcome 1 Specific directions are provided to rate the outcome on page 10.

10. Safety Outcome 2: Children are safely maintained in their homes when possible Item 3: Services to protect children in the home & prevent removal • Is the case applicable? • In-home cases • Concerns regarding safety of at least one child during PUR • Services for children at risk of foster care placement for safety reasons • Foster care cases • Child entered FC during PUR due to safety concerns • Child was reunified during PUR & there are safety concerns • Child entered FC before PUR & remained in FC, but there are other children in the home & safety concerns for them during PUR • Concerted efforts to provide services to protect children & prevent entry or re-entry into FC • If removed during PUR without concerted efforts was the action necessary to ensure the child’s safety? • Source of the information

11. Services to protect children in the home & prevent removal Examples of reasons for rating • A FC case was rated as NA because the only child entered FC before the PUR & based on case record review, there is nothing to indicate any new or continuing concerns for the safety of children in the home. • The case is rated as a strength because concerted efforts were made to provide services to prevent the child from returning to FC once he returned home during the PUR. Those services included: (specific to safety issues)…. • The case was rated at ANI because although the case was open for 3 months during the PUR before the children’s removal, there was not evidence of services being provided to address the father’s abuse of alcohol which contributed to the domestic violence in the home which led to the children’s removal. • The case was rated as a strength because children were removed during the PUR without services being provided due to the emergency nature of the situation (be specific in describing the circumstances).

12. Safety Outcome 2: Children are safely maintained in their homes when possible Item 4: Risk assessment & safety management • All cases are applicable • Risk – likelihood that a child will be maltreated in the future • Initial and on-going assessment of risk & safety • During visitation with family due to insufficient monitoring, etc. • In FC or facility not adequately addressed • Development of a safety plan • Monitor & update safety plan • Safety assessment of home before return of the child(ren) • Source of the information

13. Risk assessment & safety management Examples of reasons for rating • The case was rated as a strength because there was an initial risk & safety assessment, a safety plan was developed & monitored throughout the PUR & there was ongoing assessment of risk & safety. (Additional information will be necessary to address exploratory questions) • The case was rated as ANI because although there was an initial risk & safety assessment, there was no evidence of ongoing assessment of risk & safety & no safety plan was developed.

14. Children are safely maintained in their homes Rating Safety Outcome 2 Specific directions are provided to rate the outcome on page 19.

15. Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency & stability in their living situations Item 5: Foster care re-entries • Applicable if there was FC entry during PUR • Discharge from a prior FC episode within 12 months • Concerted efforts to prevent re-entry • Source of the information

16. Foster care re-entries Examples of reasons for rating • This case was rated as a strength because although there was discharge from FC 4 months before, concerted efforts to prevent re-entry were made through ISP, daily contact & monitoring,….. • This case was rated as an ANI because the child was discharged from FC 4 months earlier with no services provided to prevent re-entry.

17. Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency & stability in their living situations Item 6: Stability of FC placement • Number of placement settings • Changes planned to achieve the child case goals or meet the needs of the child • Placement disruption at the request of the foster parent because of child’s behavior is not considered planned to achieve goals or meet needs • Detention is not counted as a placement setting • Stability of the current or most recent placement setting • Source of the information

18. Stability of FC placement Examples of reasons for rating • The case was rated a strength because the child was in only one placement setting during the PUR & that setting appears to be stable: or • The child changed placement settings during the PUR, but the changes were part of a planned effort to move the child toward her case goals & the current placement is stable. • This item is ANI because the child had (#) of placement settings during the PUR & the changes were due to X & Y & did not reflect agency effort to achieve the child’s case goals; or • The child remained in the same placement during the PUR, however, that placement is not stable at this time because…..

19. Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency & stability in their living situations Item 7: Permanency goal for child • Rated for: • appropriateness & timeliness of goals • TPR/ASFA issues • Identify goals specified in the case file • Concurrent goals • Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) • 15 of the most recent 22 months • ASFA requirements • Exceptions (Compelling reasons) • Achievement of the goal is rated in other items • Source of the information

20. Permanency goal Examples of reasons for rating • This item is an ANI because although the goal of reunification is an appropriate goal for the child, there was no case plan or goal developed for 6 months after her entry into FC: or • The goal of reunification is not an appropriate goal during the PUR as there have been extensive efforts over the past 2 years to engage the parents in services to address safety issues with no progress & the agency has not pursued TPR after more than 2 years in care with no compelling reason not to pursue TPR. • This item is a strength because the goal of adoption is appropriate and was established 12 months into placement when it was apparent that the family was not able to provide a safe & stable home for the child. The agency pursued & was granted TPR at the time adoption became the goal.

21. Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency & stability in their living situations Item 8: Reunification, Guardianship or permanent placement with relatives • What the goal is • Has it been achieved • How long the goal was in place • How long the child was in FC • Describe concerted efforts by agency & court • 12 months or earlier • Source of the information

22. Reunification, Guardianship or permanent placement with relatives Examples of reasons for rating • This item is a strength because the goal of reunification was achieved after 6 months of placement in FC. Concerted efforts of the agency & court include……. • This item is an ANI because after 18 months in FC, the goal of reunification has not been achieved & there is not evidence of concerted efforts by the agency to engage the parents in services to address the safety issues which required the child’s removal.

23. Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency & stability in their living situations Item 9: Adoption • What the goal is • Has it been achieved • How long the goal was in place • How long the child was in FC • Describe concerted efforts by agency & court • 24 months or earlier • Source of the information

24. Adoption Examples of reasons for rating • This item is a strength because the goal of adoption was achieved after 16 months from the time of placement. Concerted efforts of the agency & court include concurrent planning for adoption from the 7th month in FC, filing of TPR after 12 months and pre-adoptive placement of the child with her foster parents of 16 months. • This item is an ANI because after 36 months in FC & 24 months with the goal of adoption this child is not yet in a pre-adoptive placement, the goal has not been achieved & the proceedings for TPR have been delayed by the court through granting of numerous continuances.

25. Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency & stability in their living situations Item 10: Other planned permanent living arrangement • The child’s age • Age when the goal of APPLA was assigned • Provision of independent living (IL) services • Long term commitment of the placement to serve the child • Formal agreement signed by foster parents as permanent placement until majority • Source of the information

26. Other planned permanent living arrangement Examples of reasons for rating • Strength: The child is now 15 years old, the goal of APPLA was established when the child was 14 years old. The child is now in a placement that is considered by both the agency & the foster parents to be a permanent placement. There is a formal agreement signed by the foster parents that they will care for the child until the age of majority (or longer). The child is receiving independent living services through Lifenet commensurate with the child’s age & needs.

27. Children have permanency & stability in their living situations Rating Permanency Outcome 1 Specific directions are provided to rate the outcome on page 37. Be sure you have rated all goals that apply in Items 8, 9 & 10. (all current goals)

28. Permanency Outcome 2: Continuity of family relationships & connections are preserved for children Item 11: Proximity of FC placement • Key issue : placement close enough to facilitate contact with the parents • Where the placement is (same community, county, state) • Close enough to permit frequent visits with parents (less than 1 hour travel distance) • If not close enough, is this placement necessary to meet the child’s needs • Item 14 includes extended family, not to be rated here • Source of the information

29. Proximity of FC placement Examples of reasons for rating • The item was rated as a strength because although the child is not placed in the same county or community as the parents, the out-of-county placement was with a relative & this was necessary to meet the child’s permanency needs. • The item was rated as strength because, although the child is not placed in the same county or community as the parents, the placement is only 26 miles or 20 minutes from the community where the parent or parents reside.

30. Permanency Outcome 2: Continuity of family relationships & connections are preserved for children Item 12: Placement with siblings • Applicable if there are any siblings in FC • Placed together • If not, is there a valid reason for separate placement • Source of the information

31. Placement with siblings Examples of reasons for rating • This item is a strength because both siblings are placed together & have been for the entire placement episode. • This item is a strength although the siblings are placed separately due to the specific treatment needs of the target child & to provide for the safety of the younger sibling. • This item is an ANI because the only reason for the siblings’ separation in FC is the lack of a foster family home able to accommodate a sibling group of 3 children.

32. Efforts to locate & engage absent parents (most often fathers) • Affects items 13, 16, 17, 18 & 20 • Categories: • Mother doesn’t know who the father is • Mother doesn’t want father involved due to domestic violence or drug involvement which threaten family safety • Absent parent in jail • Doesn’t know the whereabouts of the absent parent or they have never really been involved • Agency says they located absent parent but they would not engage in assessment or services • Importance of engaging both parents: • Family centered practice • Resource for the child • Parent is having contact with the child • TPR requires diligent search

33. What constitutes diligent search • Used all resources available to locate & engage absent parent • Sufficient inquiry into parent’s identity, location & status • Beyond asking custodial parent once & not pursuing further • Parent locator services through child support, case files, central registries • Inquiry about relatives of absent parent • Contact relatives when identified • Advertise in newspaper • Contact parent at last know address or phone number • Not required to continue monthly attempts, but has continued to search, not just once 5 years ago

34. Permanency Outcome 2: Continuity of family relationships & connections are preserved for children Item 13: Visiting with parents & siblings in FC • Visitation with mother & father separately if relevant • Visitation with siblings in FC • Visits with siblings not in FC are considered in item 14 • Note TPR on 1 or both parents during PUR if applicable • Note if whereabouts of parent is unknown • Frequency & if it meets the child’s needs • Concerted efforts to promote frequency & address barriers such as lack of cooperation by parents • Source of the information

35. Visiting with parents & siblings in FC Examples of reasons for rating • This item is rated as a strength because the child has weekly visits with both parents & with her siblings who are in FC with another relative. These visits appear to meet the child’s need for contact with her parents & siblings during the PUR; or • Although the monthly visits between the child & her parents are not sufficient to meet the child’s needs as evidenced by her pleading for more contact, the agency has made every effort possible to get parents to more frequent visits. They have transported parents when they can be located, they have waived UA’s in favor of supervised visits to accommodate the child’s need for more frequent contact, etc…… • The item is an ANI because the visits between parents & child have been inconsistent & not actively supported by the agency. Because UA’s are required & parents cannot afford or refuse them, visits are limited to supervised visits only when the parents produce evidence of a negative UA.

36. Permanency Outcome 2: Continuity of family relationships & connections are preserved for children Item 14: Preserving connections • Not to be rated based on visits with parents • Other activities which maintain the child’s connections with extended family, neighbors, church, community, friends, etc. • ICWA – federally recognized tribe • Member or • Eligibility for membership • Sufficient inquiry with parent, child, custodian or other interested party (not part of rating) • Timely notice to tribes • FC placement according to ICWA • Source of the information

37. Preserving connections Examples of reasons for rating • The item is a strength because the agency has determined that the child is a member of the Northern Arapaho tribe, provided notice to the tribe & placed the child with a Northern Arapaho relative foster home. • The item is an ANI because the agency has failed to support connections for the child to extended family, church & community. The child is placed with a foster family who moved to another state without preserving connections in Wyoming.

38. Permanency Outcome 2: Continuity of family relationships & connections are preserved for children Item 15: Relative placement • Not applicable: • Upon entry agency determined the child’s needs required & will continue to require specialized placement the entire placement episode • Abandonment when identity of parents & relatives remain unknown despite concerted efforts to identify them • Is the child currently placed with relatives • Were there efforts to locate & consider both maternal & paternal relatives • Source of the information

39. Relative placement Examples of reasons for rating • This item is a strength because the child is placed with paternal grandparents & both maternal & paternal relatives were considered for placement. • This item is an ANI because the agency failed to inquire about or consider either maternal or paternal relatives. • This item is NA because the child’s need for psychiatric residential placement precluded the possibility of any relative placement from her entry into FC until her release.

40. Permanency Outcome 2: Continuity of family relationships & connections are preserved for children Item 16: Relationship of child in care with parents • Not rated on the basis of visits between parent & child • Document efforts other than visits (participation in medical visits, school meetings, etc.) • If no efforts other than visits, probably not a strength • Describe bond between parents & child • Agency efforts to support the bond • Separate statement about each parent • Why it might not be relevant for one or both parents • Source of the information

41. Relationship of child in care with parents Examples of reasons for rating • This item is a strength because the agency has supported the mother & the father to participate in all medical appointments, school functions & the child’s activities outside of school. • This item is a strength because the agency has supported contact between the incarcerated mother & the child by providing transportation out of state for the child to visit twice during the PUR. She is also supported in weekly telephone contact with her mother. • This item is an ANI because there has been no effort by the agency to support the relationship of the child with her mother beyond visitation weekly. • This item is NA because prior to the PUR the parental rights of both parents were terminated & it has been determined that further contact with them would not be in the child’s best interest.

42. Continuity of family relationships & connections are preserved Rating Permanency Outcome 2 • Specific directions are provided to rate the outcome on page 51.

43. Well-being Outcome 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs Item 17: Needs & services of child, parents, & foster parents • 17A – Needs & services of the child • Exclude educational, medical, dental, & mental health needs (covered in items 21, 22 & 23) • FC applies to target child • IH applies to all children in the home • 17B – Needs & services of the parents • Inclusive of all needs & services • Include mother & father separately in documentation • 17C – Needs & services of the foster parents • Rate each separately • 17(overall rating) – includes all three above • Source of the information

44. Needs & services of child, parents, & foster parents Examples of reasons for rating • 17A is rated as strength. The child’s needs were assessed informally by the caseworker & foster parent. The 2 year old child’s needs included socialization, stability in placement & frequent contact with her mother. These needs were met through foster care placement & the child’s enrollment & participation in preschool activities at the YWCA; her foster mother & bio-mother both attended with her. • Item 17 is an ANI because although the child’s needs were adequately assessed & addressed, neither the mother’s or father’s needs were assessed or services provided. The mother initially refused all services & the agency failed to follow up with subsequent contacts to engage the mother. The father’s whereabouts were unknown & there is no evidence of agency efforts to locate or engage the father. The needs of the foster parents for respite care & assistance with transportation were assessed & services provided.

45. Well-being Outcome 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs Item 18: Child & family involvement in case planning • Involvement of child, mother & father (or primary caretakers from whom the child was removed) • Elementary school age children or older • FC applies to target child • IH applies to all children in the home • Concerted efforts to actively involve each of the above • Appropriate information if involvement is not applicable • Does not include involvement of foster parents • Source of the information

46. Child & family involvement in case planning Examples of reasons for rating • The item is a strength because the child (15years old) and both parents were involved in case planning through participation in family partnership meetings, treatment planning sessions, MDT meetings & individual meetings with the caseworker. All indicated they felt they had input, it was their plan & that their requests were considered. • The item is an ANI because although both parents were included in all planning meetings, the child (12 years old) was excluded from MDT meetings, all court proceedings & no family partnership meetings were held. The child reports she did not feel heard & that the adults made all the decisions for her.

47. Well-being Outcome 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs Item 19: Caseworker visits with child • Face to face contact by caseworker with responsibility for case management • FC – target child • IH – all children in the home • Sufficient to ensure child’s safety, permanency & well-being, achievement of case goals & not state policy requirements • Frequency of visits (overall pattern during PUR) • Quality of visits • Length of visit • Location of visit • Saw child alone • Topics discussed • Source of the information

48. Caseworker visits with child Examples of reasons for rating • Rated as ANI: The worker visited the child (12 years old) at least monthly & while the frequency meets the child needs, the contacts were not substantive in that the worker did not focus on seeing the child alone or in a location conducive to open conversation & topics discussed had little to do with progress of the case toward the child’s permanency goals. • The item is a strength because the worker met with the child alone face to face monthly, in a number of locations which supported open & honest communication & discussed the child’s progress in school, foster care & at home.

49. Well-being Outcome 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs Item 20: Caseworker visits with parents • Face to face contact by caseworker with responsibility for case management (specific for mother & father separately) • Sufficient to ensure child’s safety, permanency & well-being, achievement of case goals & not state policy requirements • Frequency of visits (overall pattern during PUR) • Quality of visits • Length of visit • Location of visit • Focused on issues pertinent to case planning, service delivery & goal achievement • Source of the information

50. Caseworker visits with parents Examples of reasons for rating • ANI: The caseworker met with the mother only 3 times during the PUR to discuss progress on case goals & service delivery. The mother felt that more frequent contact with the caseworker would have helped her prepare for her son’s return home. The father is deceased. • Strength: Both parents report they had adequate monthly contact with the caseworker to discuss service delivery, case goals & progress. Although they are living separately, the caseworker made concerted efforts to keep both parents engaged & actively working to meet the needs of the child when he returned to his mother’s home during the PUR.