Center for Adoption Studies Doris M. Houston, Ph.D. Jeanne A. Howard, Ph. D

1. Central Region Action Team Workshop Thursday, June 26, 2008 1-5 pm Illinois State University School of Social Work Center for Adoption Studies Doris M. Houston, Ph.D.Jeanne A. Howard, Ph. D Kathryn Wehrmann, Ph.D. Samuel Smith, M.S.W.

2. Goals For Today • Review of action team accomplishments and challenges • Community engagement • Using data to drive decision making • Developing/Revising the Action Plan • Connecting strategies with outcomes (Logic Model) • Tracking and documenting accomplishments

3. Action Team Successes/Milestones Court Related • Scheduled luncheons with court personnel • Addressing court hearing delays • Staffing cases with CASA • Review judicial practices that impact permanency • Providers and POS attend court meetings • Judge will accept DCFS recommendation regarding supervised or unsupervised visits

4. Action Team Successes/Milestones Resource Related • New service resource was developed to treat sexual abuse victims • Completed a review of the local resources needed to improve permanency • Seeking outside funds/grants for mental health treatment • Establishing a new community based agency/service provider to address needs of African American families

5. Action Team Successes/Milestones Community Related • Two community-wide forums per year to engage and inform stakeholders • The action team was able to engage several stakeholders in the action planning process • Subcommittees formed to target parenting education/support, family health/wellness, 24 hour crisis and advocacy

6. Action Team Successes/Milestones AgencyRelated • Reports w/ case info submitted to SA to insure people are prepared for hearings • Local data collection to identify family/child demographics, reason for case opening, and placements following family disruptions • IDCFS asking for earlier hearings if it appears that case is progressing well • Contract with two family support specialists who will be able to provide support for adoptive families and those who have guardianship

7. Action Team Challenges CourtRelated • Court staff schedule demands make it difficult to meet regularly • Education of court staff is needed to address bias, unrealistic expectations • Judges don’t want to spend time on juvenile cases in small rural counties • Hearing delays

8. Action Team Challenges ResourceRelated • Transportation to assist clients in getting to services • Lack of SA treatment and after care • Lack of family support services and parent training • Lack of child specific foster homes • Lack of culturally responsive service provide • Lack of DV and mental health services

9. Action Team Challenges CommunityRelated • Low/no stakeholder participation • Disagreement among stakeholders regarding the action team priority goals AgencyRelated • CAPU/IA delays • Lack of recent, local data to track and document changes in permanency rates

10. Community Engagement • Self assessment: Action teams’ current levels of community engagement • Community participation: What Works and What Doesn’t Work • Establishing partnerships in order to make meaningful change • Strategies for getting community stakeholders to the table • Activity- Complete community partnership planning guide

11. Using Data to Drive Decision Making • Updates on accessing data/data sources • Now that we have data, what do we do with it?? • Action Team Innovation- Using local data to self assess progress • ISU’s role related to data

12. Community Action Plan Decision Making Process • Deciding what to do: Overview of the strategic decision making process • Activity: Discuss/brainstorm barriers to permanency (small groups- handout) • Break into your action teams • Identify barriers to permanency by domain • Prioritize identified barriers • Identify actions steps within the targeted domains (see handout) • Make a decision: identify the next action steps needed to move forward with the action plan

13. Every Action Team Is Unique… Champaign SOFTT

14. SOFTT Accomplishments Who’s at the Table… (Always or Most Times) • DCFS staff • POS staff • Service providers • Adoptive parents • Foster parents

15. SOFTT Accomplishments • Who’s at the Table… (Sometimes) • School personnel • Youth/family advocates • Who’s at the Table… • (Seldom) • Court personnel • Law enforcement • Faith based reps • Medical providers

16. SOFTT Accomplishments Who’s at the Table… (Not at all) • Birth parents • Former DCFS wards • Business community • University staff • Elected officials • Media

17. Team Structure • Parenting Group • Brown Bag • Family Affair Committee • 24 Hour Crisis Intervention

18. Target Outcomes • Remain Home • Overrepresentation of African American Children in Foster Care

22. Court Lack of community involvement by states attorney/judges How courts define risk/safety and minimum parenting Public defender caseloads are to high to adequately represent people Class bias Court Racial bias Lack of 3rd party supervision DCFS control of POS decisions Lack of POS recognition Casework being done by court personnel Court is not forgiving Barriers

23. Agency Not implementing discretion for visits POS – not meeting with Court Personnel Poor past performance by POS Staff turnover Staff inexperience Agency No reasonable efforts How DCFS assesses risk Bias is outlined in reports Assumptions are made Worker bias Barriers

24. Service Provider Bias of provider Inability to engage Work in the community/work in the home is needed – not office Transportation Lack of training/understanding Greater collaboration needed Service Provider Turnover More money needed Minimal options for clients to choose from/connect with Share information on client satisfaction of services No local control of contracts for DCFS Barriers

25. Community Police intervention Community denial of disproportionate numbers across all areas Who is being reported for abuse/neglect School bias Lack of public awareness of what needs to be called in Community Payback of reporting Community acceptance of Disproportionality Powerlessness Community not aware of the data Family history is used against people Barriers

26. Team Building

27. ___________ _____ Prioritizing Issues • Top 3 Barriers • Categorize by Domain: • Court • Agency • Community • Service Provider • Family/youth

28. ___________ _________ Prioritizing Strategies • Policy • Practice • Behavior • Knowledge • Attitude/belief/bias • Communication

29. ____ _______ Logic Modeling for Success Connecting Strategies to Measurable Outcomes

30. Logic Models……. …bring project dreams and concepts to life. …provide graphic, narrative depictions of a project. …illustrate the interrelationships …take us from planning to results. …provide stakeholders with a “road map” … follow a chain of reasoning

31. Logic models help us… Describe projects Focus attention and resources on priority program operations and key results Develop targeted communication and marketing strategies

32. Logic models map our way to success by focusing us on…. Factors influencing the project goal Resources need to achieve goal Activities that are necessary to achieve the project goal Results of the activities The outcomes or immediate goals that activities are intended to accomplish The longer term impact that will come through focused effort

33. Design and planning stages Logic models… • Enhance ability to develop program strategy • Enhance ability to talk about it clearly to stakeholders • Promote a shared understanding of what is to take place.

34. Project implementation… Logic models… • Provide the core for a focused management plan • Help to identify and collect the data needed to monitor and improve project efforts • Help to keep energy focused on achieving and documenting results • Help pinpoint where adjustments need to be made to increase successful achievement of objective. • Help maintain focus on priorities

35. Project evaluation and strategic report Logic models… • Support presenting program information • Support documentation of progress toward goals in ways that inform and teach program stakeholders.

36. If…Then Assumptions Certain resources are needed to operate our projects. If we have access to them, then we can use them to accomplish your planned activities. If we accomplish our planned activities, then we will deliver the amount of effort to the extent we intended. If we accomplish our planned activities to the extent we intended, then there will be specific benefits. If these benefits are achieved, then changes in organizations, communities and systems might occur.

37. Steps to Building Your Logic Model Identify the longer term impact anticipated at the organizational, community, and/or system level changes expected as a result of project activity. Begin with the Issue/PEP Outcome identified as the top priority. Determine what resources and/or barriers which potentially enable or limit ability to achieve PEP Outcome Identify activities , processes, tools, products associated with the project with achieving the PEP Outcome Identify the outputs that are the direct results of the activities carried out to reach the outcome

38. __________ ____ ___ ______________ Documenting Plans and Accomplishments • Action Plan Worksheet • Meeting Minutes • Meeting Attendance • Community Partnership Planning

39. Next Steps/Closing: • Julia Miller- Action Team Liaison • Action plan worksheet to take back to the group

40. ______ _ Contact Us! Doris M. Houston, Ph.D. dmhous2@ilstu.edu Kathy Wehrmann, Ph.D. kcwehrm@ilstu.edu Jeanne Howard, Ph.D. jhoward@ilstu.edu Samuel Smith, M.S. W. smsmith3@uni.uiuc.edu