Minnesota Department of Human Services

Child and Family Service Review

Waseca County

Self Assessment Update

February 2008 (Updated 8/12/08)

i

Minnesota Child and Family Service Review

Instructions for Conducting the

County Self Assessment Update

Purpose of the County Self Assessment Update

The county self assessment is the first phase of the Minnesota Child and Family Service Review

(MnCFSR). The self assessment process provides the county an opportunity to evaluate strengths

and areas needing improvement across eight systemic factors. These systemic factors provide a

framework for the delivery of child welfare services and achievement of safety, permanency and

well-being outcomes. The county also examines child welfare data to assess the effectiveness of

the child welfare system and evaluates performance on seventeen federal data indicators.

During the first round of MnCFSRs, the self assessment process allowed counties to identify

systemic strengths and areas needing improvement, and provided a method to examine data

related to safety, permanency and well-being performance. Issues raised in the self assessment

were further evaluated through the on-site case reviews or community stakeholder interviews. In

addition, information from the county self assessment was shared with other program areas at

DHS to inform plans for statewide training, technical assistance, practice guidance and policy

development.

During the second round of MnCFSRs, counties will review their initial Self Assessment and,

using that as a baseline, update their evaluation of core child welfare practices and systems.

Counties are also asked to provide comment on strategies that contributed to improved practice

and/or barriers encountered.

Process for Conducting the County Self Assessment Update

Department of Human Services (DHS) Quality Assurance regional consultants provide the

county Self Assessment Update document at the first coordination meeting held with the county,

and offer ongoing technical assistance as the county completes the document. The Self

Assessment Update document includes county specific data on national standard performance

along with safety and permanency data. The county Self Assessment Update is completed and

submitted to the Quality Assurance regional consultant approximately two weeks prior to the

onsite review. Completed Self Assessment Updates are classified as public information and are

posted on the child welfare supervisor’s website.

Counties are strongly encouraged to convene a team of representatives of county agency staff

and community stakeholders to complete the Self Assessment Update. Children’s Justice

Initiative Teams, Child Protection Teams or Citizen Review Panels are examples of community

stakeholders who play a role in the county child welfare delivery system. These community

stakeholders bring a broad and meaningful perspective to the evaluation of systemic factors and

performance related to safety, permanency and well-being. Staff members and community

ii

stakeholders who participate in the county Self Assessment Update process also provide a

valuable resource to the development of the county’s Program Improvement Plan.

The agency may also consider options such as focus groups with community stakeholders or

consumer groups, or consumer surveys as ways to gather information for the Self Assessment

Update. Connecting the Self Assessment Update process to other county needs assessment or

planning requirements, such as CCSA, maximizes the use of time and resources to conduct the

Self Assessment Update.

1

PART I: GENERAL INFORMATION

DHS Quality Assurance staff will identify the period under review. The county is requested to

designate a person who will be primarily responsible for completing the self assessment and

provide contact information below.

Name of County Agency

Waseca County Human Services

Period Under Review

For Onsite Review Case Selection Sample: __10/1/08 – 9/30/09__

Period for Part IV Data Tables: _ 2008_

Period Under Review (PUR) for Onsite Case Review: __10/1/08 – 12/09__

County Agency Contact Person for the County Self Assessment

Name: Wendy K. Morton

Title: Children's Services Supervisor

Address: 299 Johnson Ave Ste 160, Waseca, MN 56093

Phone: ( 507 ) 835-0585 Fax: ( 507 ) 835-0566

E-Mail: wendy.morton@co.waseca.mn.us

Key Dates

Month/year of initial MnCFSR: __April, 2005__

Date Self Assessment Update Submitted: 11/24/09

2

PART II: SYSTEMIC FACTORS

The framework for completing the Self Assessment Update is divided into four sections: updates of systemic factors, review of program

improvement plan activities, detailed responses to questions targeting specific practices, and updated ratings of overall systemic factors. Use

the following guidance when responding to each of the eight Systemic Factors.

Section 1: Updates. Review information the county provided in the initial self assessment and describe changes in that Systemic Factor

since the initial MnCFSR, including strengths, promising practices, and ongoing challenges. It is unnecessary to restate

information provided in the initial self assessment. If the initial self assessment continues to accurately reflect a description of

a particular Systemic Factor, note that no significant changes have occurred since the initial review.

Section 2: Program Improvement Plan Review. Review the agency’s Program Improvement Plan (PIP) from the initial MnCFSR. For

each systemic factor, identify whether the agency was required to prepare a PIP. If applicable, describe systemic

improvements resulting from PIP activities or barriers to achieving improvement. If the agency was not required to address

the systemic factor in their initial PIP, this section is not applicable (NA).

Section 3: Target Questions. Some systemic factors include a set of targeted questions designed to focus agency attention on specific

practice areas or activities. Target questions represent promising practices or practice areas identified as needing

improvement in the first round of the MnCFSR. Target questions are applicable to all counties and should include more

detailed responses. Provide information regarding agency practice, promising approaches or identified barriers in these

specific areas. To avoid duplication, review the target questions for each systemic factor prior to responding to

Sections 1 and 2.

Section 4: Ratings. Quality Assurance regional consultants will provide the agency rating for the overall systemic factor from the initial

self assessment. Determine an updated rating for each Systemic Factor according to the following scale:

Area Needing Improvement Strength

1 2 3 4

None of the practices or

requirements are in place.

Some, but not all, of the

practices or requirements

are in place and some

function at a lower than

adequate level.

Most, but not all, of the

practices or requirements

are in place and most

function at an adequate or

higher level.

All of the practices or

requirements are in place

and all are functioning at an

adequate or higher level.

3

A. Information System (SSIS)

A1. Review information included in the agency’s initial self assessment. Consider the agency’s responses to questions A1-A4.

Summarize changes in the agency’s information system since the last MnCFSR.

System Changes

Since our last review, WCHS has implemented Case Note Standards that include Naming Conventions. The Case Note Standards have

been updated as needed to keep up with legislative changes and reviewed with staff. They are part of the orientation for new employees

and interns.

We also changed to one main intake person. This person is a tremendous asset in that she is very knowledgible in the information she

needs as well as very patient and calm with difficult reporters. This person is very efficient in entering the intakes usually in the same

day they come in and disseminating them as needed. She understands which reports may need immediate action and consults as needed

or takes action

All staff have completed SSIS training. Our worker mentor attends the SSIS mentor meetings and reviews the notes with the

Supervisor's and staff as needed. SSIS is always a topic area on our staff meeting agendas. She provides training on changes to all staff

and within the past year trained staff on OHPP as a review. Supervisor attends VPC mentor meetings as able, reviews the notes from the

mentor meetings and reviews items regularly with the worker mentor. We have a SSIS manangement team that convenes when there are

major changes that affect several departments to strategize on implementation of changes. Our mentor is extremely helpful and

knowledgible regarding SSIS and assists staff with errors or problem solving when it comes to SSIS issues. If she isn't able to fix

something, she will contact the HELP desk or staff at DHS for assistance. They are very good at responding to our needs and assisting

us in fixing in errors.

Staff have increased their use of the documents in SSIS which has increased consistency and helps to meet all requirements especially in

areas such as court reports and distribution of documents. It would be extremely helpful if updates were made to documents as

legislative changes were made but it doesn't work that quickly.

A2. If applicable, how effective were Program Improvement Plan strategies in supporting improved safety, permanency and well-

being outcomes?

Summary of Strengths Barriers Identified/Initial Plans

As listed above, changes that were made in the last four years SSIS changes often but not quickly enough to keep up with

4

were: Case Note Standards, Naming Conventions, one Intake

Worker, one SSIS worker mentor, increased use of SSIS

documents. All of these things together have increased our ability

to be consistent and meet federal and state requirements.

legislative changes such as the changes for kids in transition the

information needed for the court to put in their findings doesn't

match the SELF plan in SSIS.

Currently the CMH case workers do case notes and not activities.

This makes it so some reports do not accurately reflect information

on their cases ie: no contacts with clients or families. This will be

changing in January as they will be going to 100% time reporting.

Staff struggle with balancing practicing good social work in the

field and getting the paperwork requirements done. Some are

better than others. When SSIS makes changes, it is harder for

some to adjust and remember the new requirements.

A3. Target Question

Target Question

Describe the agency’s use of SSIS reports in supervision. Consider how reports are used during supervisory consults to monitor

key case activities.

Reports that are used: Time to Contact, Monthly Contacts with Children in Foster Care, Number of intakes, Number of Assessements,

CMH Screenings, Administartive Reviews, Destruction of Records, AFCARS, Caseload Sizes, How much money is spent in a certain

area, etc. Some of these reports are run monthly by the case aide for the supervisor to review and then discuss with individual staff to

make sure that the requirement is being met. Supervisor uses a variety of General Reports and Federal/State indicator reports. Some of

the reports are not helpful because our CMH staff document differently. This will be changing as they will be going to 100% time

reporting in January. AFCARS reports are run monthly by our case aide who distributes them to staff to fix the errors.

Overall First Round Systemic Factor Rating for Information System: 2 (Area Needing Improvement)

Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Information System—Current

Area Needing Improvement Strength

1 2 3 4

5

B. Case Review System

B1. Review information included in the agency’s initial self assessment. Consider the agency’s responses to questions B1-B7.

Summarize changes in the agency’s case review system since the last MnCFSR.

System Changes

Case workers continue to strive for a balance of meeting the paperwork requirements and providing good case management. SSIS is

used to assist in being compliant with state and federal regulations. The use of the documents such as the OHPP and court reports

increase compliance but sometimes frustration on the staff's part. Staff notify the supervisor when their court report is finished and the

supervisor reviews the report and signs off on it. We do need to work on being more consistent with including the OHPP plans with our

court reports for the court to review these.

Staff utilize FGDM conferences at various times in the life of the case to develop case plans, monitor plans, review progress, discuss

permanency, identify supports and permanency options. They have found that with some families, follow up meetings are necessary to

keep the family on track and working toward their goals. It also helps the family have investment in the plan and feel involved in the

process. The other players in the cases such as GAL, attorneys, extended family, foster parents teachers, etc. are involved in this process

and can give input as well as may have a role in the case plan. Signs of Safety approaches are incorporated in the FGDM meetings

through the use of safety teams and safety objects. From the start of a case, we utilize the Family Assessment approach whenever

possible. This has shown to improve engagement with families and make them feel less threatened. Staff regularly use the financial

resources available with this approach to assist families with financial concerns. This helps engage families, make them feel involved

and give them some hope. The problems we solve with the $$$ have looked “unsolvable” to them because they did not have access to

those kind of resources. It relieves some of the stress and also removes the obvious barriers, so we can see the ones, then, that aren’t so

obvious. Once we get beyond the immediate barriers, the rapport has been built and they are more receptive to working on the deeper

issues.

When a TI case is transitioned from assessment to case management, the Signs of Safety mapping instrument is utilized with the family.

The assessment worker and on-going worker meet with the parent(s) and go through this form to identify strengths, areas of concern and

goals. Services are then set up from these goals and the case plan developed.

Staff make good use of our family based in-home parenting workers. Our two Family Based Services Workers consistently have a

waiting list of families for their services. They do a tremendous job working with the families on issues identified by the team.

Over the past few months, we have spent time in staff meetings and individually discussing when and how to involve the non-resident

parent. In CHIPS cases, staff identify the non-resident parents early and have contact as soon as they can. With voluntary cases, we

have not been so quick to have the non-resident parent involved but have been working on improving this practice.

If children are in foster care through a court ordered placement, the case is reviewed every 3 months in court. If they are in foster care

6

for treatment, these are monitored closed by the case manager through the use of a timeline to meet the requirements. WCHS has

developed and implemented a procedure for Administrative Reviews for the voluntary cases so they are reviewed every six months either

in court or by an Administrative Review. LTFC cases are also reviewed if they are not in court more than once a year.

One of our CMH workers has taken on the SELF program. She applies for the grant every year, monitors the money, tracks the plans

and requirements for all the workers and completes the annual reports. She has found a way to increase the amount of our grant by

working with court services to include their eligible placements. She agreed to track these placements and gather the information from

their court services officer to meet the requirements. She developed an Independent Living Class for our eligible clients. We are

awaiting the new version of the OHPP in SSIS that will assist with meeting the requirements for children in care approaching the age of

18 and then beyond.

B2. If applicable, how effective were Program Improvement Plan strategies in supporting improved safety, permanency and well-

being outcomes?

Summary of Strengths Barriers Identified/Initial Plans

N/A

B3. Target Questions

Target Questions

Describe how timely and appropriate permanency goals are established for children, including the agency’s use of team decision-

making processes.

Case workers start at the beginning of the case to identify a concurrent permanency plan for any child in care. FGDM is almost always

involved whether it be court ordered or not. Our judge orders 3P's (Parellel Protection Process) meetings in cases where the parent's

enter a denial to the CHIPS. Even if there is an admission, a FGDM meeting is usually part of the OHPP. The court also orders

permenency meetings when a TPR is filed and a denial is entered. We have not had a CHIPS or Permanency trial in Waseca County for

a few years. The FGDM process has proven to be a very effective way to gather information about appropriate relatives. Case workers

try to place with relatives right away when a placement is necessary. About 1.5 years ago we developed a Permanency Committee to

review cases which seem to be heading towards permanency. The committee meets monthly and consists of a county attorney,

supervisor, case workers - CP and CMH and others that might be working with the family. We review cases to ascertain we have made

reasonable efforts and to brainstorm other ideas.

Describe the agency’s use of Concurrent Permanency Planning and how the broader child welfare system supports these efforts.

7

By utilizing relatives for placement as soon as possible, the concurrent plan is usually in place from the start. FGDM is key for this

process if a relative is not identified right away.

Describe the agency’s use of Trial Home Visits (THV). Include agency criteria or policies used to determine when and in which

cases THVs are appropriate to support successful reunification.

Cases are reveiwed at our Permanency Committee to discuss length of time in OHP, permanency options and other options including

THV and whole family foster care. THV are considered if the family has made progress on their case plan but there are still some

unresolved safety issues. The development of a safety team is used to make sure that there are enough informal supports in place before

a THV is considered. The informals supports help to provide the child with safety, stability and outreach sources. We have had limited

opportunity to use this because our placements have been down and we have used whole family foster care more often in the recent past.

The cases of chronic neglect seem more compatible with the use of WFFC and trying to teach the parent(s) life skills that are needed to

provide for the day to day care of their children.

Describe changes in the county’s Children’s Justice Initiative (CJI) Team since the last review. Consider and discuss current

priorities, projects, and work plans.

In 2008 our CJI team participated in a regional CJI conference. At our most recent meeting the new Transition Services legislation was

discussed to bring members up to date on this information.

Overall First Round Systemic Factor Rating for Case Review System: 3 (Strength)

Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Case Review System—Current

Area Needing Improvement Strength

1 2 3 4

8

C. Quality Assurance System

C1. Review information included in the agency’s initial self assessment. Consider the agency’s responses to questions C1-C5.

Summarize changes in the agency’s quality assurance system since the last MnCFSR.

System Changes

Supervisor continues to use DHS's case review checklists for traditional and family assessments. AFCARS error reports are used to help

with compliance issues. Supervisor reviews case loads with director quarterly. Supervisor assists with and participates in CMH annual

peer review of cases. Qualitative Reviews were done formally during period of last PIP but since have not been done on a regular basis.

They were used in preparation for this CFSR review and a random case for each case worker was selected and reviewed.

In-depth review of cases are done at the case manager's request. We have used timelines and mapping of cases as a way to provide some

clarity and help to guide decisions. This is done either at a staff meeting, in a separate meeting or at Permanency Committee. Eight out

of ten staff have attended the Signs of Safety training and usually one or two staff attend the quarterly VPC's. Staff members who have

implemented safety teams assist others when they have a family who needs this to move upe the scale of becoming safer. We also use

our Pre-Placement Screening team which meets 2x monthly to staff cases and solicit feedback. Staff meet with GALs on a monthly basis

and with our main CTSS provider monthly. Supervisor attends all 3P meetings, some FGDM meetings, court hearings, IEPS, quarterly

staffings, etc. This helps to keep informed and to provide support to workers.

Our CP screening team has changed recently to include a county attorney. The screening team meets daily when there are reports to

screen either from social services or from law enforcement. We have updated our guidelines as necessary due to changes in legislation.

We have developed a protocol for truancy and educational neglect reports. The CP screening team has developed a good working

relationship so that usually we all come to the same decision on a report. We have worked hard to help law enforcement understand the

Family Assessment response. So far in 2009 we have screened 74.2% of accepted reports as Family Assessments. We do have an active

CP Team that meets monthly and averages 10 to 15 members each time. The relationship developed with the school social workers

through this team has been invaluable.

In fall of 2008, family exit surveys were developed and sent to families of closed cases. Though very few are returned, we continue to

send them out every six months. The Family Based Workers have their own exit survey that they send out at case closing. They also do

not get a very good return rate so it has been discussed if handing them to the families at their last visit and asking them to return them in

the return envelop would increase the participation.

Our agency is very small so communication is quite free and open. Workers staff cases as needed with the supervisor and other staff.

Supervisor provides her schedule to staff at staff meetings so they are aware of availability. Contact between workers and supervisor is

frequent due to close quarters with CP staff. With CMH staff it is a little more difficult since they are in a different building. Supervisor

does utilize email frequently to disseminate information quickly and efficiently. It also provides for a tracking mechanism. One on ones

are not always held in a formalized fashion. At least quarterly, supervisor meets formally with each staff to review caseload but

9

inbetween it is usually done informally. For most staff this works well. Finding time is a deterent on both sides. Because the supervisor

also has a caseload, sometimes the case review is done on the way to a meeting for a client. This allows for good use of time and it

provides an opportunity for the supervisor to see the workers interacting with clients, families, foster parents, professionals, etc.

Supervisor does ask for feedback from staff both formally and informally on own performance as well as policies, procedures and

agency issues.

The IV-E contract with Court Services was ended at the time of our last CFSR review. We no longer track these placements with the

exception of those who qualify for SELF funds.

C2. If applicable, how effective were Program Improvement Plan strategies in supporting improved safety, permanency and well-

being outcomes?

Summary of Strengths Barriers Identified/Initial Plans

We are a small agency with staff that need to rely on each for

assistance with challenging cases. We don't have as many

formalized procedures and teams as other counties, but we also

don't have the number of staff to make up these teams. We have a

small staff, which means we will occasionally deal with crisis on

each other’s cases. It has proven beneficial to have reviewed those

in our case management staffing opportunities. Not only does that

give the assigned worker the benefit of a fresh perspective, it also

provides basic information to the other cp case management

workers who may be providing coverage when issues arise.By

helping each other and knowing about each other's cases, we are

able to provide quality service to our clients. The Signs of Safety

training was well received by all staff that attended. We have

utilized the mapping, staff inquiry, 3 houses and other techniques.

We have wanted to use the Words and Pictures but staff time is a

limitation on this technique.

Compliance is checked through SSIS reports, review of court

reports, review of assessments, Permanency Committee, Pre-

Placement Screening Team as well as some input from CP Team

and CJI. Supervisor reviews and signs off on court reports before

they are submitted. The assigned worker and supervisor review the

Formal reviews are not happening on a regular basis. Staff and

supervisor rely more on informal systems of open door policy and

open communication.

CMH workers and FBWs being in another building makes staff

feel separated. One staff meeting a month is held at that building

and staff have some informal things they do to keep connected.

Peer reviews of files was not implemented.

10

court orders before they are signed by the judge for language and

requirements. This was implemented through the CJI team.

C3. Target Questions

Target Questions

If applicable, discuss what the agency is learning from qualitative case reviews and how results are used to enhance practice and

support system improvements.

From the qualitative reviews that were done recently, several discussions were held regarding father's or absent parent involvement. A

suggestion was made through the SSIS Worker Mentor that an area should be added to the OHPP and Case Plans for case workers to

document status of involvement. During a staff meeting in October, the ideas were brought together and statutes reviewed regarding

Father's Rights. We have also found that we need to be better at inputting the medical and dental care for children in OHP. We have

information in our Placement Packets to give to foster parent about Teen and Child Checkups and they usually get done, we just aren't

remembering to document this in SSIS. We have asked SSIS to develop a report to track this information.

Describe the agency’s use of the following data reports to identify practice areas needing improvement and monitor the

effectiveness of improvement strategies:

Internal reports (e.g. SSIS Charting and Analysis and General Reports, Crystal, Safe Measures)

DHS reports (e.g. Timeliness of Initiating Assessment, Performance Updates)

Other

Supervisor receives some reports monthly - CMH screening, Administrative Reviews, Monthly Contacts t- review and discuss with staff.

Staff receive AFCARS error reports and are responsible for correcting the errors. Supervisor uses other reports such as timeliness of

contact to review with staff as well as number of assessments, intakes, PSOP cases etc. At the end of the year this information is put into

a report form for the director and shared with staff so they can see how many cases were opened, assessments done, placements made,

etc. Financial information is shared with them that is relevant such as how much money was spent on OHP.

Overall First Round Systemic Factor Rating for Quality Assurance System: 2 (Area Needing Improvement)

Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Quality Assurance System—Current

Area Needing Improvement Strength

1 2 3 4

11

D. Staff and Provider Training

D1. Review information included in the agency’s initial self assessment. Consider the agency’s responses to questions D1-D5.

Summarize changes in the agency’s staff and provider training system since the last MnCFSR.

System Changes

Staff Training - all CP staff have completed CORE training and our intake worker has completed some of the CORE training as well as

all workers are trained in Child and Adult Maltreatment issues because they take turns at being on-call and covering intake. Supervisor

has completed Supervisor CORE. CMH workers have completed Rule 79 Case Management training. Eight out of 10 staff have

attended the Andrew Turnell Signs of Safety Training and continue to attend the ITV sessions. As an agency, we are approved as a

training provider from the Minnesota Board of Social Work. About two years ago, we started Tuesday Afternoon Rap Sessions (TARS)

where we bring training in-house about 6 times a year. We bring in outside professionals such as our county attorney's, social work

professors or people from other agencies as well as have our staff train the other staff on topics they have expertise in. This has become

a team building experience as well as an economical way to get training. Input is solicited from staff on training topics. Staff are

encouraged to attend training specific to their job duties. Our Minor Parent worker joined the Minnesota OAPP to take advantage of

their trainings and conferences. Two CP workers and a county attorney attended several trainings at the National Child Protection

Training Center at Winona State University. Our CP Team sponsored Dr. Kaplan from MCRC last spring for all Waseca County

agencies and school. The MFIP/Intake worker keeps updated on Social Security issues by attending training specific to this area. Staff

are encouraged to attend the regional meetings in their areas to network and learn from other workers. This is especially important when

there is only one person in some areas such as licensing. Staff have completed the Traning Needs Assessment through the Child Welfare

Training System but some of our seasoned staff feel that training outside this system better fits their needs. After we moved and

combined with Public Health, our agency now has a ITV site. Though we are not always on the list of sites, we have brought some

training in-house. CP staff recently participated in a Webinar seminar put on by the American Humane Society. We are trying to use

technology to save on time and money.

Foster Parent Training - our licensor is trained to provide the SID and Shaken Baby training, she coordinates car seat training with Public

Health Nursing, she has the video for the CMH training and she provides the orientation when needed and in accomodation with the

applicants schedules. At the orientation she has an exit evaluation and asks for feedback on future training needs. During relicensing,

this is addressed again. In the last few years, we have utilized so many relatives for foster care placements that often her training is very

specialized to their needs. The FAK training is offered regionally and the county will reimburse providers for fees. We are offering a

NAMI training in November geared towards working with children with challenging behaviors.

D2. If applicable, how effective were Program Improvement Plan strategies in supporting improved safety, permanency and well-

being outcomes?

12

Summary of Strengths Barriers Identified/Initial Plans

N/A

D3. Target Questions

Target Questions

Describe training needs identified in the county’s initial MnCFSR and whether the county was able to access training that was

effective in addressing areas identified as needing improvement.

There does not seem to be a lack of training or resources due to the fact that we are willing to send staff to training and we bring training

in-house when appropriate. Staff input is utilized to set up the schedule of in-house training such as ethics training is offered every two

years. With budgets being monitored closely, we may have to limit the amount of out of county trainings that staff attend and encourage

attendance at ITV and Webinar trainings. Supervisor has signed up for Leadership Academy for Supervisors on-line training. Many of

these on-line trainings do not have a cost.

Describe resources/strategies the agency uses to promote stable placements by preparing foster parents and supporting them in

meeting the needs of children. Identify efforts to match children to specific foster care providers and enhance their capacity to

meet children’s needs (e.g. training to address child specific needs).

Because we are such a small county, we consult before any placement is made. This consultation always includes the foster care licensor

if the placement resource is not a relative. If someone else has used the foster home, then that worker is consulted with regarding the

strengths, weaknesses and appropriateness of the foster care providers. If we are looking at foster homes outside of our county, we

utilize the 8 placement factors to help match a foster home and identify the needs of the child to match with a home. Currently, we have

all our CP placements and several CMH clients in relative foster homes. Though this can be more work for the workers to help the

relatives understand the CP and court processes, in the long run it is well worth it because it is better for the children in care. Relative

placements have shown to be more stable meaning less moves for the children and often are the permanency resource. We have

substantially decreased the number of children in placement by utilizing FGDM, safety planning and Whole Family Foster Care.

Overall First Round Systemic Factor Rating for Staff and Provider Training System: 3 (Strength)

Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Staff and Provider Training System—Current

Area Needing Improvement Strength

1 2 3 4

13

E. Service Array and Resource Development

E1. Review information included in the agency’s initial self assessment. Consider the agency’s responses to questions E1-E3.

Summarize changes in the agency’s service array and resource development system since the last MnCFSR.

System Changes

Our services and mission has not changed much but the focus on safety and keeping kids in the home has intensified. Families are kept

together unless there is a high risk of harm to the children. We use FGDM, safety teams, service providers, team meetings, in-home

services, whole family foster care and trial home visits whenever possible to keep families together. We increased our efforts to identify

relatives early on in working with a family so we know what the options are. We are working on being more cognizant of the needs and

involvement of non-resident parents in voluntary service cases. In CHIPS cases, non-resident parents have always been involved. We

have supported informal family arrangements developed through FGDM meetings though these have had to become formal

arrangements through court in some cases. Our agency changed the PSOP program to bring it in-house about two years ago and this has

been more effective. The case worker has been successful in engaging families in services before child protection needs to be involved.

Since moving in with Public Health Nursing, there has been more collaboration on cases (with releases of course) to help prevent

maltreatment. The cases of on-going chronic neglect are the most frustrating. We are in the planning stages of implementing an

intensive in-home strategy of having our in-home parenting workers offer intensive services. This would have them meeting with a

family 8 - 10 hours a week versus 1 - 2 hours a week. They would shorten their overall period of time working with a family by limiting

the service to 4 - 8 weeks. We do now have two, rather than just one, in-home family based workers due to a grant. We continue to

offer in-home family therapy though we now contract with two different providers for 15 - 20 hours are week rather than having a full-

time person on staff. We found that the service wasn't utilized as much as our family based workers. With the use of 3P's for

permanency and CHIPS, we have had no trials and have been able to work through the issues with the families. All of our TPR's have

been voluntary in recent years. We have utilized transfers of custody but have been more leery about this due to having several come

back into court when the parent files for a return of custody. These have been very time consuming. We seriously weigh out the options

when looking at permanency to make sure a transfer is sufficient to meet the needs of the child(ren). We continue to use ICPC when

needed but the length of time it takes for these is a hinderance. Licensing relatives in other counties and all the new training

requirements for foster parents makes the process lengthy. If the relative is in our county, we can have more control but when the

relative lives in another county we don't have much to say about the length of time it takes to get someone licensed. Staff have become

quite creative in meeting the needs of families when it comes to transportation and visitation. We try to have the families come up with

their own plans but that doesn't always work. We have a list of visitation centers in the area that we utilized and at times we have

contracted with individuals to supervise and/or provide transportation. The CMH initiative that Waseca County is a part of has helped

tremendously in terms of financial help when the child is under CMH case management. We have been very creative in hiring people to

provide in-home services and transportation and purchasing supplies, locks, day care, respite care, etc. to keep children safe and with

their family. We utilize FA and PSOP money to do some of these same things. The CMH respite grant has been a wonderful source of

funding to provide extra services for families. This past summer we used this money to pay for 8 - 10 kids to attend a summer school

14

age care program 2 times a week. This gave these kids the opportunity to socialize, participate in summer rec activities and get them out

of the house. We also sent other kids to specialized camps and for one family hired a nanny for 10 hours a week to just help a dad with

four young kids get organized.

Our county is now part of a homelessness prevention project so families can be referred there versus removing the kids because the

family has no where to live.

Areas we struggle in finding resources for: transportation, supervised visitation, non-English speaking services. We have a limited

population of non-English speaking people. Our clientele reflects this and we provide services to a limited number of non-English

speaking clients. When we do, the language issues can be a real barrier. We have not been successful in finding local in-home or

therapeutic services that speak Spanish. Most people have to travel for this.

E2. If applicable, how effective were Program Improvement Plan strategies in supporting improved safety, permanency and well-

being outcomes?

Summary of Strengths Barriers Identified/Initial Plans

N/A

E3. Target Question

Target Questions

Identify how Structured Decision Making (SDM) tools are used in supervision to guide case decisions and/or to match services to

families’ needs. Describe practice or policy changes related to the use of risk reassessment and reunification tools.

Because our two main CP workers are well seasoned, the SDMs don't lead their decisions regarding services for families as much as they

support the decisions the worker has already made. The tools are completed and the categories used to develop case plans. Assessment

of safety and risk are done informally and documented in case notes on an on-going basis. The risk reassessment tool is used at the close

of a case but not every three months as suggested. Case consultations, family-planning meetings, safety team meetings and court

hearings are more often used to make decisions about reunification than the reunification tool in SSIS. Supervisor signs off on the safety

and risk assessment once the assessment is done. Due to being a small agency, workers are very good about keeping supervisor

informed of all the assessments in progress and decisions that are being made.

15

Overall First Round Systemic Factor Rating for Service Array and Resource Development System: 3 (Strength)

Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Service Array and Resource Development System—Current

Area Needing Improvement Strength

1 2 3 4

16

F. Agency Responsiveness to the Community

F1. Review information included in the agency’s initial self assessment. Consider the agency’s responses to questions F1-F7.

Summarize changes in the agency’s responsiveness to the community since the last MnCFSR.

System Changes

WCHS continues to work with many community partners including CP Team, Lunch Bunch, CJI, Pre-Placement Team, Court Services,

Public Health Nursing, Law Enforcement, MVAC, Collaborative, South Central Human Relations Center, IEIC/CTIC, Domestic

Violence Task Force, Truancy Review Board, FDGM, etc. Since our last review we started a PSOP program with two other counties.

Initially we contracted for this service for the three counties and found that this was not effective. In the fall of '07 each of us brought

this service in-house. This has proven to be a good move for Waseca County and we have been more successful in engaging families

and offering this proactive service. We have also added a part-time Family Based Worker through a grant because the need for in-home

parenting services was so great and because this service has been extremely helpful in preventing out of home placements and keeping

kids safe and with their own families. We are currently working on expanding this program to provide intensive in-home services. We

will not be adding staff but working with the staff resources we have. WCHS is also part of the South Central Children's Mental Health

Initiative which is composed of 11 counties in south central Minnesota. This initiative has increased services for CMH clients and

families by offering transition services, emegency respite care, flex funds, functional behavioral assessments and more.

Some ongoing and some new collaborations include:

CP Screening - law enforcement continues to be an integral part of daily CP screening, one of the county attorney's has now joined in as

well.

CP Team - one of the county attorney's has taken a more active role and partners in leading the CP Team with WCHS. The CP team

hosted a training last spring by Dr. Kaplan and invited all service providers in Waseca County. We are considering having him come

back again with a new topic. He only charges mileage and lunch so the cost is right. This team helped to developed CP screening

guidelines for the county and Truancy Procedures and Protocol. Most recent discussions has been about the change in statute regarding

placements and not being able to place children just because of running away.

FGDM - our facilitators serve five counties. We have begun exploring a Rapid Response model to see if it would meet the needs of our

families and work with the current structure. The facilitators provide feedback from client surveys to the supervisors and staff on the

process and particular meetings.

At the director's level, our county is participating in discussions and work session regarding regionalization of services and is part of an

area that has sent out an RFP regarding day care licensing.

WCHS began sending out exit surveys to families participating in case management services to solicit consumer/client input. These are

sent out at case closing. Family Based Services has their own exit survey they do. The return rate is not very high.

17

WCHS staff speak regularly at schools regarding child protection issues and mandated reporting and speak at the annual Government

Day sponsored by our local American Legion.

Public Health Nursing: With our agencies moving into the same building, there has been an increase in the amount of consultation,

collaboration and referrals. This has been very beneficial for the families we both serve. Specific programs impacted on Social Services

end: minor parents, first time parents, car seat training, dealing with H1N1 issues and fears and others. Also, one of our social workers

is 3 days in social services and 2 days in public health. She is a wealth of information about who to talk to and what programs they have

available.

Fernbrook Family Services - Fernbrook is a CTSS provider that CMH workers have been increasingly turning to for in-home skills

worker and support for families. With an increase in the number of families they serve, a monthly staffing has been implemented to

review cases.

Support group for Caregivers - Held monthly and facilitated by one of the CMH workers who is an adoptive parent herself

ILS Group - the CMH workers have put together and curriculm and hold an Independent Living Skills group. There are 5 - 6 sessions

and they offer it once or twice a year depending on the need.

Areas of Concern:

Local Collaborative: our Waseca County Collaborative for Families has seen a dramatic decrease in funding over the past four years.

We continue to employ four Family Service Coordinators who are housed in area schools. WCHS believes these positions are very

needed to connect families with services and prevent maltreatment. The collaborative no longer has funding for a coordinator position or

the scholarships it provided to assist families with financial needs. There are grants available through South Central Health Alliance for

those who are enrolled in this managed care to use for funding community recreation/education classes for children.

Parents as Teachers - this was a parenting resource for any family in the county with children 0 - 5 years old. This program lost all its

funding and is no longer running.

Domestic Violence - there are two CADA advocates at our local CADA services office however; there is little collaboration between

our agencies.

Truancts - We have one staff who case manages the truants and who serves on the Truancy Review Board. We have also started

including a CMH worker on the Review Board regulary yet there is little programming for the truants. It is a frustration of staff that

there are few consequences/programs for Truants that promote compliance with court ordered attendance.

Cultural Diversity and ICWA - staff attend training regarding cultural diversity and there have been trainings brought in house such as a

training on physical and emotional disabilities. Our county continues to have a low percentage of minorities. We currently have a

Somalian intern who has brought a new perspective to staff and will be providing a training for social workers on her culture. Our

18

county rarely deals with ICWA issues. Staff are aware to ask about Indian Heritage and to make contact with a tribe if necessary. From

there, if a tribe does want to be involved, we would ask for assistance.

F2. If applicable, how effective were Program Improvement Plan strategies in supporting improved safety, permanency and well-

being outcomes?

Summary of Strengths Barriers Identified/Initial Plans

N/A

F3. Target Question

Target Question

Describe agency efforts to include external stakeholders (e.g. child protection teams, tribes, local collaboratives, courts, etc.) in

the development and implementation of the Program Improvement Plan.

The CJI team was quite active four years ago. This team has helped Waseca County to improve upon our practices to address safety and

permanency for children by continually addressing the needs of the children. This team really helped to ensure a team effort to keep the

Best Interests of the child(ren) at the forefront of CP cases. Our court personnel has been instrumental in our use of FGDM due to

ordering 3P's and supporting decisions made in FGDM conferences. The judge sees this process as being very beneficial to the families

as well as to saving on time and money for the county. We have had very few court trials for CP cases in the past four years. The county

attorneys office has also increased their involvement over the last four years. When the idea for a Permanency Committee was pitched to

the county attorney, the idea was met with an open mind and the commitment of an attorney's time. This committee is used to staff those

cases - both CP and CMH - that are either already in court or that a CHIPS is being considered. The County Attorney's office also have

stepped up their involvement in CP Team and CP screening. CP staff and County Attorney staff attend training together geared towards

the team approach to CP investigations. Some of these were also attended by Law Enforcement.

Overall First Round Systemic Factor Rating for Agency Responsiveness to the Community: 3 (Strength)

Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Agency Responsiveness to the Community—Current

Area Needing Improvement Strength

1 2 3 4

19

G. Foster and Adoptive Home Licensing, Approval and Recruitment

G1. Review information included in the agency’s initial self assessment. Consider the agency’s responses to questions G1-G2.

Summarize changes in the agency’s foster and adoptive home licensing system since the last MnCFSR.

System Changes

Waseca County continues to have an adequate number of foster homes. The staff have really increased their efforts to place children

with relatives. Currently all our CP placements are with relatives. Siblings are kept together with the exception of if there are different

father's and the father wants their child in care with them. Staff have also decreased their use of placement. Our annual CP Out of Home

placements have been decreasing. It is treated as a last option and services to keep the child in the home are used first and foremost.

Our foster homes are used more by children's mental health and court services. We have found that word of mouth is still the best

recruitment tactic. We don't have a lot of racial diversity amongst our foster parents but our county is 95% caucasian. The majority of

the children in foster care are also caucasian. Trainings are offered by our agency such as SIDS/Shaken Baby, Car Seat Training,

Orientation and some others but for the most part we regularly send out information on the FAK series and other training opportunities in

surrounding counties. Regional, the foster care licensors offer trainings as a group annually.

We have started to use outside agencies for child-specific recruitment. Our staff don't have the time to put into this like these agencies

do. We have two state wards that we are contracting with Ampersand Families to provide this service.

G2. If applicable, how effective were Program Improvement Plan strategies in supporting improved safety, permanency and well-

being outcomes?

Summary of Strengths Barriers Identified/Initial Plans

Increased use of FGCM to identify relatives

Identify relatives earlier on in the stages of the case

Increased involvement of non-resident parents and their relatives

20

Overall First Round Systemic Factor Rating for Foster and Adoptive Home Licensing System: 2 (Area Needing Improvement)

Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Foster and Adoptive Home Licensing System—Current

Area Needing Improvement Strength

1 2 3 4

21

H. Supervisor and Social Worker Resources

H1. Review information included in the agency’s initial self assessment. Consider the agency’s responses to questions H1-H4.

Summarize changes in the agency’s supervisor and social worker resources since the last MnCFSR.

System Changes

Our personnel and structure has changed. The Children's Services Supervisor moved from FA/Licensing worker to this position in the

summer of 2006. A new part-time FA worker was hired in the winter of 2007 and a 3/4 time case aide. Both of those people people

moved to full time positions within Human Services. A new 2/3 time FA/Licensing worker was hired in the Summer of 2008. This

person works in Human Services for three days and Public Health for two days. AFC licensed went with to the Adult Unit but we still

have lost staff time. Along with the 2/3 person, we have two full time CP workers and one full time Intake/MFIP worker. One CP

worker does most of the assessments, both FA and TI, some case management and also manages the Truants. The other CP worker

provides on-going case management for traditional cases, is a back up assessment worker, Minor Parent case management, PSOP and

child welfare. The supervisor is also the adoption worker and handles the Relative Custody Assistance cases and has one Truancy case.

There are three Children's Mental Health workers and two Family Based Workers. The 1/2 time Family Based Worker position was

added about 2 years ago with grant money. One of the CMH workers has taken a lead role with the SELF funding.

With being so small, we have the advantage of being trained in lots of areas and help each other out when needed. The disadvantage is

that case loads can get quite high when you can't control the number of assessments or requests for services. Supervisor checks

caseloads prior to making new assignments when able to have control on this. For the past two years we have had BSW interns in-house

and we rely on them to help. We also brainstorm ideas of how to provide services with outside assistance. We have contracted with

people to provide transportation and supervised visits because staff can't do it all. The county overall approved flexible schedules about

two years ago and this has served the social services unit well. Staff are able and willing to be flexible to meet the needs of family and

then are able to take time off as needed to meet the needs of their own families.

All staff are degreed mostly at the Bachelor's level. CP staff and supervisor are BSW's, CMH staff is one BSW and two psychology

majors, both FBW's are BSW's. Supervisor also has an MPA degree and attended supervisor CORE. All case managers have attended

CORE. The training need identified by staff is for advanced training in specific areas such as FAS and Attachment. These are usually

found outside of the CWTS. To assist in meeting training needs, our agency is now set up to host ITV trainings in-house and we are an

approved provider through MN Board of Social Work. Through the implementation of Tuesday Afternoon Rap Sessions, staff have

input into what topics should be covered and it provides them with the chance to train each other on areas of expertise. We have also

been particpating in Webnair training which is really a neat concept. You don't have leave the comforts of your own desk.

Management staff works hard to try to meet the needs of the staff through training, supporting new ideas and giving workers

responsibilities (to those who want it). Supporting the staff is going to continue to be extremely important in the current state of finances

for Human Services and with the push towards regionalization. It is going to be critical to maintain our seasoned staff in order to provide

22

quality services to our families.

H2. If applicable, how effective were Program Improvement Plan strategies in supporting improved safety, permanency and well-

being outcomes?

Summary of Strengths Barriers Identified/Initial Plans

N/A

Overall First Round Systemic Factor Rating for Supervisor and Social Worker Resources: 3 (Strength)

Overall Systemic Factor Rating for Supervisor and Social Worker Resources—Current

Area Needing Improvement Strength

1 2 3 4

23

Community Issues

Review the information the agency provided in the initial Self Assessment. Discuss changes or community issues that have emerged

since the last MnCFSR that could impact planning and delivery of services to children and families and achievement of safety,

permanency and well-being outcomes.

The financial climate of the state of Minnesota is the main issue right now. While we are hopeful that our county will not have to cut

personnel, it is always looming as a possibility. This would have a very negative impact on the service delivery to the children and families

of Waseca County. We would have to look at cutting such programs as PSOP which is one of the few proactive services offered that works

on addressing safety before it becomes a child protection issue. This program along with FGDM and FA were funded at a higher percentage

by the state to get started but that funding is starting to shift to the counties making it difficult to keep all these programs intact.

The dramatic change in the Collaborative for Families demonstrates a real example of the impact of loss of funding. Our hope is to maintain

the Family Service Coordinators (FSC) as long as possible. The change in the qualifications for such programs as LCTS puts an ever

increasing strangle hold on these programs. The social workers rely heavily on the FSC to identify the need for services in the families in

our county before it leads to a child being hurt or needing placement. Their role contributes to child safety and well-being. If a child is

removed from a home, they are instrumental in helping the child adjust in the school setting.

On a postive note, there are some things that have increased safety, well-being and permanency for children: Signs of Safety approaches

and practices, FGDM, increased use of relatives for placement and safety resources, decreased use of placements, increasing staff for in-

home parenting skills, development of Behavioral Aides, and diligently looking for non-resident parents.

24

PART III: ASSESSMENT OF SAFETY, PERMANENCY

AND WELL-BEING PERFORMANCE

Use the data tables provided in Section IV, SSIS reports DHS data releases or other data sources

to examine the agency’s performance and respond to the following safety, permanency and well-

being questions.

A. Safety

Outcome S1: Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect.

Outcome S2: Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and

appropriate.

1. Safety Indicator 1: Absence of Maltreatment Recurrence (Table1). If the county met the

national standard, identify factors that contribute to strong performance. If the county did

not meet the national standard, identify and discuss barriers.

Standard was met.

Since the inception of Family Assessments, our county has embraced this method and the

values behind it. By focusing on the strengths of the families and fostering an atmosphere

of cooperation, we can work with the families to support them in meeting their needs.

Without needing to determine maltreatment, the focus is much more conducive to this

supportive relationship. Looking back three years, Waseca County has completed more than

1/2 of the CP assessments using FA rather than the traditional. If a traditional approach is

needed, the allegation is very serious and can lead to serious reprecussions for the family

including court involvement and/or out of home placements.

2. Safety Indicator 2: Absence of Child Abuse/Neglect in Foster Care (Table 1). If the

county met the national standard, identify factors that contribute to strong performance. If

the county did not meet the national standard, identify and discuss barriers.

Standard was Met.

Staff have increased their use of relatives for foster care. Staff also spend a great deal of

time developing a relationship with the foster parents and supporting them as much as

possible.

3. Trends in Child Maltreatment (Tables 2-3). Examine the data on reports of child

maltreatment. Identify trends and factors that may have contributed to an increase or

decrease in the number of maltreatment reports.

The number of cases handled as Traditional Investigations have decreased as the number of

Family Assessments has increased. Only the very serious allegations are handled as TIs so

it would make sense that there is an increase in the number of Maltreatment Determinations

made and the number of TI cases where services are mandated.

4. Family Assessment (Table 3). Describe protocols or criteria that guide the assignment of

child maltreatment reports for a Family Assessment or investigation. Describe the process

the agency uses to determine when track changes may be necessary.

Screening of reports is completed with a small, core group of people who come with lots of

experience. We have an very excellent, experience intake worker who knows what

25

information is necessary and attempts to gather as much as possible before the report is

screened. This is a key element for making a screening decision. The screening team

makes decisions based on the facts presented and knowledge of screening guidelines and

laws. Usually the team is in agreement. TIs are used as the course of action due to

seriousness of the allegation or if the family is known to be uncooperative. If a track change

is needed, the worker consults with the supervisor before making this change.

5. Timeliness of Initial Contact in Assessments or Investigations (Tables 4-5). Examine the

data on timeliness of initial contacts. Identify factors that contribute to timely face-to-face

contacts with children, and factors that contribute to delays.

Availability of staff and the response from the family is a barrier for Waseca County to meet

the five day guidelines. With FAs, we were short one staff from March of 2008 to July of

2008. We contact families by letter if they don't have a phone to try to facilitate a family

friendly approach rather than showing up on their door step, so when families don’t respond

or don't show to the first appointment, the timelines don't get met. It has helped since

WCHS and PHN moved in together because then the FA worker is in the building and is

notified of an assigned report on a more timely basis.

With TIs, staff have developed a very good relationship with law enforcement that benefits

our ability to address these cases on a timely basis. And if one staff isn't available, then

another staff goes. Staff know that they have to support each other.

6. Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Issues (Tables 6-7). Describe agency practices for

addressing the needs of children and families experiencing difficulties with alcohol or other

drugs. Examine worker competencies and training needs related to addiction, treatment, and

relapse planning. Identify promising approaches or current barriers to addressing substance

use issues.

During an assessment, this issue is addressed. Because we are a small county, we often

know something about the people involved or their friends or extended family so we know

areas of concern. Staff attend training as needed. We contract out for our CD assessments.

We have supported the use of in-patient CD facilities where the children can live there with

their parent. We utilize safety teams to monitor compliance after a parent has returned from

treatment.

7. Other Safety Issues. Discuss any other concerns, not covered above, that affect safety

outcomes for children and families served by the agency.

Mental health issues of the parents is a concern when it comes to the safety of children.

Unless an incident occurs, it is hard to determine when a parent's mental health or CD issues

intervere with their ability to parent to the point that they can no longer care for their

children.

26

B. Permanency

Outcome P1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations.

Outcome P2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for

children.

1. Permanency Composite 1: Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification (Table1).

Identify and comment on overall strengths and barriers to the county’s performance on the

four measures included in Permanency Composite 1.

Social workers diligently work to stay within the permanency timelines so as to not allow

children to linger in the foster care system. We have really decreased our number of

children in foster care and when they are in foster care, we utilize relatives whenever

possible. We have worked hard to identify relatives early on in a case if children are not

placement immediately with a relative. This also helps with reunification. Some of these

placements are due to the child's behavior and set up as short term interventions and the

plan is always to return home. Unfortunately, these are also the children whom this may

happen more than once so our re-entry rate is high but we are trying to avoid the need for a

longer term placement. One child is particular was placed in treatment facilities three times.

We do need to make sure we are identifying respite care correctly.

2. Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of Adoptions (Table 1). Identify and comment on

overall strengths and barriers to the county’s performance on the five measures included in

Permanency Composite 2.

We have several state wards that the process has been slow. Two of them we have no

identified adoption resource for. We have contracted with Ampersand Families for child

specific recruitment for these two children. One state ward has now been placed with a

paternal aunt and uncle and we are close to filing the adoption petition. But in this case, had

we insisted that the aunt and uncle take this child earlier on in the case, we don't think the

placement would have lasted. This young man languished in residential care until he

decided to make some changes himself. When he did this, the aunt and uncle reengaged in

his life and agreed to have him come live with them and his younger brother. His younger

brother was adopted by them 2 years ago. We feel it is more important to take the time to

make the placement work than to push the issue of needing to have an adoption completed

within a certain timeframe.

The financial disparity between foster care payments and adoption assistant does cause

some sticky issues. We do inform families up front about this difference but it is difficult to

explain why it can be such a drastic difference.

Some of the children who fall in this area are in voluntary placement for treatment ie: they

are in group homes for develomental disabilities. Many of them have very active families

who just couldn’t care for them at home anymore. We would like to see these children

categorized differently. It should not be an issue that they are not legally free for adoption

within the year. They should never be legally free for adoption.

3. Permanency Composite 3: Permanency for Children and Youth in Foster Care for

Long Periods of Time (Table 1). Identify and comment on overall strengths and barriers

to the county’s performance on the three measures included in Permanency Composite 3.

27

Through the use of the Permanency Committee, we are reviewing all cases where the

children have been in foster care for long periods of time and where progress does not seem

to be happening. However, there are still those cases where a termination of parental rights

does not seem ethical. One right now we are struggling with both the child and the parents

have mental health and CD issues. The parents are participating in services but the child

seems to throw up roadblocks to returning home. Only if there are compelling reasons, do

we consider a LTFC order for permanency.

Some of the children in this area, are in group homes and will need care for the rest of their

lives. They just moved into a group home before they were 18.

4. Permanency Composite 4: Placement Stability (Table 1). Identify and comment on

overall strengths and barriers to the county’s performance on the three measures included in

Permanency Composite 4.

Use of relatives for placements has a positive impact on not needing to move children.

Identifying these relatives early on in a case and making sure they understand the safety

concerns for the child is imperative. The county has to trust that the relative will keep the

child safe.

Of the children in foster care for a long time and who have had multiple moves, these are

our CMH kids who have needed residential placements but have eventually improved

enough to move on to less restrictive settings. There are some that unfortunately have

regressed and needed more restrictive settings. But the safety and the well-being of the

child is of the upmost importance and if a foster home setting is unable to meet the needs of

a child, then a move cannot always be avoided.

5. Relative foster care (Table 9). Describe agency efforts to promote timely relative searches,

emergency licenses and relative foster care placements. Include a description of agency

efforts to consider both maternal and paternal family members, and outline strategies for

supporting stable relative placements.

Use of FGDM is vital to early identification. Staff are also trained to ask for support

systems including relatives in the assessment phase. We are working on being more

diligent about searching for non-resident parents and their relatives. Most of the children in

non-relative placement are in group homes, residential facilities or are placed due to their

mental health.

6. Long-term foster care. Describe the agency’s current practices related to the use of long-

term foster care as a permanency option for children. Include information regarding the

process for identifying and ruling out other, more permanent options, and the process for

reassessing the ongoing appropriateness of the long-term foster care goal.

Utilize our Permanency Committee and County Attorney's office staff to discuss need for

LTFC. Currently we only have one CMH client who has a permenancy order of LTFC and

this is due to her and her parent's long-standing mental health and CD issues. These cases

are monitored through the use of administrative reviews and court reviews. This option is

only used if a relative search has been exhausted, a TPR is not appropriate and ther are no

other options. If the child is in voluntary placement due to treatment and the family is

actively involved in the care and case planning for the child, then we would ask for a LTFC

order and monitor with court and administrative reviews.

Supervisor recieves a monthly report on Administrative Reviews to ensure that no one is

28

missed. Following the last CFSR review, the administrative review process was developed

and implemented. We utilize some of our Pre-Placement Screening Team members to be the

indendent reviewers for the process.

7. Other Permanency Issues. Discuss any other issues of concern, not covered above, that

affect permanency outcomes for children and families served by the agency.

Need for adoptive homes that will take older children.

29

C. Well-being

Outcome WB1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs.

Outcome WB2: Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs.

Outcome WB3: Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental

health needs.

1. Parent involvement. Discuss strategies the agency has implemented since the last

MnCFSR to improve performance in the following areas:

Engaging fathers in needs assessment, service delivery and case planning. Identify

promising approaches or current barriers to involving fathers.

Staff and supervisor have attended several trainings lately dealing with this issue. We

have also discussed it at a recent staff meeting to better understand the role of the father

in voluntary service cases. When both parents live in the home, staff make every effort

to involve the father in the case. When one of the parents doesn't live in the home, but

still has some custodial rights, then it becomes a stickier situation and one we need to

continue to work on with the primary parent.

Engaging non-custodial parents in needs assessment, service delivery and case

planning. Identify promising approaches or current barriers to involving non-

custodial parents.

Again, we are exploring this issue more and more. It is more of a barrier when it is a

voluntary case. When it is a CHIPS case, the laws are more clear and the non-custodial

parent is contacted and asked to be involved. The court is given the name and address to

add to their file. FGDM is used to identify the non-custodial parent and if applicable,

they are invited to the meeting. If they are not, they are still identified and discussed as

a resource. If there it is indicated that there is an OFP in place, we have realized the

need to have a copy of this and to discuss it with the non-custodial parent if permission

is granted. Documentation of all conversations is necessary and something we are

working on improving.

2. Caseworker visits with children (Table 11 and SSIS General Report ―Caseworker

Visits with Children in Foster Care‖. Describe the agency’s process for determining the

frequency of face-to-face worker visits with children. Identify promising approaches or

current barriers to frequent worker contact. Describe caseworker practices that contribute to

quality visits with children.

This table is not going to be accurate due to CMH workers not entering contacts into SSIS

until 2009. Starting in 2010, they will be commencing with 100% time reporting and then

all of their time on a case will be accounted for. Waseca County staff are very diligent in

seeing all their children in care every month unless there are extraodinary circumstances.

These are reviewed with the supervisor when necessary to see if some other person can

make the contact for them. Distance can affect the ability to make visits. Staff try to be

efficient and see several kids in one day if they live in the same direction. Frequency is at

least monthly but may be more often depending on circumstances and the needs of both the

child and the foster home/facility. If one case is in crisis, we have elicited help from other

staff to alleviate that person's caseload.

Supervisor receives a monthly report to follow up on any missed visits or to correct the

30

contact in SSIS so it is accurately reflected on the report.

3. Educational status of children. Describe current agency practices for ensuring that

children’s educational needs are assessed and addressed through services. Identify

promising approaches or current barriers to addressing children’s educational needs.

Educational needs are assessed through the life of a case. When appropriate and when

mandated, referrals are made for IEIC or for special education testing. School staff are part

of CP teams, Lunch Bunch, CTIC and other committees. They are invited to and have

participated in wraparound meetings, service provider meetings and FGDMs. We have

worked hard to develop good working relationships with the school personnel to better

serve our families and children. In our local schools, most of our CP and CMH staff are

recognized when they walk in the door.

4. Health care for children. Describe current agency practices for ensuring that children’s

medical and dental needs are assessed and addressed through services. Identify promising

approaches or current barriers to addressing children’s health care needs.

One huge barrier is the access to dental care for children on Medical Assistance. There are

no local dentist that accept MA. We do have several who participate in the Free Dental Day

held in February. We do have local medical providers and are in close proximity to major

medical centers that can be accessed for special needs.

As a staff, we have been discussing the need to document the medical and dental care more

accurately especially for children in care. In the residential facilities, these needs are being

met, case manangers just aren't documenting them in SSIS or filling in that part of the OHP

plan.

5. Mental/behavioral health care for children. Describe current agency practices for

ensuring that children’s mental and behavioral health needs are assessed and addressed

through services. Specify practices that support timely completion of Children’s Mental

Health Screening Tools to inform case planning. Identify promising approaches or current

barriers to addressing children’s mental health needs.

The CMH screening tool is addressed for every child in care or under CP case management.

The CP staff is very knowledgeable and about mental health needs and they are on the same

staff as the CMH workers. They often make the referral for CMH services before even

bringing the CMH screening tool to the parents for completion. Supervisor receives a

monthly report on the screening to assure that the screening are done in a timely matter.

About a year ago, the CMH staff and supervisor developed a referral form specific for

schools to make CMH referrals. It asks for a release right away from the parents for the IEP

or other school documentation. This helps speed up the process of obtaining services. It

also assists in making it so the school doesn't make referrals without the parents knowledge

and then get upset with the county for not providing services when the parents don't accept

them.

6. Other Well-being Issues. Discuss any other issues of concern, not covered above, that

affect well-being outcomes for children and families served by the agency.

31

Part IV: Safety and Permanency Data

A. Federal Data Indicators

Beginning with the first round of the CFSR, single data measures were used for establishing

national standards. This provided information to states and counties about their performance;

however, did not always reflect the broader, more complex factors that contribute to

performance.

In 2007 the Administration of Children and Families revised the national standard indicators.

Safety data indicators continue to be single data elements. Permanency data was expanded to

allow for a closer examination of what particular practices drive the outcomes for children in

foster care. Permanency data is now reflected in components, composites and measures as

defined below:

Composites: Refers to a data indicator that incorporates county performance on multiple

permanency-related individual measures. There are four permanency composites.

Component: Refers to the primary parts of a composite. Components may incorporate

only one individual measure or may have two or more individual measures that are

closely related to one another. There are seven permanency related components.

Measures: Refers to the specific measures that are included in each composite. There are

15 individual permanency measures.

Table 1 includes county performance on the two safety data indicators and 15 permanency

measures.

B. Safety Data Tables

Tables 2-7 include child welfare data related to the agency’s practices in addressing safety.

These tables contain information about the agency’s use of track assignments, report

dispositions, timeliness of initial face-to-face contacts with children who are the subject of a

maltreatment report, length of placement episodes and reasons for out-of-home placements.

C. Permanency Data Tables

Tables 8-10 provide demographic information about the children in out-of-home placement

(gender and age) and the type of settings in which children are placed.

D. Child Well-being Data Tables

Table 11 provides information regarding the frequency of caseworkers’ monthly face-to-face

contact with children in foster care.

32

A. Federal Data Indicators Table 1

Data Indicator National

Standard

County

2008

Minnesota

2008

Safety Indicator 1: Absence of Maltreatment Recurrence. Of all

children who were victims of determined maltreatment during the first

six months of the reporting period, what percent were not victims of

another determined maltreatment allegation within a 6-month period.

94.6% 100%*

(0 / 8) 91.52%

Safety Indicator 2: Absence of Child Abuse/Neglect in Foster Care.

Of all children in foster care during the reporting period, what percent

were not victims of determined maltreatment by a foster parent or

facility staff member.

99.68% 100%*

(0 / 35) 99.7%*

Permanency Composite 1: Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification.

Component A: Timeliness of Reunification

Measure C1.1: Exits to reunification in less than 12 months. Of

all children discharged from foster care to reunification in the year

shown, who had been in foster care for 8 days or longer, what

percent was reunified in less than 12 months from the date of the

latest removal from the home?

75.2% 90%*

(9 / 10) 86.1%*

Measure C1.2: Median stay in foster care to reunification. Of all

children discharged from foster care to reunification in the year

shown, who had been in foster care for 8 days or longer, what was

the median length of stay (in months) from the date of the latest

removal from home until the date of discharge to reunification?

5.4 0.5* 3.98*

Measure C1.3: Entry cohort of children who reunify in less than

12 months. Of all children entering foster care for the first time in

the 6 month period just prior to the year shown, and who remained in

foster care for 8 days or longer, what percent was discharged from

foster care to reunification in less than 12 months from the date of

the latest removal from home?

48.4% 66.7%*

(2 / 3) 62.0%*

Component B: Permanency of Reunification

Measure C1.4: Children who exit and re-enter foster care in less

than 12 months. Of all children discharged from foster care to

reunification in the 12-month period prior the year shown, what

percent re-entered foster care in less than 12 months from the date of

discharge?

9.9% 42.1%

(8/19) 26.1%

33

Data Indicator National

Standard

County

2007

Minnesota

2007

Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of Adoptions

Component A: Timeliness of Adoptions of children Discharged From Foster Care

Measure C2.1: Adoption in less than 24 months for children

exiting to adoption. Of all children who were discharged from

foster care to a finalized adoption in the year shown, what percent

was discharged in less than 24 months from the date of the latest

removal from home?

36.6% 0%

(0 / 1) 50.3%*

Measure C2.2: Median length of stay to adoption. Of all children

who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in the

year shown, what was the median length of stay in foster care (in

months) from the date of latest removal from home to the date of

discharge to adoption?

27.3 32.3 25.13*

Component B: Adoption for Children Meeting ASFA Time-In-Care Requirements

Measure C2.3: Children in foster care 17+ months, adopted by

the end of the year. Of all children in foster care on the first day of

the year shown who were in foster care for 17 continuous months or

longer (and who, by the last day of the year shown, were not

discharged from foster care with a discharge reason of live with

relative, reunify, or guardianship), what percent was discharged from

foster care to a finalized adoption by the last day of the year shown?

22.7% 12.5%

(1 / 8) 21.0%

Measure C2.4: Children in foster care 17+ months achieving

legal freedom within 6 months. Of all children in foster care on the

fist day of the year shown who were in foster care for 17 continuous

months or longer, and were not legally free for adoption prior to that

day, what percent became legally free for adoption during the first 6

months of the year shown?

10.9% 0%

(0 / 5) 2.1%

Component C: Progress Toward Adoption of Children who are Legally Free for Adoption

Measure C2.5: Children, legally free, adoption in less than 12

months. Of all children who became legally free for adoption in the

12 month period prior to the year shown, what percent was

discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12

months of becoming legally free?

53.7% 0%

(0 / 2) 34.6%

34

Data Indicator National

Standard

County

2008

Minnesota

2008

Permanency Composite 3: Achieving Permanency for Children in Foster Care

Component A: Achieving Permanency for Children in Care for Extended Periods of Time

Measure C3.1: Exits to permanency prior to 18th

birthday for

children in care for 24+ months. Of all children in foster care for

24 months or longer on the first day of the year shown, what percent

was discharged to a permanency home prior to their 18th

birthday

and by the end of the fiscal year? A permanent home is defined as

having a discharge reason of adoption, guardianship, or reunification

(including living with a relative).

29.1% 25%

(2 / 8) 18.8%

Measure C3.2: Exits to permanency for children with TPR. Of

all children who were discharged from foster care in the year shown,

and who were legally free for adoption at the time of discharge, what

percent was discharged to a permanent home prior to their 18th

birthday? A permanent home is defined as having a discharge reason

of adoption, guardianship, or reunification (including living with a

relative).

98.0% 100%*

(1 / 1) 93.4%

Component B: Children Emancipated Who Were in Foster Care for Extended Period of Time

Measure C3.3: Children emancipated who were in foster care

for 3 years or more. Of all children who, during the year shown,

either (1) were discharged from foster care prior to age 18 with a

discharge reason of emancipation, or (2) reached their 18th

birthday

while in foster care, what percent were in foster care for 3 years or

longer?

37.5% 50%

(1 / 2) 43.5%

Permanency Composite 4: Placement Stability

Measure C4.1: Two or fewer placement settings for children in

care for less than 12 months.. Of all children served in foster care

during the 12 month target period who were in foster care for at least

8 days but less than 12 months, what percent had two or fewer

placement settings?

86.0% 100%*

(18 / 18) 86.1%*

Measure C4.2: Two or fewer placement settings for children in

care for 12 to 24 months. Of all children served in foster care

during the 12 months target period who were in foster care for at

least 12 months but less than 24 months, what percent had two or

fewer placement settings?

65.4% 50%

(1 / 2) 55.4%

Measure C4.3: Two or fewer placement settings for children in

care for 24+ months. Of all children served in foster care during the

12 months target period who were in foster care for at least 24

months, what percent had two or fewer placement settings?

41.8% 40%

(4 / 10) 30.4%

*The county met the performance standard.

35

B. Safety Data

Child Maltreatment Reports (Investigation): Alleged, Determined and Need for Service, 5 Year History

Table 2

Year

Reports

Investigated

Reports with Maltreatment

Determined

(Number of cases determined/

as % of reports assessed)

Reports with Child Protection

Services Needed Determined

(Number of cases determined/

as % of reports assessed)

2004 37 10 (27%) 6 (16.2%)

2005 50 19 (38%) 15 (30%)

2006 54 19 (35.2%) 19 (35.2%)

2007 25 16 (64%) 11 (44%)

2008

25 17 (68%) 11 (44/%)

DHS Research, Planning and Evaluation

Statewide rate of reports with maltreatment determined in 2008: 57.9%

Statewide rate of reports with child protection services needed determined in 2008: 47.8%

Child Maltreatment Reports (Family Assessment): History as Available/Applicable Table 3

Year Number of Family Assessments / as percent

of total maltreatment assessments

Number of Family Assessments with Subsequent

Case Management Openings / as a percent of

total AR assessments

2004 39 (51.3%) 12 (30.8%)

2005 44 (46.8%) 9 (20.5%)

2006 43 (44.3%) 15 (34.9%)

2007 47 (65.3%) 27 (57.4%)

2008 35 (58.3%) 11 (31.4%)

DHS Research, Planning and Evaluation

Statewide rate of reports assessed with Family Assessments in 2008: 63.1%

Statewide rate of Family Assessments with Case Management Openings in 2008: 16.9%

36

Completed Face-to-Face Contact with Alleged Child Victims Table 4

Reporting

Period

Total all

Child

Subjects

Percent With

Timely

Contact*

Percent With

No Contact

Statewide

Rate of Timely

Contact

Family Assessments

and

Investigations – Not

Substantial Child

Endangerment

Jan-Mar 2008 8 8 / 100% 0% 61.2%

Apr-June 2008 17 14 / 82.4% 0% 64.9%

July-Sept 2008 23 11 / 47.8% 0% 70.8%

Oct-Dec 2008 7 4 / 57.1% 1 / 14.3% 67.8%

2008 55 37 / 67.3% 1 / 1.8% 65.9%

Investigations –

Alleged Substantial

Child Endangerment

Jan-Mar 2008 4 4 / 100% 0% 52.3%

Apr-June 2008 1 1 / 100% 0% 47.7%

July-Sept 2008 5 5 / 100% 0% 52.7%

Oct-Dec 2008 0 NA NA 53%

2008 10 10 / 100% 0% 51.4%

DHS Child Welfare Data Release Report

*Timely contact is defined as:

Family Assessments: Within 5 calendar days of receipt of report

Investigation – Not Substantial Child Endangerment: Within 5 calendar days of receipt of report

Investigation – Alleged Substantial Child Endangerment: Immediately/within 24 hours of receipt of report

Length of Placement Episodes Ending in 2008 Table 5

Length of Placement Episodes State % County # County %

1 – 7 days 24.8% 8 36.4%

8 – 30 days 10.6% 5 22.7%

31 – 90 days 13.4% 1 4.5%

91 – 180 days 11.2% 1 4.5%

181 – 365 days 15.9% 3 13.6%

366+ days 24.7% 4 18.2%

Total Episodes 8,695 22 100%

DHS Research, Planning and Evaluation

37

Reasons for Entering Out-of-Home-Care, Related to Protection-2008 Table 6

Reason

State %

County # County %

Alleged Physical Abuse

6.8% 2 3.2%

Alleged Sexual Abuse

3.2% 0 0%

Alleged Neglect

18.8% 9 14.5%

Parent Alcohol Abuse

5.3% 0 0%

Parent Drug Abuse

10.6% 2 3.2%

Abandonment

3.1% 0 0%

TPR

0.8% 1 1.6%

Parent Incarceration

3.7% 1 1.6%

Total Reasons Reported for All Placements

22,082 62 --

Total Placements

22,947 56 --

Total Reasons Related to Protection

52.4% 15 24.2%

Reasons for Entering Out-of-Home-Care, Other than Protection-2008 Table 7

Reason

State %

County #

County %

Child Alcohol Abuse

1.4% 4 6.5%

Child Drug Abuse

2.3% 4 6.5%

Child Behavior

26.4% 26 41.9%

Child Disability

4.0% 5 8.1%

Parent Death

0.3% 0 0%

Caretaker Inability to Cope

10.2% 7 11.3%

Inadequate Housing

3.0% 1 1.6%

Total Reasons Reported for All Placements

22,082 62 --

Total Placements

22,947 56 --

Total Reasons Other than Protection

47.6% 47 75.8%

2008 Child Welfare Report

38

C. Permanency Data

Gender of Children in Care-2008 Table 8

Gender

State %

County #

County %

Male

56.2% 15 42.9%

Female

43.8% 20 57.1%

Total Children in Care

13,755 35 100%

Age Group of Children in Care – 2008 Table 9

Age Group

State %

County #

County %

0-7 Years

32.5% 8 22.9%

8-12 Years

18.2% 8 22.9%

13+ Years

49.3% 19 54.3%

Total Children in Care

13,755 35 100%

Children in Out-of-Home Care by Placement Setting-2008 Table 10

(Children may be counted in more than one placement setting)

Placement Setting

State %

County #

County %

Foster Family Non-Relative 38.7% 17 30.3%

Foster Family Relative 12.7% 5 8.9%

Foster Home – Corporate/Shift Staff 1.3% 4 7.1%

Group Home 11.6% 12 21.4%

Juvenile Correctional Facility (locked) 3.5% 0 0%

Juvenile Correctional Facility (non-secure) 6.7% 1 1.8%

Pre-Adoptive Non-Relative 4.2% 4 7.1%

Pre-Adoptive Relative 2.0% 0 0%

Residential Treatment Center 19.1% 13 23.2%

Other* 0.2% 0 0%

Total Placement Settings 22,947 56 100%

*”Other” includes ICF-MR and Supervised Independent Living settings

2008 Child Welfare Report

39

D. Child Well-being Data

Caseworker Visits with Children in Foster Care Table 11

State %

County #

County %

April 1, 2008 –

March 31, 2009

Total Number of Children in Foster Care 8,320 23 --

Monthly Visits 42.7% 5 21.7%

Of children who had visits, number /percent of

residential visits 96.9% 4 80%

No Visits 2.7% 6 26.1%

Jan. 1, 2008 –

Dec. 31, 2008

Total Number of Children in Foster Care 8,535 23 --

Monthly Visits 40.4% 6 26.1%

Of children who had visits, number /percent of

residential visits 96.4% 6 100%

No Visits 3.0% 7 30.4%

Oct. 1, 2007 –

Sept. 30, 2008

Total Number of Children in Foster Care 8,169 23 --

Monthly Visits 38.7% 8 34.8%

Of children who had visits, number /percent of

residential visits 95.3% 8 100%

No Visits 3.2% 4 17.4%

DHS Child Welfare Data Release Report

40

PART V: SUMMARY OF STRENGTHS AND NEEDS

Based on examination of data and narrative responses provided in early sections of this

report, summarize the information in response to the following questions.

1. What specific strengths of the agency’s programs have been identified?

Seasoned, caring, professional, quality staff who understand the need for teamwork in a small

agency.

Organizational commitment to quality and to change

Community support and collaboration

A really good Intake worker

A really good SSIS mentor `

2. What specific needs have been identified that warrant further examination in the onsite

review? Note which of these needs are the most critical to the outcomes under safety,

permanency and well-being for children and families in the county.

To improve on engaging fathers in services and working with non-custodial parents. - Critical

To improve our accuracy of documentation so as to accurately reflect our work.

To closely monitor long term placements

To watch our re-entry placements

To continue to provide quality services in times of funding shortages and search for new ways to

be more efficient and effective

3. Please complete the following evaluation of the county self assessment process in terms

of its usefulness to the county and recommendations for revision.

a) Were you allowed adequate time to complete the county self assessment process?

Yes No

Comments:

b) Did you find the data provided helpful to your evaluation of safety, permanency and

well-being performance? Yes No

Comments:

c) Did you engage county child welfare staff and/or community stakeholders in the county

self- assessment process? Yes No

Comments: Did this informally by asking individuals. Could have had formal meetings

but chose not to.

d) Did you find the county self assessment an effective process for evaluating your county’s

child welfare system? Yes No

41

Comments:

e) Will you use findings from the county self assessment to plan for systemic and/or

organizational improvements in your county’s child welfare system? Yes No

Comments:

g) Any additional comments or recommendations for improving the self assessment process: