Final Report on Community Convenings 12 9 11

8/3/2019 Final Report on Community Convenings 12 9 11

1/46

VOICES FROM THE COMMUNITY

An Urgent Call to Reform How Our Nation Finances Child WelfareServices and Address Overrepresentation of African American

Children in Foster Care

Findings from Community Convenings in

Houston (TX) San Diego (CA) Detroit (MI)

Final Report

December 2011

National Urban League Policy InstituteCasey Family Programs

Houston Area Urban LeagueUrban League of San Diego County

Urban League of Detroit and Southeastern Michigan


2/46

2

Acknowledgments

The National Urban League wishes to express its appreciation for the work of the following individuals incarrying out these special community convenings on the need for comprehensive reform of our nationschild welfare financing system:

Houston Area Urban LeagueJudson Robinson, President/CEOJohn Robinson, Director of Education and Youth Development.

Urban League of San Diego CountyRay King, President/CEOTiffany Harrison, Management Assistant

Urban League of Detroit and Southeastern MichiganN. Charles Anderson, President/CEOCassandra Nelson-Pruitt, Senior Director Community Services

Casey Family Programs

Margaret Hunt Director, Child Welfare PartnershipsCedric Davis Child Welfare PartnershipsChristine Calpin Managing Director, Public PolicyJooYeun Chang Senior Director, Public PolicyPaul Beuhler Senior Director, Strategic ConsultingJorge Cabrera Senior Director, Strategic ConsultingCarolyne Rodriguez Senior Director, Strategic Consulting

National Urban League Policy InstituteSuzanne Bergeron, MSW, Senior Legislative Director, Workforce, Civil Rights, Social Services; ProjectCoordinator and primary author of final report

Barbara Wilkerson, MSW, Project Liaison and contributor to final report

The National Urban League (NUL) is a historic, 101 year-old civil rights organization dedicated toeconomic empowerment in order to elevate the standard of living in significantly underserved urbancommunities. Since its inception in 1910, the NUL has spearheaded the efforts of its local affiliatesthrough the development of programs, public policy research and advocacy. There are currently 98affiliates in 36 states and the District of Columbia. TheNational Urban League Policy Institute (NULPI),located in Washington, DC, advances theNULs mission through advocacy, research, policy analysis andpublications that create a favorable climate for NULs programs and positions among policymakers,government officials, the policy community, and the public.

Casey Family Programs (CFP) is the nations largest operating foundation focused entirely on fostercare and improving the child welfare system. Founded in 1966, CFP works to provide and improve andultimately prevent the need for foster care in the United States.
http://www.casey.org/index.htmhttp://www.casey.org/index.htm


3/46

3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary..4

Brief Overview of the Status of Children in the Child Welfare System5

African American Children and Child WelfareDisproportionality andTreatment Disparities..6

MovingTowards Comprehensive Reform of How this Nation FinancesChild Welfare Services8

Reaching Out to the Community for Frontline Education and PerspectivesOn Child Welfare Financing Reform: A Partnership Initiative by theNational Urban League and Casey Family Programs..10

Powerful Voices from the Community12

The Houston (TX) Convening Hosted by the Houston AreaUrban League12

The San Diego (CA) Convening Hosted by the Urban League ofSan Diego County.20

The Detroit (MI) Convening Hosted by the Urban League ofDetroit & Southeastern Michigan28

Conclusion.33

APPENDIX I34

APPENDIX II...37

Endnotes.45


4/46

4

Executive Summary

On any given day, nearly a half million children are in foster care in the United States.While it remains unacceptable, this actually represents a certain amount of progress. Thenumber of children in foster care decreased by four percent between 2009 and 2010 from

423,773 to 408,425. This reflects the ongoing decline in the number of children in foster careover the years, where the number of children in foster care on a given day decreased from523,000 in 2002 to 423,773 in 2009, representing a reduction of about 19 percent, or almost99,000 children. Far too many children are still entering the foster care system where 1,161children enter foster care each day and remain there on average more than two years. Timelyservices are lacking or inadequate at the point of investigation of abuse or neglect, where about40 percent of children who were abused or neglected in 2009 received no services following theinvestigation of their maltreatment; many more received far fewer services than they actuallyneed.

The disproportionate representation of children of color and especially AfricanAmerican children in our child welfare system is well documented. Especially important is theneed to focus on the research concerning the disparity issue, i.e. the unequal treatment ofchildren of color and their families who come into contact with every stage of the child welfaresystem in this country. Poverty is a major contributing factor to the higher proportion of AfricanAmerican children entering and remaining in foster care, and this raises serious concerns inlight of these economic times with rising poverty rates in the African American community. Theimpact of disproportionality on African American children and families caught up in the childwelfare system calls for strategic and concrete efforts to bring this practice to an immediate endif we are to truly reform the way we finance child welfare services as it is meant to apply to allchildren a reform that is meant to bring equitable accessto a whole host of preventive andsupport services that ultimately lead to all children benefitting from a safe, nurturing andpermanent living environment.

Efforts to secure safe, nurturing and permanent families for children who have suffered

abuse and/or neglect, are at risk of both, and come into contact with the child welfare system,have been an evolutionary process in our nation. It is a process that, despite reachingprogressive milestones over the years, has yet to fully break the federal financing tradition thatcreates incentives to remove children from their homes and place them in a foster careenvironment far too often temporary and unstable, that may not be secure, and may bephysically and/or emotionally harmful.

In 2011, the National Urban League and Casey Family Programs partnered to bringtogether creative minds from Urban League affiliates in Houston (TX), San Diego (CA) andDetroit (MI), in conjunction with their respective state and local child welfare stakeholders andlocal communities through community convenings in each of these affiliate locations. Thefeedback from the stakeholder break-out sessions and the personal testimonies of theindividuals directly impacted by the child welfare system clearly and dramatically show that the

need for ongoing dialogue about the state of children and families in our nations child welfaresystem and the solutions and investments necessary must continue at national, state, county,local and community levels. It served to document that we must do things differently byreforming and creating a child welfare financing system that changes the incentives from placingchildren in foster care to a more holistic and preventive approach at each stage safelypreventing children from being separated from their families in the first place through a widearray of services, safely reuniting children with their families quickly once in foster care, andproviding for an effective and stable transition for youth who leave foster (or other) caresituations and cannot return home to a family.


5/46

5

Brief Overview of the Status of Children in the Child Welfare System

On any given day, nearly a half million children are in foster care in the United States.While it remains unacceptable, this actually represents a certain amount of progress. Thenumber of children in foster care decreased by four percent between 2009 and 2010 from

423,773 to 408,425.i

This reflects the ongoing decline in the number of children in foster careover the years, where the number of children in foster care on a given day decreased from523,000 in 2002 to 423,773 in 2009, representing a reduction of about 19 percent, or almost99,000 childrenii. Far too many children are still entering the foster care system where 1,161children enter foster care each day and remain there on average more than two years iii. In everystate but one, more than half the children in care for two or more years experience at least threeplacements often leaving that child in a constant state of debilitating instability iv. Timely servicesare lacking or inadequate at the point of investigation of abuse or neglect, where about 40percent of children who were abused or neglected in 2009 received no services following theinvestigation of their maltreatment; many more received far fewer services than they actuallyneedv. According to data compiled by a Congressional Research Service reportvi, thebreakdown for FY2009 of children who are brought to the attention of public child welfare

agencies is as follows.

6 million are referred to child protective services because of alleged child abuseor neglect and of these:- 3.6 million were the subject of a child abuse or neglect investigation or

assessment by child protective services (the remainder of children referredare screened out)

- 1.1 million received some service after the child protective servicesinvestigation/assessment, both victims and non-victims (839,000 were servedin the home; 246,000 were removed from their homes)

- 763,000 were found by the child protective services investigation/assessment

to be a victim of child abuse or neglect (306,000 received no further service;298,000 were served in the home following the investigation/assessment; and158,000 were removed from their homes)

- 700,000 spent at least 24 hours in foster care (including children in care whenthe fiscal year began and those who entered care during the fiscal year dueto abuse, neglect, or other reasons)

- 424,000 remained in foster care on the last day of the fiscal year- 186,000 in foster care are receiving federal Title IV-E foster care

maintenance payment support (in an average month)

For those children who cannot return home, it is reported that 107,011 remained in foster

care waiting to be adopted in 2010, representing a decrease from 114,556 in 2009; and whilethe number of youths who aged out of foster care decreased in 2010 to 27,854 from 29,471 in2009, the percent of youth aging out remained at 11 percent continuing an alarming trend ofyouths aging out of foster care without a permanent home, increasing by 61 percent sinceFY1998.vii


6/46

6

African American Children and Child WelfareDisproportionality and Treatment Disparities

The disproportionate representation of children of color and especially AfricanAmerican children in our child welfare system is well documented. Especially important is the

need to focus on the research concerning the disparity issue, i.e. the unequal treatment ofchildren of color and their families who come into contact with every stage of the child welfaresystem in this country. This is a discussion that must be brought to light if we are to truly reformthe way we finance child welfare services as it is meant to apply to allchildren a reform that ismeant to bring a whole host of preventive and support services that ultimately lead to allchildren benefitting from a safe, nurturing and permanent living environment.

A recent publication by Black Administrators in Child Welfare (BACW)viii cites data fromthe U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) showing that African Americanchildren not only stay longer in care, but are also represented at twice their proportion in thegeneral population. For federal fiscal year 2009, the data shows that while approximately 15percent of the U.S. child population is African American, African American children represented

30 percent of the total number of children in foster care, and that of the number of childrenentering foster care in 2009, an estimated 26 percent of the children were African American.ix

BACWs extensive examination of the status of children of color in the child welfare systempoints to racial disparities exhibited at practically every stage of the decision-making process.They conclude that,

Disproportionality and treatment disparities of children of color can be found throughout thechild welfare system. Starting with intake services, referrals for investigation of abuse andneglect, placement decisions, and children exiting foster care to those being adopted andwaiting to be adopted, there is evidence of treatment disparities that lead to theoverrepresentation of children of color in the child welfare system.

x

In an extensive review of the available research on disproportionality by the Casey-CSSP Alliance for Racial Equity in the Child Welfare System,xi the 2006 paper notes that,

Despite differences in the design and methodology of the studies under review, muchconsensus about disproportionality was revealed in this summary of the professionalliterature, especially among more recent studies. Most of the studies reviewed identified raceas one of the primary determinants of decisions of child protective services at the stages ofreporting, investigation, substantiation, placement, and exit from care. The only stage whereno racial differences were identified was the stage of reentry into the child welfare system.

xii

A 2007 congressional report on African American children in foster carexiii identifiedvarious factors that contributed to the disproportionate representation of children of color in

foster care, such as:

Poverty: A higher rate of poverty contributes to the higher proportion of African Americanchildren entering and remaining in foster care. The report notes that families living in povertyhave greater difficulty accessing housing and other services that could prevent foster careplacements by stabilizing the family and serving children safely in their home.xivThis contributingfactor is especially alarming in these economic times with rising poverty rates. The latestpoverty rate for Blacks reported by the U.S. Census Bureauxv shows an increase to 27.4 percentin 2010 from 25.8 percent in 2009.


7/46

7

Lack of access to supports and services: The congressional report identified challengesthat African Americans face in accessing various prevention supports and services including:affordable and adequate housing; substance abuse treatment; family services such as parentingskills and counseling; job training; legal representation in the courts responsible for makingdecisions about children reported to have been abused or neglected.xvi

What is notable about the congressional reports finding is that even after theyare reported to child welfare, [African American] families can have difficulty ingaining access to the types of services that would allow a child to remain with thefamily and risk being removed to foster care.xvii

Bias or cultural misunderstandings and distrust between child welfare decision makersand the families they serve are also viewed as contributing to childrens removal from theirhomes into foster care:xviii The report reveals serious treatment disparities where AfricanAmerican children and families do not receive the same access to needed services as non-African Americans. Further:

There is also some evidence that African American families, in particular, are not

offered [emphasis added] the same amount of support services when they arebrought to the attention of the child welfare system. One study xix found that racewas a significant factor in whether families received mental health relatedservices, even after controlling for age, type of maltreatment, behavior of thechild, and gender.

African American families distrust of the child welfare system stems from theirperception that the system is unresponsive to their needs and racially biasedagainst them.xx Child welfare officials and researchers reported many AfricanAmericans in poor communities perceive child welfare caseworkers as moreintent on separating African American parents from their children than on workingwithin their communities to address child safety issues.xxi

The notion of racial bias or cultural misunderstanding (and in some instancesinadequate training) however, is not relegated only to the perceptions of AfricanAmerica families. The congressional report found it permeated: (1) thosereporting abuse or neglect such as teachers, medical professionals, or policeofficers; (2) child welfare caseworkers and juvenile and family court judges; and(3) even well-meaning decision makers at any stage of the child welfare processmay have faulty assumptions about racial, ethnic, or socio-economic groups.xxii

Difficulties in recruiting adoptive parents and a greater reliance on relatives to providefoster care who may be unwilling to terminate the parental rights of the childs parent asrequired in adoption or who need the financial subsidy they receive while the child is in foster

care: The congressional report identified additional challenges in finding appropriate adoptivehomes including difficulties in finding families that will adopt older African American children,and the belief that African American children are more likely to be diagnosed as having specialneeds.xxiii


8/46

8

Moving Towards Comprehensive Reform of How this Nation FinancesChild Welfare Services

Efforts to secure safe, nurturing and permanent families for children who have sufferedabuse and/or neglect, are at risk of both, and come into contact with the child welfare system,

have been an evolutionary process in our nation. It is a process that, despite reachingprogressive milestones over the years, has yet to fully break the federal financing tradition thatcreates incentives to remove children from their homes and place them in a foster careenvironment far too often temporary and unstable, that may not be secure, and may bephysically and/or emotionally harmful.

There have been several progressive milestones over the years to move child welfarefederal policy and financing towards the goal of insuring that every effort is made to keepchildren safe in their homes, prevent them from being placed into foster care, safely reunitethem with their families, assist them when transitioning from out-of-home care to independentliving, and/or provide them with permanent and stable alternatives such as adoption and legalguardianship.xxiv Despite the evolution of laws and varied complex funding streams governing

the delivery of a myriad of child welfare related services, we are still grappling with a financingstructure that, for the most part, provides a greater financial incentive to place and maintaineligible children in licensed foster care, rather than providing services to families before andafter contact with the child welfare system.xxv Child and family advocates from around thecountry at all levels of government and in private sector organizations still struggle with the longterm goal of achieving comprehensive child welfare finance reform. However, the complexity ofthe financing system makes reform a daunting task. According to the Congressional Coalitionon Adoption Institute (CCAI),xxvi the difficulty is attributed to a variety of reasons:

First and foremost, the context and needs of each state are unique, and there aresignificant variances among states in the degree that federal funding is relied upon, thesource from which funding is drawn, and the rate of change in total spending.xxvii

It is difficult to reach consensus on a finance structure that facilitates an appropriatebalance in providing flexible assistance to states to ensure positive outcomes forchildren and families in need of services.xxviii

Currently, the federal government provides about 48 percent of overall child welfarespending, with the remaining 52 percent coming from a combination of state and localsources.xxix Title IV-E under the Social Security Act represents the largest share of funding,where in recent years this federal support to states has totaled about $7 billion annually.xxx TitleIV-E provides federal funding for foster care maintenance, administration and placementexpenses, adoption assistance, and payments for child welfare agency employee training however, funds under this Title cannot be provided for preventative and post-permanencyservices to keep children and their families together.xxxi Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, by

contrast, was funded in FY2011 at $709 million.xxxii

Title IV-B federal funding is often referred toas upfront funding to support activities that prevent the need to remove children from theirhomes instead of supporting them in foster care, including services to prevent abuse orneglect.xxxiii


9/46

9

Federal IV-E Waivers

Given the recognition that federal child welfare financing is heavily tilted towards placingand maintaining children in foster care, interim legislative efforts have been underway through aFederal IV-E waiver process to steer federal financing more towards preventive, innovativefamily services to reduce the need for, and length of stay in, federal foster care. Federal IV-E

waivers were first introduced into federal law in 1994, when the Secretary of Health and HumanServices (HHS) was authorized to approve waivers (for demonstration projects) for a handful ofstates giving them the flexibility to use federal funds to test promising alternative child welfarepractices.xxxiv Since then, the authority to grant waiver projects has been reauthorized andexpanded by a series of Public Laws from 2003 through as recently as September 30, 2011,when President Obama signed into law the Child and Family Services Improvement andInnovation Act(Public Law 112-34).

The Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act, among other key childwelfare services provisions, renews the authority of HHS to approve as many as 10demonstration projects, per year, for three years (FY2012-FY2014), allowing for prior waiverauthority extensions of up to 5 years and beyond if warranted, but not beyond September 30,

2019.xxxvIn addition, Public Law 112-34, establishes additional requirements for states that wantto implement a new demonstration project. The law provides that no state could be approved tooperate a new demonstration project unless it can demonstrate that it had completed thefollowing:

Put in place child welfare policies or procedures that will allow it to operate ademonstration project effectively and achieve the project goals.

Identified one (or more) of the following three goals that the demonstrationproject will be designed to accomplish: (1) increasing permanence for children ofall ages by reducing their lengths of stay in foster care, when possible, and bypromoting a successful transition to adulthood for older youth; (2) increasing

positive outcomes and improving the safety and well-being of children of all ageswho are living in their own homes and communities, including tribal communities;and (3) preventing child abuse and neglect and the re-entry of children of anyage to foster care.

Implemented, or have definite plans to implement, at least 2 of 10 child welfareprogram improvement policies (specified in the law).xxxvi

By renewing the authority that allows states to use federal funds to conduct innovativeapproaches to improving the safety and well-being of children of all ages living in their ownhomes and communities a reform that reflects the realistic needs of children, families in theirlocal communities, policymakers are moving this country another step closer to the ultimate goal

of comprehensive reform in the way we finance our system of child welfare services.


10/46

10

Reaching Out to the Community for Frontline Education andPerspectives on Child Welfare Financing Reform:

A Partnership Initiative by the National Urban League and Casey Family Programs

For the past three years, the National Urban League (NUL) has partnered with CaseyFamily Programs (CFP) to help improve the lives of foster care youth and to ensure safe,nurturing and permanent families for children. In 2008 and 2009 this joint effort focused primarilyon expanding the existing programs of three Urban League affiliate sites to include and trackfoster care youth in Broward County (FL), Houston (TX) and Las Vegas (NV). The partnershipalso utilized the expertise of the Urban League of Columbia (SC) to create a Youth LeadershipDevelopment Guide Book, a step-by-step guide to developing comprehensive services for fostercare youth. The guide also highlights how Urban League affiliates can sustain funding and forgepartnerships with key stakeholders, including the local child welfare agency.

In 2010, Casey Family Programs increased its work on prevention and permanencythrough public policy education on the issue of comprehensive child welfare finance reform.

Consequently, CFP shifted its main partnership activities with NUL to the National UrbanLeague Policy Institute, the NULs policy, research and advocacy arm, located in Washington,DC, with the mutual goal of ensuring that federal funding is available for innovative services thataddress the root causes of child abuse and neglect, strengthen families and expeditepermanent, safe and stable living situations for children at risk of or involved with the childwelfare system.

In 2011, the National Urban League and Casey Family Programs partnered to bringtogether creative minds from Urban League affiliates in Houston (TX), San Diego (CA) andDetroit (MI), in conjunction with their respective state and local child welfare stakeholders andlocal communities through community convenings in each of these affiliate locations. Theseconvenings built upon the prior work between CFP and NUL to provide an opportunity to

mobilize local support for children, their families, and an expanded range of community-based,prevention services.

The purpose of these convenings was to share information, educate the community onchild welfare finance reform, and obtain firsthand the valuable perspectives andrecommendations of local community based organizations, local officials, and especially fromindividuals who came into contact with their local child welfare system such as parents, fostercare alumni, and kinship care providers. The conversation on issues and concerns in thecommunity are needed and necessary to effectively serve our children and families. As wemoved forward with the convenings the focus on preventative services became paramount if weare to alleviate many of our children from ever entering the child welfare system. It is mostimportant to keep in mind that the convenings were not meant to point fingers at anyone, but to

stress that we MUST all come together, listen and work to better improve the lives of ourchildren and families.

NUL and CFP believed that the community convenings would allow an opportunity for afrank and open conversation on the issues and concerns in each of the communities selectedand therefore engage an informative dialogue among all who serve children, youth, andfamilies. Five key elements were covered across each of the community convenings:


11/46

11

1. The current child welfare landscape and how children and families were doing ineach of the respective communities.

2. Information from representatives of the state and local child welfare system.3. The perspectives of parents, caregivers, and youth alumni who came into contact

with the child welfare system.4. Recommendations garnered through breakout sessions responding to the

question, What services, regardless of source, do you see as critical to you oryour community to support families to prevent child abuse and neglect and tosupport permanency for children?

5. An identification of what next steps each of the convening communities wouldtake, through the leadership of each of the Urban League affiliates, to continuethe dialogue and work towards common solutions on securing safe, nurturing andpermanent homes for children in their local communities.


12/46

12

Powerful Voices from the Community

The Houston (TX) Convening Hosted by the Houston Area Urban League

About the Houston Area Urban League: Was founded in 1968 by a group of business professionals as avoice for disadvantaged people of all races and has a long and distinguished record as an agency thatoffers tangible, lasting benefits to all members of the community without regard to age, sex, race, physicallimitations or ethnic background. Program services are provided by a 50+-member staff, over 500volunteers, and an ever-growing membership dedicated to the League. The HAUL intentionally beganserving youth in foster care in 2009 as part of a pilot through the partnership of the National UrbanLeague and Casey Family Programs. Since enhancing their NULITES (National Urban League Incentivesto Excel and Succeed) program to better serve youth in foster care, they have also continued to developtheir relationship with their local child welfare leadership in Texas Region 10. The HAUL has been acommunity advocate for child welfare and, as a committee member, hosted meetings for the regionsDisproportionality Task Force.

HAULING In The CommunityA Conversation About Comprehensive Federal Child Welfare Reform

The first community convening on child welfare finance reform was held at the UnitedWay Center on September 20, 2011 under the leadership of Judson Robinson, President/CEO, Houston Area Urban League (HAUL) and coordinated by John Robinson, Directorof Education and Youth Development. The day consisted of three moderated panels, abreakout session for participant discussion and feedback, and time for Q and A. The event washeld from 10:00am to 3:00pm, with breakfast and lunch provided. The proceedings werevideotaped, and a packet of informational materials were provided to each participant, includingthe most current data on the status of older youth in out-of-home care in Harris Countyproduced by Data Advocacy, Casey Family Programs. The convening brought together adiverse audience of eighty-four (84) attendees that included a representation of thirty (30) localorganizations, parents and youth from:

City of HoustonGalveston CASAAngel Reach, Inc.DFPSSt. James School/The CLOTHHDHHSFort Bend ISDForge for FamiliesAttending Organizations (continued)


13/46

13

Community BuilderHouston Alumni & Youth CenterHouston Housing ResourceFamily Restoration & Economic EmpowermentNew BeginningTSU InternsDADS for EducationCouncil Member, District BRiverside United Methodist Church/HHSCHISD- Parent EngagementJalonis VoiceHealth NavigatorChief of Staff, Council Member BradfordWomen Healing & Empowering WomenThe Shelby Group-Economic Empowerment, The CLOTHNew Mt. Calvary MBCFirst and GoalThe Rise ProgramThe Womens Fund

NBCSThe Center of Family PreservationPALSOne Voice TexasABLA Counseling & Consulting

In planning for this special community convening on the need to reform how the childwelfare system is financed, the President and CEO of the Houston Area Urban League believedthis would serve as an excellent opportunity for all stakeholders to learn directly from eachother. In his welcoming remarks, the Urban League President provided the context for theconvening, stating this was a win-win for the children in the Houston/Harris County communityas it would provide the opportunity to explore ways to be better prepared to meet their needs to

become healthy, educated and economically independent adults.

Margie Hunt, Director of Child Welfare Partnerships for Casey Family Programs ,provided insights on Caseys partnership with the National Urban League, how this wasconsistent with CFPs 2020 strategy for safely reducing the number of children in foster care by50 percent by 2020, and on the connection between child welfare finance reform and thisconvening of the Houston community. Suzanne Bergeron, Senior Legislative Director,Workforce, Civil Rights and Social Services at the National Urban League Policy Institute ,brought greetings from the National Urban League, provided background on NULs partnershipwith Casey Family Programs, and that through this partnership there is a mutual goal ofsoliciting the views from the Houston/Harris County community on how the financing of childwelfare can be turned around to prevent children from entering foster care, reuniting them safely

with their families as soon as possible when in foster care, and providing the supports andservices for youth who are transitioning out of foster care. Scott Dixon, Region VI Director,Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, stressed the need to first keepchildren safe, and emphasized the need for assistance from the community as stakeholders insuch areas as securing adoptive families, substance abuse and mental health services,addressing the issue of disproportionate representation of minority children in the child welfaresystem, the role of kinship care and the lack of close access to services.


14/46

14

The panel topics and presenters were broken out as follows:

Constituent Views: Who are we here for?:Youth in/Alumni of Care Tyrone Obaseki;Kinship Caregiver Samantha Hunter; (Note: a birth parent was invited but wasunfortunately unable to attend; however a parent impacted by the child welfare systemdid speak out among the stakeholder participants)

Child Welfare: Audrey Deckinga Assistant Commissioner, Texas Child ProtectiveServices; Rosita Waden-Brooks Harris County Disproportionality AdvisoryCommittee; Carolyne Rodriguiez Casey Family Programs; John Odam HarrisCounty Attorney;

Child Welfare Finance Reform: JooYeun Chang Casey Family Programs; GeorgeFord Executive Director for Harris County Protective Services; Audrey DeckingaTexas Child Protective Services; and Mary Lee Allen Director of Child Welfare &Mental Health, Childrens Defense Fund.

All three panels spurred a lively and healthy exchange of information between

community participants on how children and families were faring in Harris County, the currentchild welfare system, the powerful perspectives of real life experiences from individualsimpacted by the child welfare system, and the policy and budgetary discussions on the need forcomprehensive child welfare finance reform.

Representatives from the Texas and Harris County child welfare agencies had anopportunity to hear directly from parents and community members about their key concerns andcritical needs in the Harris County community, such as issues pertaining to prevention, lack offamily supports, and limited support for kinship care providers. In return, representatives fromthe child welfare agencies had the opportunity to discuss the budgetary challenges they face atthe federal and state levels, the myriad of federal guidelines, laws, rules and complex fundingstreams. They also had an opportunity to outline their efforts to address the concerns about

prevention services through family-based preservation services to prevent foster care, the workof the Harris County Disproportionality Advisory Committee, and recognition that child protectiveservice agencies rely on the local community to assist with community-based front-end servicesin order to prevent children from being removed from their homes. Many parents were notaware of several of the services that child welfare systems provide to help stabilize families andimprove the safety of children.

Especially notable is that the convening provided a platform to raise issues ofaccountability to, and strong concerns about the local child welfare departmentsinadequate cultural response to the needs of the African American community in HarrisCounty.

One participant stated that there existed a dysfunctional cultural response to the AfricanAmerica community in Harris County and emphasized that institutional traditions haveto be broken!

The community view confirms the research that has been done on the disproportionaterepresentation of and treatment disparities impacting African American children andfamilies involved in the child welfare system nationally as outlined previously in thisreport. Indeed, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services initiatedstatewide reform efforts to address the disproportionality issue with the results of their


15/46

15

recent efforts just released in their August 2011 report that provides an update on theirstatewide reform efforts.xxxviiHowever, despite some progress, voices and feedbackfrom the Houston community convening made it extremely clear that much workremains to be done.

Another perspective that was voiced on this issue came from the panelist from the Harris

County Disproportionality Advisory Committee who, as a result of her outreach to thecommunity, stressed that: families often are not informed about the Child ProtectiveServices (CPS) process; there is a disconnect and lack of information by organizations;communities must be allowed to take care of their own and not wait for CPS to addressissues; and the community must become more involved in protecting children and not beafraid to respond when concerns about a childs safety are apparent.

The community perspective on the needs of children in care reinforced that thepredominant problem is the lack of resources for preventive and supportive services for the childand family. During the breakout sessions the discussions main focus was on how can we getthe necessary resources in the community to better serve and meet the needs of the family. Inmost cases, the community and service providers found that they were not equipped with the

needed information to inform the families about available services. A commitment to exchangeinformation and improve lines of communication among agencies, stakeholders and communitymembers was a recurring theme.

Additional Highlights from the Convening Discussion:

Cultural competency training for child welfare staff at all levels of the system isneeded if we are to break the longstanding cycle of disproportionate representation ofminority and especially African America children in the child welfare system.

There is an effort underway in Texas through the State Disproportionality Task Force toaddress racial bias in child welfare through a community engagement model.

Childrens protective services (CPS) is still often viewed as the agency that breaks up

families. However, within CPS a great CPS caseworker will have a major positiveimpact on the lives of children and their families.

For children at risk of harm, CPS may not be a perfect system, but at least a systemis inplace.

CPS is only part of the solution these are not CPSs children, but the communityschildren. CPS relies on the community to assist them at the front-end to prevent a childfrom being removed from their home.

CPS must think of aftercare services. Kinship care providers are still not receiving the financial assistance needed to care for

the child/children in their care. They are in need of funds to supplement the services thatare needed. In Texas, a kinship care provider only receives $500/year for each child.

The adoption process is long and strenuous.

There is a strong need for finding a way make information available on the variouscommunity based services that do exist for children and families. For example, thekinship care provider on the panel learned about a program Angel Reach from anaudience participant that will be very helpful to her in providing certain support servicesto meet the qualifications for her efforts to adopt the children in her care. Angel Reach isa nonprofit organization that assists kinship care providers by working with localchurches.

There is a need to educate parents on how to recognize problems that arise, such as inthe area of mental health.


16/46

16

The voices of families and children who are directly affected by the child welfare systemare key to changing the way we finance child welfare services in this country andprevent budget cuts to programs that impact them.

There is a need to educate the broader public on who the children and families are in thechild welfare system and why funding for a range of services especially preventive andsupportive services are desperately needed.

Also discussed was the growing budget problem at the federal and state levels that willpersist and pose an additional burden on children and families, compounding the ongoingchallenges that came to light concerning the lack of sufficient funding to meet the needs ofcommunities. Based on the feedback below, however, it is quite evident that there is no lack ofknowledge or ideas about the myriad of services that, regardless of source, should be madeavailable if we are to stem the tide of children going into foster care and its associatedcompounding problems for the childs future mental and physical health and overall wellbeing.

Feedback from the Houston Community Convening Breakout Sessions

What Services, regardless of source, do you see as critical to you or your community to support

families to prevent child abuse and neglect and to support permanency for children?

On Supportive services for children/families with parents who are taken into custody

Have funding follow the child and not the service provider Empowering youth and adults to make decisions for themselves with CPS support and

building capacity of system workers Lack of childcare, families leaving children to work with unlicensed/untrained providers Cultural competence in supporting families Reporting disproportionate services between public and private providers Services for extra-curricular activities Building up informal wrap-around services

Therapeutic services for families, change life experiences, change cycle for youth

On Substance Abuse

Service provision where clients exist How contracts are given Provide resources for prevention vs. intervention Local family based alcohol/drug treatment centers

On Training

House Bill #492 [establishes new initiatives to strengthen the capacity of faith andcommunity-based organizations to serve their communities]What types of training are being given for faith based and communities (around safety

issues, for example abuse and neglect)On Information and Data

Data base driven responses Step by step guidelines for information processes Information regarding barriers and options relating to those barriers Kinship navigator (National Stats) Collect different data; understanding what keeps families out of system, what services

they can access, need use and want


17/46

17

How do we want to get information website with updated information Inform legislators of current issues in licensing foster homes

On Prevention, Awareness and Education

Services for mental health, drug abuse and family violence Prevention and early intervention beforeentering/re-entering care Service providers located in the community (where families are located/region) Mentors for youth and adults Successful/sustainable housing options for aging out youth and families

i.e., YWCA programs model Federally funded programs for all families; focus on prevention

i.e., healthy families concept/home visiting/early parenting, nurse practitioner, etc. forfamily support (emphasis on pre-CPS intervention)

Early ID of relatives churches, and schools- Develop collaboration between churches and schools- Greater collaboration between mandatory reporters supported by training,

development; updates on resources regarding CPS, etc. Faith-based challenge to support families through prevention services Finding ways to communicate costs of eliminating/cutting prevention services Cutting CPS caseloads, returning to true family preservation model = better outcomes

1. Look 1st at primary prevention2. How to keep kids with families once come to attention of CPS?3. How to help with transition?

Reaching out into the philanthropic community Helping connect organization already working with and in the community Regionalize prevention procurement having communities come together to create

proposals Community board to determine priorities and direction of dollars More community self-determination

Communities to decide after being educated Reach out/leverage private dollars especially corporate and business Creating relationships Community coalitions can lead to more coordinated service approaches One Stop family support center model Information sharing between agencies Help eliminate duplication of services, of assessments and of bureaucracy Understanding how and why families are currently using existing services Collecting a different kind of data what would keep families out? Once a child is in the

system, how to keep kids with families? Availability of services at times when families need them Bring services closer to families Flexible funding formula Small cash assistance to prevent system entry Working with companies to use credit or forgiveness programs ( electric, cable, gas) Families educated about family planning Different expectations of families Poverty can be changed, giving people opportunity to meet their potential Incentive for families stability and progress When families start doing well, find ways to reward


18/46

18

Create urgency for families to make change Create family/parent coaching models need personal support Incentivizing families to make progress and increase urgency to do better Change the perception of CPS

On Components of Primary Prevention Outreach Centers

Family Case Manager plus Volunteers Targeting at risk families before CPS attention; in-home services

Critical Support Services

After school programs Teach parents how to be adults Parenting education Mentoring services What is are a real father/mothers responsibilities Healthy relationship training Reengage disenfranchised parents, e.g. youth who had child who received felony and is

unable to participate in school-based activities Financially stable households, career development, and jobs Case management services at schools More social programs in school, e.g. kids with parents who have mental health problems

and are acting out Evidence based programs, healthy families and nurse family partnerships in community New information so much to digest, how to assimilate to people who need it Underutilization of existing programs How to market our services for reframing CPS Build program from inside out, involve user at inception Develop sustainable relationships that will take you where you need to be Action oriented activities Foster dialogue Parents on quality improvement group used to deliver survey (parents gained

appreciation of caseworkers) Agency policies are they relevant today Flexibility of services provided to families; time of day. Days of the week, location, and

eliminate cookie cutter procedures

How Dollars Should be Spent

On prevention Programs K.I.P/PCA Congressional Education home studies Transitional living service changes in the standards for foster and KIP homes to make

them more home oriented and less institutionalized Substance abuse funding for parents (specifically more contract dollars for parenting,

substance abuse treatment, and mental health service Parent advocate ( assigned to work with parent to help them move through services) More transitional living homes More resource centers Better staff/training at RTCs Being able to work while in care Funding for driver license for youth in care


19/46

19

More satellite offices (CPS) within the communities Parenting education classes Transitional living facility Job training for youth Federal funding for kinship placements, change minimum standards (modify) Education

Evaluation forms were prepared by the Houston Area Urban League that surveyedattendees feedback on their conversations, materials distribution and suggestions. A total of 38evaluations were returned. Evaluation questions solicited responses on the quality and quantityof materials provided, allotted time for the conversation and whether some sessions deservedmore time that others, and the likes and dislikes about the conversation. A tally of the responseshave been compiled and included in Appendix I.

Closing and Follow Up

The Houston community convening came to a close on a positive note with thePresident of the Houston Area Urban League expressing his commitment to keep an ongoing

community dialogue among the stakeholders beyond this one event. The Houston Area UrbanLeague plans to serve as liaison between the agencies and community providers, linking themto the families and children in need of their services. Since the convening, the HAUL hasalready initiated a plan of action to achieve this goal through the use of community based videostreaming technology.


20/46

20

The San Diego (CA) Convening Hosted by the Urban League of San DiegoCounty

About the Urban League of San Diego County(ULSDC): The mission of the Urban League of San DiegoCounty is to assist African Americans and other underserved people in San Diego County to achievesocial and economic equality through advocacy, bridge building, program services and research.

Founded in 1953, the Urban League provides direct services countywide to more than 7,000 peopleannually. Through a relationshipwith Casey Family Programs San Diego Field Office that began in 2009,the ULSDC was introduced to their local child welfare agency and has since developed a capacity toserve youth in foster care. The ULSDC now hosts a child welfare service provider in their offices in orderto provide a continuation of services to youth in care in San Diego County.

Creating A Space For Community DialogueA Child Welfare Convening

The second community convening on child welfare finance reform took place at the Joeand Vi Jacobs Center on October 18, 2011, under the leadership of Ray King, President/CEO,Urban League of San Diego County, and coordinated by Tiffany Harrison, ManagementAssistant. The gathering was purposefully held during the early evening hours from 5:15pm to8:30pm with a full dinner provided to accommodate parents, children and other familymembers. The convening brought together a very diverse audience of sixty-two (62) participantsthat included community residents and a representation of various local agencies, organizationsand civil rights. A well-represented contingent of grandparent caregivers, organized under thegrassroots volunteer- based organization known as The Grandparents Connection alsoattended. As in Houston, the entire evenings discussion was videotaped and a packet ofinformational materials was provided to each attendee. Community representation included:

San Ysidro Health CenterCWS Manager, HHSA Central RegionVolunteerLaw student, Thomas Jefferson School of Law

Public Conversation WestSan Diego United Parents for EducationNCNWPazzaz Inc.Harmonious SolutionsUP for EdHarmonium Inc.Former Foster ParentCounty of San DiegoCounty of San Diego Child Welfare Services


21/46

21

Licensed Clinical Health PsychologistEsteem Performance AssociatesMt Erie Baptist ChurchNabvets, Inc. (National Association of Black Veterans)Marriage and Family TherapistCalifornia Foundation FundNAACPPastors on PointSan Diego State University, Department of Afrikana Studies

During the planning for this community convening, ULSDC President King establishedfour clear objectives for convening the San Diego County community in a collaborative effort toaddress the needs of youth and families involved, or at-risk of being involved, with the childwelfare system. His goal is to position the Urban League community as partners to proactivelyleverage current and future policy opportunities on behalf of youth and families. The four keyobjectives are:

1. Informing and energizing the community, community based organizations, faith-based,government, foundations and other opinion setters around the size and impact of at risk

children generally, and specifically children in the child welfare system in San Diego.

2. Developing a framework for a collaborative and integrative effort by community basedorganizations serving at risk youth to impact the policies that impact their lives andimprove outcomes.

3. Bringing responsible systemic policy reform to support at risk children and to promotestable healthy families.

4. Documenting community participation and establishing a social media presence tosupport and continue the process to achieve reform and define an ongoing role for theSan Diego Urban League as convener and facilitator of work efforts moving forward.

ULSDC President King opened the discussion by welcoming the participants to thecommunity convening and immediately expressed his commitment to the goals of this initiative.Mr. Cecil Steppe, another well-respected San Diego community leader and former President ofthe Urban League of San Diego County, was invited to serve as Master of Ceremonies. Mr.Steppe opened the conversation by stating that were about to start a venture thats just thebeginning and challenged the participants to become involved in this work for the long term.As with the Houston community convening, Suzanne Bergeron, Senior Legislative Director,Workforce, Civil Rights and Social Services at the National Urban League Policy Institute,brought greetings from the National Urban League and discussed NULs partnership with CaseyFamily Programs. Jorge Cabrera, Senior Director, Casey Family Programs San Diego FieldOffice, provided a brief overview of Casey Family Programs involvement as well as the evenings

agenda. Three panels then followed that included the following topics and speakers:

San Diego Scope of Child Welfare System: Debra Zanders-Willis, Director of ChildWelfare Services, County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency, provided asummary of the major policy and practice changes in San Diego County from pre-2005through to 2010. She informed that, over the last 10 years, they have reduced the number ofchildren in care by about 40 percent; have instituted a pilot cultural broker program toaddress the disproportionate representation of minority children in care; and have changedtheir strategy from the old authoritarian/policing of families to one of family engagement and


22/46

22

problem solving. Ms. Zanders-Willis stated that, going forward, they can do better byengaging in a community dialogue and engagement such as this convening.

Child Welfare Finance Reform: Christine Calpin, Managing Director, Public Policy,Casey Family Programs, provided a comprehensive overview of child welfare financereform and how it relates to preventive services. She provided an overview of how child

welfare services are currently funded, and how reform can contribute to better outcomes forchildren, families and the community, through expansion of front-end services, post-permanency supports, and supports for kinship care. She also provided information on theimpact of reform on Medicaid, health care and other federal funding sources.

A Community Voices Panel: included presentations from the following speakers on theirrespective community initiatives:

Rajah Gainey (spent 12 years in foster care)Walden Family Services, a private,non-profit California corporation, was founded in 1976 to provide quality care for abusedand neglected children in residential group homes. In 1983, it transitioned into fostercare and pioneered one of Californias first Treatment Foster Care programs to offerchildren and teenagers an alternative to group home placements, and expanded itsfoster care program in 1994 to include services for children with disabilities. Since then ithas further expanded its services to address adoption, foster care for pregnant andparenting teens, mental health, independent living after care, LGBTQ foster care, amongother services.

Patricia Bevelyn(Worked for many years in San Diego County Child Welfare)Iswith Project Save Our Children, which is a community based non-profit organizationout of San Diego. Concerned community residents, organizations, and representativesfrom the County of San Diego Health and Human Services agency convene once amonth at New Creations church in San Diego to discuss, plan, and implement ways inwhich the community can address disproportionality in San Diego. Community forummeetings are held quarterly as an informational and educational vehicle to call forchange. Community forum meetings started in July of 2009 and bring together keyplayers from prominent human service agencies and organizations in Central San Diegoto participate in forum settings with concerned residents. Monthly meetings are held forplanning, organizing, identifying areas of need in the community, and to monitor theProjects Cultural Broker Program.

LeaJay Harper With The Center for Young Womens Development, which wasfounded in 1993 by a coalition of service providers working with young and adult womenin the juvenile and criminal justice systems. The guiding principle then and now is thatyoung women are the experts on issues impacting their lives and they should beinvolved in running and directing the programs that serve them. The Center takes aholistic approach, recognizing the multidimensional and nuanced needs of young women

in crisis, and simultaneously address the various issues that young women are facing inorder to maximize and sustain each young womans wellness and empowerment.

All three community perspectives made powerful arguments for the need to change thefinancing of child welfare services. Through their community based programmatic efforts, thepresenters provided direct evidence of the types of preventive and support services that canmake a difference in the life of a child who is the subject, or at risk of, childabuse and/or neglect,whether in foster care or out of the system. Given the national data cited at the beginning of this


23/46

23

report, and in California alone, it is abundantly clear that the state of our most vulnerablechildren is a state of crisis. An April 2011 article in California Foster Care Newsxxxviii citesdramatic new statistics about what happens to children who leave the foster care system, basedon a new report by the Childrens Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego. The articleopens with the shocking headline that Former foster children have overtaken war veterans asthe single largest population in Californias homeless shelters. According to the report cited in

the article, the average American parent spends $50,000 from the time a child turns 18 untilage 26, yet foster children, who leave Californias care at 18 receive a mere $500.xxxix

The presentation by Patricia Bevelyn with Project Save Our Children further documentedand dramatized the state of crisis of African American children with regards to child welfare. Herremarks also strongly confirmed the research that has been done on thedisproportionate representation of and treatment disparities impacting AfricanAmerican children and families involved in the child welfare system nationally asoutlined previously in this report. Ms. Bevelyns work helping to launch Project Save OurChildren began after her many years of work in the County of San Diegos child welfare systemwhere she became tired of seeing African American children coming into the system Ms.Bevelyn made the following strong arguments for addressing the issue of disproportionality and

why Project Save Our Children was created to address the issue of disproportionality as itpertains to African American children:

Given the same set of risk factors as other children, African American childrenare more likely to enter the child welfare system.

Witnessed 44 years of disproportionality In San Diego, while African American children comprise 4 percent of the

population, they continue to be between 20-25 percent of the children in fostercare

African American children who have experienced foster care feed the pipeline tothe prison system

While we have success stories, not all are success stories

Being sick and tired of being sick and tired, there is a need to do somethingdifferent, beginning with educating the community on the disproportionatenumber of African American children entering, staying, and leaving the fostercare system with all of its implications

Theres lots of money going into contracted providers but its not getting to ourcommunity

Social services has become a pharmaceutical approach to providing services Poverty, no jobs, is a big issue that feeds disproportionality Families want to do better What is the future of the African American child? Why arent we doing something

about their disproportionate representation in the child welfare system?

In her presentation on the great work being done with young women at the Center forYoung Womens Development, LeaJay Harpers data on the programs participants furtherdocuments the disproportionality issue and the need for preventive and support services where:

100% are extremely low income 96% are young women of color 87% have had an involvement with the juvenile justice, adult, or foster care

system 95% have experienced homelessness


24/46

24

83% have dropped out of school 43% are young mothers 38% identify as lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender, queer or questioning

Additional Highlights from the Community Voices Panel and Community Dialogue

The need for cultural competency throughout the child welfare system was dramatizedby Rajah Gainey who spent 12 years in foster care. Since he was taken out of hisAfrican American community when first taken into care, he had to deal with the issue ofreconnecting with his culture

Larger funded programs need to have community providers involved in the decisionmaking process; merge funds from these programs to address the issue of culturalcompetency

There is no funding for prevention services identified through hotline calls when thecallers needs dont warrant removal of a child but the family could benefit from servicesthat ultimately could the prevent a situation from escalating to removal

Home visiting, as part of health care, provides the opportunity for detecting andaddressing warning signs of children who could be at risk

Funding for mental health services needs to catch up with child welfare finance reform

As found with the Houston community convening on child welfare finance reform, theresponses from the breakout sessions were extremely valuable in gaining insights on whattypes of preventative and supportive services that could be financed through child welfarefinance reform.

Feedback from the San Diego Community Convening Breakout Sessions

What Services, regardless of source, do you see as critical to you or your community to supportfamilies to prevent child abuse and neglect and to support permanency for children?

On Education Culturally relevant tutoring for children and families Teen parents back to school meeting kids where they are

On Collaboration/Community Engagement

Need sense of community as opposed to not my problem With SDPD, churches How to pull different ways for groups to work with kids Differing ideas on community engagement how do we open the door, really, to the

community, families to access services; families need to be at the core of the solution Children want someone in their lives to be there for them this is not the welfare

system, so how do we gain the broader community to share the burden of addressingthis? House meetings people in our community weekly neighbor to neighbor Dialogue on what they want from their communities What does our community data really look like? We can be a barrier Provide more than what the system/government provides


25/46

25

On Location of Services Easily accessible physically (within hours of operation for transportation) Accounting for perceptions of availability How to make it safe How to make it socially accepted to reach out Be available to be reached out to

On Systems Issues Full collaboration of systems all working together social services, police, justice system Unification of services vs. silos No cohesion of wrap-around services to support families Address differences in language between systems and community Multiple doors to supports How to build trust so families can access How to build hope The system does not allow children to dream Children are not allowed to define their own goals

Look at what works and what doesnt work Hopelessness of children vs. policymakers Providers and policymakers who think they know everythinge.g., this family is not

worth saving attitude should ask the children We have data, but shouldnt drive our decisions Community networking programs Agencies that have money and they dont account fornot coming into the community

how do we hold agencies accountable? Better regulation of funds and community-based auditing Watchdog in the communities to watch funds and see how they are used Forgetting the main focus of the child overall asking whether the child was really

helped out with their barriers, instead of just talking and no action being done Maximize the funds you have Raise the bar on positive outcomes

On Various Preventive and Support Services

Employment helps people the most Skills training for jobs in the community so can access by transportation Self esteem Mental health Skills for youth to be successful Need to address pervasive domestic violence in families before it gets out of hand not

after

A real focus on health and well being, mental health, physical nutrition, a holisticapproach, working with the whole person Elevate childrens sense of who they are group activities where we reframe the way we

relate to each other; empowering them to make decisions to avoid walking around withlots of shame and guilt

The empowerment piece has been neglected with respect to the individual child Need to teach children that they can be leaders; teach them to be in charge of

themselves Kids just want to be loved


26/46

26

We tell children what they want as opposed to listening to them Children want to be part of a family teach parents how to parent better Government healthy marriage initiative Families want whats best for their kids The family has to be the center Teach families to look at issues not with shame, but with a more positive approach Listening to the child and then showing the child how their behavior impacts the family,

the community Real life, day-to-day necessities makes a difference Parenting classes Drug abuse treatment Affordable health care Information and education on services; families arent aware Cultural competency; advocate for the community Asking youth what they want and need Explore low cost cultural activities for families Nutrition

Affordable child care; pre-school Alcohol prevention programs as related to domestic violence Greater services for foster children Social skills services

On Service Needs of Grandparent Caretakers and Children in their Care

Gas cards and transportation assistance Mentor program to support the parents, grandparents, children role models An example of a successful, productive citizen Respite care Babysitters; paid day care Stress relief classes Continuing benefits from the children in CPS onto the grandparents that are picking up

the slack Church-based services; and exchange of resources Parenting classes Legal assistance Unity of community pulling together; connection Subsidized housing and transportation For The Grandparents Connection, need a donated van and gas for transportation

An evaluation of the community convening was completed through a Pre- and PostSurvey, where 38 individuals responded. Four evaluation questions assessed whether the

program raised awareness about child welfare, raised awareness of the issues related to childwelfare, fostered intellectual interests, and degree of satisfaction with the program. SeeAppendix II. The results of the survey yielded the following recommendations:

Always could learn more! Continue to educate families The timing was somewhat problematic. I loved the presentation would have liked

more time for conversation


27/46

27

Have a Saturday for the Convening; information not new, however, encouraging;regardless of no new information, this was still a great convening; I look forward to nextsteps; PS education of children remains a priority to children/families out of poverty; letsaddress this issue

Enjoyed discussion and community programs [panel], especially the third program great presentation

For true community dialogue, more time for breakout circles and less on panelpresentations

Next step should focus on solutions!


In his closing remarks, ULSDC President Ray King reiterated that the Urban League ofSan Diego County is completely committed to changing the outcomes for youth in ourcommunity with the assistance, feedback and engagement of the local community. Mr. Kingmade the poignant comment that, in San Diegowe have the unique potential to do somethingspecial because, although we are a large city we are small enough to actually keep track of thefamilies that are at risk in our community and to connect them with community resources

through their church, through their school, and through their social organizations. There is noreason why San Diego cannot demonstrate to the rest of this country and in this State, thecapability of normal, ordinary everyday citizensto make a difference. So, Im committing toyou that weve only just started and we intend to push this forward

To this end, under the leadership of its President, the Urban League of San DiegoCounty has since reached out to the participants of the November 10, 2011 communityconvening to assess the extent of their interest, and has initiated a small special committee toguide their ongoing effort. The committee, comprised of foster care providers, not-for-profitorganizations, among others, will convene quarterly to identify and focus on the intersectionbetween Urban League programs in education, housing, teen pregnancy and foster care.

In addition, Mr. King calls for further discussion by the African American community onthe need to tackle and correct the impact that disproportionality in the provision of publicservices across a wide spectrum (such as K-12 education, criminal justice, communityinvestment) and access to employment opportunities have on promoting poor outcomes forBlack families.


28/46

28

The Detroit (MI) Convening Hosted by the Urban League of Detroit& Southeastern Michigan

About the Urban League of Detroit & Southeastern Michigan: The Urban League of Detroit andSoutheastern Michigan assists African Americans and others to achieve economic empowerment, basichuman needs and civil rights. Since 1916, their programs and services have anticipated and responded

to the changing needs of the Metropolitan Detroit community. With more than 20 specialized programsand services, the ULDSEM nurtures, counsels, and empowers children, adults and seniors to live healthyand productive lives. The Urban League of Detroit & Southeastern Michigan has a profound impact onthe lives of minorities in the Detroit area by efficiently and effectively serving over 70,000 clientsannually. The ripple effect of its programs benefit far more people in the community than can be easilydocumented. The ULDSEM is a prominent leader in the community with a network that includesgovernment agencies, corporations, foundations and community members. They offer a promising visionof child welfare leadership and direction of child welfare practice and policy.

The Detroit Community ConveningWhats Happening With Michigans Children:

A Conversation About Comprehensive Child Welfare Reform

The third and final community convening on child welfare finance reform was held at theUniversity of Michigan Detroit Center on November 10, 2011, under the leadership of N.Charles Anderson, President/CEO, Urban League of Detroit and Southeastern Michigan(ULDSEM), and coordinated by Cassandra Nelson-Pruitt, Senior Director CommunityServices. The gathering was held from 12:00pm with lunch provided until 5:00pm. As withthe other two convenings, a packet of informational materials was provided to each attendee.The convening brought together thirty-four (34) community stakeholders from a range of stateand local agencies, Congress, and higher education, including:

Coalition on Temporary Shelter (COTS)Center for Urban Youth & Family DevelopmentA Place of Refuge Transitional HousingDHS/Child Family Services

Wayne State University School of Social WorkVoices for Michigans ChildrenCongressman Hansen Clarks officeDetroit Center for Family AdvocacyU.S. Census BureauDepartment of Human Services (DHS)DHS Child and Family ServicesState of MichiganState of Michigan DHS


29/46

29

Michigan Board of EducationDetroit Advocacy Center (DFA)Orchards Childrens Services

In planning for the community convening, ULDSEM President, N. Charles Andersonwanted to insure that there would be ample opportunity for a good open discussion on the

status of children in Michigan particularly in Wayne County. Of special concern to hiscommunity are the needs, especially in mental health, of teenagers who are aging out of thefoster care system. Through its seven Women, Infants and Children (WIC) clinics withlocations in Oak Park, Dearborn, and Detroit, the Urban League comes into contact with manychildren in relative care. Mr. Anderson also wanted to provide an opportunity to educate thecommunity on new issues developing in child welfare as well as the future of child welfarefinancing and the ways that the community can come together to shape the policy surroundingchild welfare finance reform.

The days agenda included panel presentations that aimed to cover these key issues, aswell as include the perspectives from constituents of the child welfare system in Michigan. Aswith the Houston community convening, Suzanne Bergeron, Senior Legislative Director,

Workforce, Civil Rights and Social Services at the National Urban League Policy Institute, brought greetings from the National Urban League and discussed NULs partnership with CaseyFamily Programs. Mr. Anderson served as the moderator for first panel on Child Welfare thatincluded the following topics and presenters:

Michigan Child Welfare System: Suzanne Stiles Burke, from the State of MichigansDepartment of Human Services, provided an overview of the states child welfaresystem, including some of the key provisions of the Modified Settlement Agreement andConsent Order in the class action lawsuit against the Governor and the MichiganDepartment of Human Services that include:

o A focus on improved practice that equates to improved outcomes of safety,

permanency and well-being for childreno The importance of documentation and data to drive practice and quality

improvemento Reduced caseload ratios that equate to improved engagement and outcomeso Reform priorities focused on: medical care (physical, mental & dental);

educational stability; improved efforts to support youth exiting the system;improved placement options and stability; family and youth engagement practiceand permanency outcomes; and quality assurance

o Among several actions and changes taken is the extension of foster care toage 21

Ms. Stiles Burke also raised the issue of the need to improve the mental health system,

given that children in care are receiving too many psychotropic drugs. She informed thatDHS is working with the states Department of Community Health in reviewing the drugsthat are being provided to children in care. [Note: Michigan was included among fivestates that were studied by the U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) concerningfoster children and psychotropic prescriptions.xl]

Existing Collaborations with Michigan Department of Human Services: Paul Buehler,Senior Director, Strategic Consulting, Casey Family Programs, discussed thevarious partnerships that Casey Family Programs has established nationally, and


30/46

30

outlined their Michigan partnerships with the Supreme Court Administrative Office, theDepartment of Human Services, and community partners. Among the partnerships is anotable pilot initiative to reduce the disproportionate minority contact with the childwelfare system. Mr. Buehler provided information about the pilot, known as the SaginawCounty Disproportionate Minority Contact Pilot:

o This initiative will develop a comprehensive strategy for implementing a data-driven approach to reducing disproportionality and disparity in Michigans childwelfare system (inclusive of abuse, neglect and delinquency cases) andmonitoring over time to ensure equity and fairness for all youth who come intocontact with the system.

o Lessons learned from this pilot will be documented and used to replicate theprocess in additional jurisdictions across Michigan with the purpose of taking theinitiative to scale in every county where a need is identified once the resourcesare secured.

A child welfare constituent panel, moderated by Cedric Davis, Child WelfarePartnerships, Casey Family Programs included immensely powerful perspectives on the

Michigan child welfare system from:

A Birth parent: Nancy Vivado, who told her compelling personal story of the tremendouschallenges she faced in reunifying with her five children after they were removed fromher by Child Protective Services, as well as the abuse that some of her children weresubjected to while in foster care. Ms. Vivado reported that it took a community effort, agood caseworker and foster mother to finally assist her in getting her children returnedhome to her. Ms. Vivado is now working with The Detroit Center for Family Advocacy,an innovative, multidisciplinary approach to empower parents and extended familymembers to care for their own children, to divert children from public foster care andhasten the exit of others. Ms. Vivado stated that key preventive services which couldhave been provided to prevent her from losing her 5 children and the trauma they

suffered while in foster care would have been: 1) emotional support; 2) a clearunderstanding of child protective services; and 3) parent to parent connections.

A kinship provider: Jennifer Smith, a devoted mentor who is working intensely with fouryouths who are aging out of foster care, made a passionate appeal to the community toget involved as little or as much as possible with youth in foster care, especiallythose who are aging out of the system. Ms. Smith describes herself as the mentor fromhell, as a way of expressing her devotion and commitment to the lives of these youth.She provided a strong indictment of what is happening to so many at risk andfoster care youth when she stated, Our kids are dying from the sense ofhopelessnesswe are losing our young people every single daywe need tobreak the rules She also stressed the need for more grassroots programs and

assisting youth in entering postsecondary education.

A foster care alumni: Amanda Shelton, whose tragic experiences in the foster caresystem starkly exemplified why there is such an urgent call to turn the child welfaresystem on its head and reform its financing structure so that the financial incentives aredriven towards prevention/support services and away from foster care. Amandatragically entered foster care at age 7 because of an eviction due to her mothers drugaddiction. She was separated from her siblings and began her journey through a saga of13 years of constant change in multiple and abusive homes that ultimately caused her to


31/46

31

shut down. She stated that other children in school would tell her that, you are alwayssad. Amanda just recently transitioned out of kinship care.

Amanda raised key issues and identified key preventive services that could havechanged the course of her life to a more positive one had: 1) her mother received longterm drug abuse treatment and support services; 2) had she received personal visits

from caseworkers (she received none) who could have learned about the abuse she wasreceiving in foster care; and 3) received an earlier placement with a kinship caregiverand termination of her mothers parental rights. Amanda summed it all up when shestated that, foster care should be a last option!

Another foster care alumni: Marcus Batson, entered foster care at birth andexperienced several different home placements. Although he stated that he wasfortunate not to have any foster care horror stories, he provided strong testimony to theneed for children to be fully included and informed about the decisions being made ontheir behalf information that would minimize the trauma of separations and movementsfrom home to home. Marcus stated that he never received any preventative or post-careservices and that nobody wants to take teens [that] foster homes shouldnt be less

safe than the home removed from. Marcus just received his BA in Social Work and isworking with youth who have shared his experiences.

Marcus had very specific recommendations for child welfare finance reform: 1) the needfor cultural sensitivity training so that the child welfare decision makers know thedifference between neglect and poverty; 2) clear and accurate information to the birthparents about what is happening to them and their children; 3) consistency ofinformation; 4) work with universities to obtain scholarships for foster youth transitioningout of care; and 5) more time for caseworkers to spend with the families they areserving.

A third panel consisted of experts who provided information on child welfare finance

reform from a national policy and Michigan perspective, as well as from a community basedservice provider:

Child welfare finance reform: Christine Calpin, Managing Director Public Policy, CaseyFamily Programs, provided a comprehensive overview of child welfare finance reform andhow it relates to preventive services. She provided an overview of how child welfare servicesare currently funded, and how reform can contribute to better outcomes for children, familiesand the community, through expansion of front-end services, post-permanency supports,and supports for kinship care. She also provided information on the impact of reform onMedicaid, health care and other federal funding sources.

Michigan Department of Human Services Programs: Mary Mehren, Director, Michigan

Department of Human Services, provided several examples of the programs that aremeeting the needs of youth and families such as the Families First program that focuses onprevention services. She unfortunately pointed out that the program is being cut back due tobudget cuts. Ms. Mehren also informed the community about practice models such astrauma informed practice; peer recovery; family search and engagement. She cited the lackof sufficient funding for orthodontics, the need for early mental health care, substance abuseprevention, and the development from the Modified Settlement Agreement that extendedfoster care to age 21.


32/46

32

Black Family Development Program: Jane Fernanders, Chief Financial Officer forBlack Family Development, Inc. (BFDI) provided information on BFDIs communitybased program that provides a continuum of services as well as cultural information,stating that they dont believe in throwaway children. Their mission includes: 1)improving the well-being of children; 2) improving academic results; 3) expandingpositive youth development; 4) improving support to families; 5) building community

capacity; and 6) Achieving Promise Neighborhood results. Their program provides fostercare services, home visits with a focus on speaking with the children, and supervisedindependent living services.

Note: Because of the intimate group setting, no breakout sessions were needed as feedback tothe question, What Services, regardless of source, do you see as critical to you or yourcommunity to support families to prevent child abuse and neglect and to support permanencyfor children?was provided throughout the afternoons discussions and audience participation.No formal written evaluation was conducted at this community convening.


Urban League of Detroit & Southeastern Michigan President N. Charles Andersonclosed the community convening with a commitment to carry out the important work ofpreventing children from entering the foster care system and their development. As a follow upto the convening, the Urban League is working on identifying ways to continue to engage thestakeholders who attended on November 10, 2011. A focus is being placed on: reaching out tothe local colleges and universities and offer continuing education in the child welfare field;bringing in the child welfare agencies and addressing the issue of cultural competence and whatcriteria is used by the Department of Human Services to hire staff.


33/46

33

CONCLUSION

As stated at the outset of this report, the purpose of these three convenings was toshare information, educate the community on child welfare finance reform, and obtain firsthand

the valuable perspectives and recommendations of local community based organizations, localofficials, and especially from individuals who came into contact with their local child welfaresystem such as parents, foster car

Documents

Final Report on Community Convenings 12 9 11