U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

Administration on Children, Youth and Families

Children's Bureau

**FINAL REPORT**

**September 2002**

**Alaska Child and Family Services Review**

> **U.S. Department of Health and Human Services**
>
> **Administration for Children and Families**
>
> **Administration on Children, Youth and Families**

##### Children's Bureau

**DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES**

**Administration for Children and Families**

Region X

2201 6th Ave., Ste 600

Seattle, WA 98121-1827

September 18, 2002

Jay Livey

Commissioner

Department of Health and Social Services

PO Box 110631

Juneau, AK 99811-0630

Dear Commissioner Livey:

The Administration for Children and Families in collaboration with the
Alaska Division of Family and Youth Services recently completed a review
of the Alaska Child and Family Services (CFS) program to determine
substantial conformity with the State plan requirements found in titles
IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. This review was initiated in
December, 2001 with an analysis of data related to the safety,
permanency, and well-being of children involved with the Division of
Family and Youth Services and a statewide assessment of areas seen as
critical to the effective functioning of the State\'s child welfare
system. During the week of June 24 to 28, 2002 an on-site review of 50
cases and interviews with a wide range of key stakeholders in your child
welfare system was completed. The final report on this CFS Review is
enclosed.

We appreciate the amount of time and effort that you and your staff
committed to the planning and implementation of the CFS Review. While
this was a joint federal/state team effort, we would especially like to
thank Theresa Tanoury for her oversight and guidance, and we extend our
appreciation as well to Tim Fox for taking primary responsibility for
organizing this review.

The State can take pride in those areas found to be strengths in its
child welfare system. We have determined that the Division of Family and
Youth Services is operating in substantial conformity in three of the
systemic factors that comprise the child and family services reviews.

Also, as indicated in the report, we have determined that the Division
of Family and Youth Services is not operating in substantial conformity
in the seven outcome areas and four of the seven systemic factors. A
Program Improvement Plan (PIP) is required to address each outcome

Page 2 - Jay Livey

and/or systemic factor determined not to be in substantial conformity.
The PIP must be submitted to my office for approval within 90 calendar
days from the receipt of this letter. An estimated penalty of \$189, 618
is applicable to this level of non-conformity. However, we are
suspending the withholding of funds associated with this penalty during
the period of the approved PIP. If we determine that the State is
successful in rectifying any of the areas that are in non-conformity,
either through successful completion of the PIP or through a subsequent
review, we will rescind the withholding of Federal funds associated with
those areas at that time.

My staff will assist you in developing the PIP to ensure that the
Division of Family and Youth Services establishes an action strategy for
bringing each of the identified areas up to a level of substantial
conformity as specified in 45 CFR 1355.35. To the extent possible, those
involved in the CFS Planning process and members of the review team,
including those who are not employees of the Division of Family and
Youth Services, should be actively involved in developing the PIP.

The major elements required in the PIP include the priority assigned to
the State's work on each area of non-conformity, the necessary action
steps associated with improving each area of non-conformity,
identification of the individuals responsible for carrying out the
various steps, identification of the geographical areas of the state
involved, and establishment of time frames for carrying-out the required
improvements. We will work with your designated staff to determine
jointly the time frames, the specific content, and the process for
evaluating the State's progress and achievements with respect to the
PIP.

We wish to remind you that Federal regulations, at 45 CFR 1355.37,
require that the State make available for public review and inspection
all statewide assessments, reports of findings, and PIPs developed as a
result of a CFS review. Therefore, we urge you to consider how you will
respond to inquiries concerning these documents and prepare to make the
information available as required in regulation. Since the information
is available to the public, the Administration for Children and Families
is obliged to respond to inquiries regarding such information as well.

We also wish to note that the State may enter into a voluntary PIP to
strengthen any areas that have been determined to be in substantial
conformity as noted in the attached report. We will be happy to discuss
the provisions for developing a voluntary PIP at your request.

In accordance with Federal regulations, at 45 CFR 1355.32 (b) (2), we
will conduct the next full CFS review of the Alaska Division of Family
and Youth Services 2 years from approval of PIP.

Page 3 - Jay Livey

John Henderson and Lois Ward, of my staff, will continue to work in the
development of your PIP and to assist in identifying federal and other
resources to best address your technical assistance needs. Please be
assured that we look forward to working collaboratively with you to
assist you in your efforts to ensure the safety, permanency and
well-being of children and families in Alaska.

Sincerely,

*/s/*

Stephen Henigson

Regional Administrator

CC: Director, Office of Regional Operations,

Commissioner, Administration on Children Youth and Families

Children's Bureau Associate Commissioner

Director, Office of Public Affairs

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and External Affairs

Enclosure

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

**Child and Family Services Review**

**ALASKA**

The Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) assesses State performance
during a specified time period with respect to seven child welfare
outcomes in the areas of safety, permanency, and well-being and with
respect to seven systemic factors. The assessment is based on
information from the following sources:

-   The Statewide Assessment prepared by the State child welfare agency
    -- the Alaska Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS);

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The State Data Profile prepared by the Children's Bureau of the U.S.
    Department of Health and Human Services;

-   Reviews of 50 cases from three areas of the State; and

-   Interviews or focus groups (conducted at all three counties and the
    State capital) with a wide range of stakeholders including children,
    parents, foster parents, various levels of State and local DFYS
    personnel, collaborating agency personnel, school personnel, service
    providers, court personnel, legislators, and attorneys.

The on site review in Alaska occurred during the week of June 24, 2002.

With regard to the assessment of outcomes, a key finding of the review
of Alaska's child welfare programs is that the State is effective in
preventing children's re-entry into foster care. The case review process
found only one case in which a child re-entered foster care within 12
months of discharge from a prior episode, and the State Data Profile
indicates that the State's rate of foster care re-entry for fiscal year
(FY) 2000 (4.6 percent) meets the national standard for foster care
re-entry (8.6 percent). In addition, the State was found to be effective
in placing children in foster care in close proximity to their
biological families and with siblings when possible and in the
children's best interest.

The CFSR also found, however, that Alaska did not achieve substantial
conformity with the seven safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes
under assessment. For example, the State data for FY 2000 indicated that
the State did not meet the national standards for repeat maltreatment,
maltreatment of children in foster care, length of time to achieve
reunification, length of time to achieve adoption, and stability of
foster care placement. In addition, case reviews and stakeholder
interviews revealed a lack of consistency on the part of DFYS with
regard to protecting children, promoting their permanency, and ensuring
their well-being.

A significant concern identified through the CFSR was the lack of
success in many cases with regard to achieving permanency for children
in foster care. For example, Permanency Outcome 1---Children have
permanency and stability in their living situations---was found to be
not achieved in 78.3 percent of the foster care cases reviewed and
efforts to achieve finalized adoption in a timely manner were a matter
of concern in 70 percent of applicable cases. In a substantial
percentage of cases, the review determined that DFYS was not effective
in ensuring stability for children in their foster care placements (item
6), in establishing appropriate

permanency goals in a timely manner (item 7), or in achieving permanency
goals in a timely manner (items 8, 9, and 10.)

Another area of concern related to Child and Family Well-Being Outcome
1---Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children's
needs. Case reviewers determined that this outcome was substantially
achieved in 28 percent of the cases. In a large number of cases,
reviewers found that children and families were not receiving needed
services (item 17) and were not being involved in the case planning
process (item 18). In addition, in many cases, the frequency of DFYS
caseworkers' face-to-face contact with children (item 19) and parents
(item 20) was determined to be insufficient to monitor children's safety
or to promote attainment of case goals, including permanency goals.

Safety issues also were found to be a concern for the State.
Maltreatment was found to recur within a 6-month period in 26 of the 50
cases reviewed. In addition, the CFSR revealed that DFYS is not
consistently responding to maltreatment reports in a timely manner (item
1), and is not consistently effective in maintaining children safely in
their own homes (item 3) or in managing the risk of harm to children
(item 4).

With regard to the systemic factors assessed, the CFSR determined that
the State is in substantial conformity with the factors related to
training for child welfare staff and child caregivers, the Information
System and to the agency's responsiveness to the community. However, the
CFSR found that the State did not have a case review system or quality
assurance system that were sufficient to support the attainment of
positive outcomes for children and families. In addition, the CFSR found
that the State was not in substantial conformity with the factors of
service array and foster and adoptive parent licensing, recruitment, and
retention.

The following is a summary of the CFSR findings regarding specific
outcomes and systemic factors.

# KEY FINDINGS RELATED TO OUTCOMES

######### SAFETY

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

**[Status of Safety Outcome S1 -- Not in Substantial
Conformity]{.underline}**

Alaska did not achieve substantial conformity for Safety Outcome 1. This
determination was based on the finding that the outcome was
substantially achieved in 62 percent of the cases reviewed, which is
less than the 90 percent required for a rating of substantial
conformity.

The CFSR revealed that DFYS is not consistent in its efforts to ensure
children\'s protection from abuse and neglect. With regard to timeliness
of investigations, the case reviews found that in instances involving
imminent risk reports (reports deemed priority 1), the agency responded
within established timeframes. However, investigations of maltreatment
reports not involving imminent risk (i.e., reports assigned a priority 2
or 3 level) were not always initiated within the timeframes required by
State policy, and face-to face contact was not consistently established
within timeframes that would ensure children's safety. Problems with
responding to reports in a timely manner were attributed to high
workloads (and the corresponding problem of high levels of staff
turnover). Concerns also were noted regarding the lack of policy
regarding timeframes for face-to-face contact with children who are the
subjects of maltreatment reports. Finally, CFSR findings indicate that
maltreatment recurrence is a significant challenge for DFYS. Information
from case reviews and stakeholder interviews suggest that the high
incidence of maltreatment recurrence may be due to the number of
maltreatment reports involving alcohol abuse and/or to a lack of
adequate services to ensure children\'s safety in their homes. A summary
of findings pertaining to the specific items assessed under Safety
Outcome 1 are presented and discussed below.

**Item 1. Timeliness of initiating investigations of reports of child
maltreatment**

Item 1 was rated an Area Needing Improvement. Reviewers determined that
DFYS responded to maltreatment reports in a timely manner in 70 percent
of the cases. However, in 30 percent of the cases, the agency did not
respond to maltreatment reports in a timely manner, particularly reports
assigned a priority 2 rating. Stakeholders and case reviewers expressed
concern about the absence of policy guidelines regarding face-to-face
contact.

# Item 2. Repeat maltreatment 

Item 2 was rated an Area Needing Improvement for the following reasons:

-   In 26 percent of the cases reviewed, there was a substantiated
    /indicated maltreatment report during the period under review that
    occurred within 6 months of another substantiated/indicated report.

-   The incidence of repeat maltreatment reported in the State Data
    Profile was 23.6 percent, which does not meet the national standard
    of 6.1 percent.

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

**[Status of Safety Outcome S2 -- Not in Substantial
Conformity]{.underline}**

Alaska did not achieve substantial conformity with Safety Outcome 2.
This determination was based on the finding that the outcome was
substantially achieved in 60 percent of the cases reviewed, which is
less than the 90 percent required for a rating of substantial
conformity.

A general CFSR finding was that the agency is effective in reducing risk
by removing children from their homes and providing services to
families. However, the agency is not as effective in maintaining
children safely in their own homes. The key concern identified by
reviewers was that the services offered to families did not address
underlying issues contributing to the maltreatment. Another concern
identified was that although services were offered to families, there
often was insufficient agency monitoring of services. A summary of the
findings for specific items assessed under this outcome is presented
below.

**Item 3. Services to family to protect child(ren) in home and prevent
removal**

Item 3 was rated an Area Needing Improvement. Reviewers determined that
DFYS made diligent efforts to provide services to ensure children's
safety while preventing their placement in foster care in 69 percent of
the applicable cases. However, in 31 percent of the applicable cases,
there were concerns relating to this item. The main concerns were (1)
that services were inadequate because they did not address key problems,
(2) that recommended services were not provided, and (3) that
post-reunification services were not provided in some cases.

**Item 4. Risk of harm to child**

Item 4 was rated an Area Needing Improvement. Reviewers determined that
the agency was effective in efforts to reduce risk of harm to children
in 68 percent of the applicable cases. However, in 32 percent of the
cases, DFYS was not effective in its efforts to reduce risk of harm to
children. The key concern identified was that DFYS was not consistent in
monitoring families to ensure that family members were participating in
services, that change was occurring as a result of service
participation, and that children continued to be safe. Stakeholders
expressed the opinion that this problem may be due in part to a lack of
clarity regarding the roles and responsibilities of the various agency
and non-agency workers involved with the family. Stakeholders also
suggest that the agency is most effective in managing risk when it
removes children from their homes, but less successful when the children
remain in their homes.

**II. PERMANENCY**

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

**[Status of Permanency Outcome 1 -- Not in Substantial
Conformity]{.underline}**

Alaska did not achieve substantial conformity with Permanency Outcome 1.
This determination was based on the following:

-   21.7 percent of the cases were rated as having substantially
    achieved Permanency Outcome 1, which is less than the 90 percent
    required for an overall rating of substantial conformity;

-   The State did not meet the national standard for the percentage of
    children reunified who were reunified within 12 months of placement
    into foster care;

-   The State did not meet the national standard for the percentage of
    children experiencing two or fewer placements during their first 12
    months in foster care; and

-   The State did not meet the national standard for the percentage of
    children adopted who experienced a finalized adoption within 24
    months of entering foster care.

Although Alaska meets the national standard for the incidence of
re-entries into foster care within 12 months of discharge from a prior
foster care episode, the CFSR revealed that achieving permanency and
stability for children in foster care continues to be a significant
challenge for the agency. Concerns were noted with regard to placement
stability, establishing appropriate permanency goals in a timely manner,
and achieving permanency goals in a timely manner. A summary of findings
for specific items assessed under this outcome is presented below.

# Item 5. Foster care re-entries

Item 5 was rated a Strength for the following reasons:

-   Reviewers noted that re-entry into foster care did not occur in 86
    percent of the applicable cases.

-   The State Data Profile indicates that the re-entry rate for Alaska
    is 4.6 percent, which meets the national standard of 8.6 percent.

**Item 6. Stability of foster care placement**

Item 6 was rated an Area Needing Improvement. In 61 percent of the
applicable cases, reviewers determined that children had placement
stability and/or that placement changes were in the child's best
interest. However, reviewers determined that in 39 percent of cases the
children had not experienced stability in their placement settings
during the period under review. In addition, the State Data Profile
indicates that of all children in foster care for 12 months or less,
70.6 percent experienced no more than 2 placement settings, which does
not meet the national standard of 86.2 percent.

Consistent with the case review findings and stakeholder comments, the
Statewide Assessment noted that placement instability may be attributed
to a lack of foster homes, which restricts the ability of workers to
match the needs of children to the skills and training of the foster
parents.

# Item 7. Permanency goal for child

Item 7 was rated an Area Needing Improvement. In 61 percent of foster
care cases, reviewers determined that DFYS had established appropriate
permanency goals for children in a timely manner. However, concerns were
identified regarding this issue in 39 percent of foster care cases. Key
concerns related to maintaining inappropriate or unrealistic goals for
long periods of time. Case reviewers and stakeholders noted that
although concurrent goals are being established for children,
caseworkers tend to see what happens with one goal before actively
working toward the other goal.

**Item 8. Reunification, Guardianship or Permanent Placement with
Relatives**

Item 8 was rated an Area Needing Improvement. Reviewers determined that
in 31 percent of applicable cases, DFYS had made, or was making,
diligent efforts to attain the goals of reunification or guardianship.
However, reviewers also determined that DFYS had not made diligent
efforts to achieve these goals in a timely manner in 69 percent of the
applicable cases. The primary concern identified was that DFYS was not
providing the parents with the services necessary to bring about the
changes required for reunification. Also, data from the State Data
Profile indicate that the percentage of reunifications occurring within
12 months of entry into foster care (58.3%) does not meet the national
standard of 76.2 percent.

# Item 9. Adoption

Item 9 was rated an Area Needing Improvement. In 70 percent of the
cases, reviewers determined that DFYS had not made diligent efforts to
achieve adoptions in a timely manner. A key concern was that the cause
of the delays could be attributed to case practice issues, including not
making decisions in a timely manner. In addition, according to the State
Data Profile, the percentage of finalized adoptions that occurred within
24 months of removal from home (21.8%) did not meet the national
standard (32%).

[]{.mark}

**Item 10. Permanency goal of other planned permanent living
arrangement**

Item 10 was rated an Area Needing Improvement because in one of the two
applicable cases, it was determined that the agency had not provided the
child with the services needed to support a successful transition from
foster care to independent living.

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

**[Status of Permanency Outcome 2 -- Not in Substantial
Conformity]{.underline}**

Alaska is not in substantial conformity with Permanency Outcome 2. This
determination was based on the finding that this outcome was
substantially achieved in 65.2 percent of the cases reviewed, which is
less than the 90 percent required for a rating of substantial
conformity. Although the State was not in substantial conformity for
this outcome, the CFSR revealed that DFYS is effective in placing
children in close proximity to their parents or close relatives and in
ensuring that siblings are placed together, whenever appropriate.
However, DFYS was found to be inconsistent with respect to facilitating
and supporting visits between children and their parents and siblings,
preserving children's connections, seeking relatives as potential
placement resources, and promoting or maintaining the parent-child bond.
A summary of findings for specific items assessed relevant to this
outcome is presented below.

# []{.mark}

# Item 11. Proximity of foster care placement

Item 11 was rated a Strength because in 100 percent of applicable cases,
children were placed in close proximity to parents or close relatives,
or placement in another community was justified based on the child's
needs.

**Item 12. Placement with siblings**

Item 12 was rated a Strength based on the finding that in 90 percent of
the cases, siblings were either placed together or the separation was
deemed necessary to meet the needs of one or more of the children.

# Item 13. Visiting with parents and siblings in foster care

Item 13 was rated an Area Needing Improvement. In 68 percent of the
applicable cases, reviewers determined that DFYS had made, or was
making, concerted efforts to facilitate visitation. However, reviewers
identified concerns with respect to this issue in 32 percent of the
cases. The key concern pertained to the significant lack of visitation
in some cases between children and their parents, particularly their
fathers. Some stakeholders suggested that infrequent visitation could be
attributed to high caseworker caseloads.

# 

# Item 14. Preserving connections

Item 14 was rated an Area Needing Improvement. In 74 percent of foster
care cases, reviewers determined that DFYS made diligent efforts to
preserve children's connections to family, community, heritage, faith,
and friends while the children are in foster care. However, in 26
percent of the cases, reviewers determined that DFYS did not make
concerted efforts to maintain children's connections with extended
family or, in the case of Native American children, with the traditions
and customs of their Tribes. As noted in the Statewide Assessment, this
issue is of critical importance because approximately 50 percent of the
children in care are Alaska Natives. (Of the cases reviewed,
approximately 70 percent were Alaska Native.)

####### Item 15. Relative placement

Item 15 was rated an Area Needing Improvement. Although reviewers
determined that the agency made diligent efforts to locate and assess
relatives as potential placement resources in 70 percent of foster care
cases, they also determined that in 30 percent of the cases, the agency
had not made such efforts. One primary problem identified was that
caseworkers were not fully exploring paternal relatives as placement
options.

**Item 16. Relationship of child in care with parents**

Item 16 was rated an Area Needing Improvement. In 81 percent of
applicable cases, reviewers determined that DFYS made diligent efforts
to support the parent-child relationship for children in foster care.
However, in 19 percent of applicable cases, reviewers identified
concerns regarding this issue, particularly with regard to the
inconsistency of agency efforts to locate absent fathers and to promote
the relationship between children and their fathers.

**III. WELL-BEING**

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

**[Status of Well-Being Outcome 1 -- Not in Substantial
Conformity]{.underline}**

Alaska did not achieve substantial conformity with Well-Being Outcome 1.
This determination was based on the finding that the outcome was rated
as substantially achieved for 28.0 percent of the cases reviewed, which
is less than the 90 percent required for a determination of substantial
conformity.

Although reviewers did identify a number of cases in which DFYS was
making concerted efforts to ensure that the families had enhanced
capacity to provide for their children's needs, there were a substantial
number of cases in which this was not the case. In these cases, the
service needs of children, parents, and foster parents were neither
assessed nor addressed. In addition, the agency did not consistently
involve parents and children in the case planning process. A serious
concern noted by reviewers and stakeholders pertained to the infrequent
visitation between caseworkers and the children and parents in their
caseloads. In more than 70 percent of the cases reviewed, reviewers
determined that the frequency and quality of visitation with both
children and parents was inadequate to ensure the child's safety or
well-being or to promote attainment of case goals. A summary of findings
for specific items assessed relevant to this outcome is presented below.

# 

# Item 17. Needs and services of child, parents, foster parents

Item 17 was rated an Area Needing Improvement. Reviewers determined that
DFYS was effective in assessing the needs and providing appropriate
services to children, parents, and/or foster parents in 52 percent of
the cases. However, in 48 percent of the cases, reviewers identified
concerns related to this issue. A key concern was that inadequate
assessments resulted in a failure to capture and address underlying
problems for both children and parents.

####### Item 18. Child and family involvement in case planning

Item 18 was rated an Area Needing Improvement. Reviewers determined that
DFYS appropriately involved parents and/or children in the case planning
process in 48 percent of the cases. However, in 52 percent of the cases,
reviewers noted that parents and children were not involved in case
planning. The Statewide Assessment acknowledged this problem and
attributed it to workload issues and difficulties engaging some parents.

[]{.mark}

**Item 19. Worker visits with child**

Item 19 was rated an Area Needing Improvement. In 72 percent of the
cases, reviewers determined that caseworker visits with children were
not of sufficient frequency. Stakeholders attributed problems to high
caseloads, worker turnover, weather, and transportation problems.

[]{.mark}

# Item 20. Worker visits with parents

Item 20 was rated an Area Needing Improvement. In 28 percent of the
cases reviewed, reviewers determined that visits with parents were
sufficiently frequent and of sufficient quality to promote the safety
and well-being of the child or enhance attainment of case goals.
However, in 72 percent of the cases, reviewers determined that
caseworker visits with parents were not of sufficiently frequency or
quality. In particular, reviewers determined that worker visits were not
sufficiently frequent in 23 of the 27 in-home services cases.

[]{.mark}

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

**[Status of Well-Being Outcome WB2 -- Not in Substantial
Conformity]{.underline}**

Alaska did not achieve substantial conformity with Well-Being Outcome 2
based on the finding that 79.5 percent of the cases reviewed were found
to have substantially achieved this outcome. This is less than the 90
percent required for substantial conformity. A summary of findings for
the specific item assessed for this outcome is presented below.

**Item 21. Educational needs of the child.**

Item 21 was rated an Area Needing Improvement. Reviewers determined that
DFYS was effective in meeting children's educational needs in 79 percent
of applicable cases. However, in 21 percent of the cases there were
concerns relating to this issue. The key concern identified pertained to
in-home services cases in which reviewers determined that DFYS was not
responding to children's education-related issues.

***Outcome WB3: Children receive adequate services to meet their
physical and mental health needs.***

**[Status Of Well-Being Outcome 3 - Not in Substantial
Conformity]{.underline}**

Alaska did not achieve substantial conformity with Well-Being Outcome 3.
This determination was based on the finding that the outcome was rated
as substantially achieved in 65.2 percent of the applicable cases, which
is less than the 90 percent required for a determination of substantial
conformity. Reviewers identified a number of problems with respect to
health services, including a lack of health screenings at entry into
foster care, lack of preventive health and dental care, and not
addressing medical needs. In addition, children's mental health needs
were not adequately addressed by DFYS. A summary of findings for the
specific items assessed for this outcome is presented below.

**Item 22. Physical health of the child**

Item 22 was rated an Area Needing Improvement. Reviewers determined that
DFYS was effective in addressing children's health needs in 77 percent
of the applicable cases. However, in 23 percent of the applicable cases,
reviewers determined that these needs were not adequately met. A key
concern was that health screenings were not consistently provided at
entry into foster care and preventive health and dental care was not
being provided on a routine basis.

# 

# Item 23. Mental health of the child

Item 23 was rated an Area Needing Improvement. Reviewers determined that
DFYS was effective in addressing children's mental health needs in 66
percent of the applicable cases. However, in 34 percent of the
applicable cases, reviewers determined that children\'s mental health
needs were not adequately met.

**KEY FINDINGS RELATING TO SYSTEMIC FACTORS**

**IV. STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM**

# [Status of Statewide Information System --Substantial Conformity]{.underline}

Alaska is in substantial conformity with the factor of Statewide
Information System.

**Item 24. The State is operating a Statewide information system that,
at a minimum, can readily identify the status, demographic
characteristics, location, and goals for the placement of every child
who is (or within the immediately preceding 12 months, has been) in
foster care.**

Item 24 was rated a Strength because information on the status,
demographic characteristics, location and goals for each child in foster
care is retrievable from the State\'s data system.

**V. CASE REVIEW SYSTEM**

**[Status of Case Review System -- Not in Substantial
Conformity]{.underline}**

Alaska is not in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Case
Review System.

**Item 25. Provides a process that ensures that each child has a written
case plan to be developed jointly with the child's parent(s) that
includes the required provisions.**

Item 25 was rated an Area Needing Improvement because of the lack of
clear goal-oriented case plans and the lack of a system to consistently
and actively involve parents and children in case planning.

**Item 26. Provides a process for the periodic review of the status of
each child, no less frequently than once every 6 months, either by a
court or by administrative review.**

Item 26 was rated a Strength because periodic reviews are held in a
timely manner and the quality of these reviews is reported to be
excellent. Stakeholders commented on the meaningfulness of these reviews
and noted that there is a good level of participation.

**Item 27. Provides a process that ensures that each child in foster
care under the supervision of the State has a permanency hearing in a
qualified court or administrative body no later than 12 months from the
date the child entered foster care and no less frequently than every 12
months thereafter.**

Item 27 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement because permanency
hearings are not consistently held in a timely manner.

**Item 28. Provides a process for termination of parental rights
proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Adoption and Safe
Families Act.**

Item 28 was rated a Strength because the State has implemented
procedures for filing for termination of parental rights and is
generally filing for TPR in a timely manner.

**Item 29. Provides a process for foster parents, pre-adoptive parents,
and relative caregivers of children in foster care to be notified of,
and have an opportunity to be heard in, any review or hearing held with
respect to the child.**

Item 29 was rated an Area Needing Improvement because foster parents do
not consistently receive notice of permanency hearings and are not
always afforded the opportunity to be heard in these hearings.

# 

# 

# VI. QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM

**[Status of Quality Assurance System- Not in Substantial
Conformity]{.underline}**

Alaska is not in substantial conformity with the factor of Quality
Assurance System.

**Item 30. The State has developed and implemented standards to ensure
that children in foster care are provided quality services that protect
the safety and health of the children.**

Item 30 was rated a Strength because the State has developed and
implemented the necessary standards to protect children in foster care.

**Item 31. The State is operating an identifiable quality assurance
system that is in place in the jurisdictions where the services included
in the CFSP are provided, evaluates the quality of services, identifies
strengths and needs of the service delivery system, provides relevant
reports, and evaluates program improvement measures implemented.**

Item 31 was rated an Area Needing Improvement because the State does not
have a statewide quality assurance process and has no formal process for
clients or stakeholders to evaluate agency performance.

**VII. TRAINING**

**[Status of Training- Substantial Conformity]{.underline}**

Alaska is in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of
Training.

**Item 32. The State is operating a staff development and training
program that supports the goals and objectives in the CFSP, addresses
services provided under titles IV-B and IV-E, and provides initial
training for all staff who deliver these services.**

Item 32 was rated a Strength because the agency has an initial training
program and workers complete training before being assigned a caseload.

**Item 33. The State provides for ongoing training for staff that
addresses the skills and knowledge base needed to carry out their duties
with regard to the services included in the CFSP.**

Item 33 was rated a Strength because ongoing training is required and
available.

**Item 34. The State provides training for current or prospective foster
parents, adoptive parents, and staff of State licensed or approved
facilities that care for children receiving foster care or adoption
assistance under Title IV-E that addresses the skills and knowledge base
needed to carry out their duties with regard to foster and adopted
children.**

Item 34 was rated an Area Needing Improvement because foster parents are
not consistently receiving initial core training and routinely provide
care for children prior to receiving training. In addition, foster
parents are not consistently completing ongoing training and DFYS does
not monitor whether training is being accessed.

**VIII. SERVICE ARRAY**

**[Status of Service Array-Not in Substantial Conformity]{.underline}**

Alaska is not in substantial conformity with the factor of service
array.

**Item 35. The State has in place an array of services that assess the
strengths and needs of children and families and determine other service
needs, address the needs of families in addition to individual children
in order to create a safe home environment, enable** **children to
remain safely with their parents when reasonable, and help children in
foster and adoptive placements achieve permanency**.

Item 35 was rated an Area Needing Improvement because services are not
available in sufficient quantity in either rural or urban communities.
Shortages of services have a negative impact on prevention and
reunification efforts, placement stability, and child well-being.
Stakeholders noted shortages in foster placements, substance abuse
services, mental health services, respite care, day care, culturally
appropriate services, and home-based services.

**Item 36. The services in item 35 are accessible to families and
children in all political jurisdictions covered in the State's CFSP.**

Item 36 was rated an Area Needing Improvement because Alaska has a
shortage of services in both rural and urban communities.

**Item 37. The services in item 35 can be individualized to meet the
unique needs of children and families served by the agency.**

Item 37 was rated an Area Needing Improvement because service provision
is influenced by availability rather than underlying needs of the
children and families.

**IX. AGENCY RESPONSIVENESS TO THE COMMUNITY**

**[Status of Agency Responsiveness To The Community- Substantial
Conformity]{.underline}**

Alaska is in substantial conformity with the factor of Agency
Responsiveness to the Community.

**Item 38. In implementing the provisions of the CFSP, the State engages
in ongoing consultation with Tribal representatives, consumers, service
providers, foster care providers, the juvenile court, and other public
and private child- and family-serving agencies and includes the major
concerns of these representatives in the goals and objectives of the
CFSP.**

Item 38 was rated a Strength because the State has an active
Tribal-State collaboration group, some positive local collaboration
efforts, and leadership that is accessible at all levels of the agency
when questions or issues arise.

**Item 39. The agency develops, in consultation with these
representatives, annual reports of progress and services delivered.**

Item 39 was rated an Area Needing Improvement because involvement in the
Child and Family Services Planning Process is limited to review and
comment by key stakeholders instead of active involvement in setting
goals and priorities.

**Item 40. The State's services under the CFSP are coordinated with
services or benefits of other Federal or federally assisted programs
serving the same population.**

Item 40 was rated a Strength because the State has collaborative efforts
to coordinate services among Federal and federally assisted programs.

**X.** **FOSTER AND ADOPTIVE PARENT LICENSING, RECRUITMENT, AND
RETENTION**

**[Status of Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and
Retention-Not in Substantial Conformity]{.underline}**

Alaska is not in substantial conformity with the factor of Foster and
Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment and Retention.

**Item 41. The State has implemented standards for foster family homes
and childcare institutions, which are reasonably in accord with
recommended national standards.**

Item 41 was rated a Strength because the State has issued and
implemented comprehensive new licensing standards issued December of
2001.

# 

# Item 42. The standards are applied to all licensed or approved foster family homes or child care institutions receiving title 

**IV-E or IV-B funds.**

Item 42 was rated an Area Needing Improvement because application of
variances results in full licensing standards not being applied to all
foster homes.

**Item 43. The State complies with Federal requirements for criminal
background clearances as related to licensing or approving foster care
and adoptive placements and has in place a case planning process that
includes provisions for addressing the safety of foster care and
adoptive placements for children.**

Item 43 was rated a Strength because criminal records checks are
completed on all homes.

**Item 44. The State has in place a process for ensuring the diligent
recruitment of potential foster and adoptive families that reflect the
ethnic and racial diversity of children in the State for whom foster and
adoptive homes are needed.**

Item 44 was rated an Area Needing Improvement because the State does not
have an effective recruitment plan and needs more recruitment
strategies. Stakeholders identified several barriers to recruiting and
maintaining foster homes, such as lack of day care and inadequate
reimbursement.

**Item 45. The State has in place a process for the effective use of
cross-jurisdictional resources to facilitate timely adoptive or
permanent placements for waiting children.**

Item 45 was rated a Strength because the State utilizes the Alaska
Exchange and the Northwest Adoption Exchange to seek placements for
children.

**INTRODUCTION\
**

This document presents the findings of the Child and Family Services
Review (CFSR) for the State of Alaska. The findings were derived from
the following documents and data collection procedures:

-   The Statewide Assessment prepared by the State child welfare agency
    -- the Alaska Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS);

-   The State Data Profile prepared by the Children's Bureau of the U.S.
    Department of Health and Human Services;

-   Reviews of 50 cases at three sites throughout the State; and

-   Interviews or focus groups (conducted at all three sites) with local
    and State-level stakeholders including children, parents, foster
    parents, all levels of child welfare agency personnel, collaborating
    agency personnel, school personnel, service providers, court
    personnel, legislators, and attorneys.

The key characteristics of the 50 cases reviewed are the following:

-   26 cases were reviewed in Anchorage, 12 in Mat-Su Borough, and 12 in
    Nome.

-   All 50 cases had been open cases at some time during the period
    under review.

-   23 of the cases were "foster care cases" (cases in which children
    were in the care and custody of the State child welfare agency and
    in an out-of-home placement at some time during the period under
    review), and 27 were "in-home services cases" (cases in which
    families received services from the child welfare agency while
    children remained in their homes).

-   In 25 of the cases, all children in the family were Alaska
    Native/American Indian; in 12 cases, all children in the family were
    Caucasian; in 3 cases, all children in the family were African
    American; in 3 cases, all children in the family were Hispanic; and
    in 6 cases, the children in the family were two or more races. In
    one case, reviewers did not identify the race/ethnicity of the
    children.

-   Of the 50 cases reviewed, the primary reason for the opening of a
    child welfare agency case was the following:

> \- Neglect (not including medical neglect) -- 24 cases (48%)
>
> \- Physical abuse -- 11 cases (22%)
>
> \- Substance abuse by parent -- 4 cases (8%)
>
> \- Mental/physical health of parent -- 4 cases (8%)
>
> \- Child's behavior -- 2 cases (4%)
>
> \- Sexual abuse -- 2 cases (4%)
>
> \- Domestic violence in child's home -- 1 case (2%)
>
> \- Other -- 2 cases (4%)

-   Among all reasons identified for children coming to the attention of
    the child welfare agency, neglect (not including medical neglect)
    was cited in 40 cases (80%), physical abuse was cited in 25 cases
    (50%), substance abuse by parent was cited in 21 cases (42%), and
    domestic violence in the child's home was cited in 10 cases (20%).

-   For 11 (48%) of the 23 foster care cases, the children entered
    foster care prior to the period under review and remained in foster
    care during the entire period under review.

The first section of the report presents the CFSR findings relevant to
the State's performance in achieving specific outcomes for children in
the areas of safety, permanency, and well-being. For each outcome, there
is a table providing the degree of outcome achievement by site, a
presentation of the State's status with regard to substantial conformity
with the outcome, and a discussion of each item examined as part of the
overall outcome assessment. The second section of the report provides an
assessment and discussion of the systemic factors relevant to the child
welfare agency's ability to achieve positive outcomes for children.

**\
I. SAFETY**

######## Safety Outcome 1

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

  **Number of cases                                                                                                  
  reviewed by the team                                                                                               
  according to degree of                                                                                             
  outcome achievement:**                                                                                             

                         **Anchorage**   **Mat-Su**                  **Nome**                **Total                 **Total
                                                                                             Number**                Percentage**

  Substantially          18              6                           7                       31                      62.0
  Achieved:                                                                                                          

  Partially Achieved:    7               4                           3                       14                      28.0

  Not Achieved or        1               2                           2                       5                       10.0
  Addressed:                                                                                                         

  Not Applicable:        0               0                           0                       0                       

  **Conformity of                                                                                                    
  Statewide data                                                                                                     
  indicators with                                                                                                    
  national standards:**                                                                                              

                         **National                   **State's                 **Meets                 **Does Not   
                         Standard**                   Percentage**              Standard**              Meet         
                                                                                                        Standard**   

  Repeat maltreatment    6.1%                         23.6%                                             X            

  Maltreatment of        .57%                         1.91%                                             X            
  children in foster                                                                                                 
  care                                                                                                               
  ---------------------- --------------- ------------ -------------- ---------- ------------ ---------- ------------ --------------

**STATUS OF SAFETY OUTCOME 1**

Alaska did not achieve substantial conformity for Safety Outcome 1. This
determination was based on the following findings:

-   62.0 percent of the cases reviewed were rated as having
    substantially achieved this outcome, which is less than the 90
    percent required for a rating of substantial conformity.

-   The State did not meet the national standard for the percentage of
    children experiencing more than one substantiated or indicated child
    maltreatment report within a 6-month period; and

-   The State did not meet the national standard for the percentage of
    children experiencing maltreatment from caretakers while in foster
    care.

# 

The CFSR revealed that DFYS is not consistent in its efforts to ensure
children\'s protection from abuse and neglect. With regard to timeliness
of investigations, the case reviews found that in instances involving
imminent risk reports (reports deemed priority 1), the agency responded
within established timeframes. However, investigations of maltreatment
reports not involving imminent risk (i.e., reports assigned a priority 2
or 3 level) were not always initiated within the timeframes required by
State policy, and face-to face contact was not consistently established
within timeframes that would ensure children's safety. Problems with
responding to reports in a timely manner were attributed to high
workloads (and the corresponding problem of high levels of staff
turnover). Concerns also were noted regarding the lack of clear policy
regarding timeframes for face-to-face contact with children who are the
subjects of maltreatment reports.

With regard to maltreatment recurrence, CFSR findings indicate that
maltreatment recurrence is a significant challenge for DFYS. Information
from case reviews and stakeholder interviews suggest that the incidence
of maltreatment recurrence may be due to the number of maltreatment
reports involving alcohol abuse and/or to a lack of adequate services to
ensure children\'s safety in their homes.

Findings pertaining to the specific items assessed under Safety Outcome
1 are presented and discussed below.

# 

# Item 1. Timeliness of initiating investigations of reports of child maltreatment 

\_\_\_\_ Strength \_\_[X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

***Review Findings**:* The assessment of item 1 was applicable for 33 of
the 50 cases. Seventeen cases were not applicable because they did not
involve reports of child maltreatment during the period under review. In
assessing item 1, reviewers were to determine whether the response to a
maltreatment report occurring during the period under review had been
initiated in a timely manner. In Alaska, State policy requires that for
reports classified as priority 1, an investigation must be initiated
within 24 hours of the time the report is received by DYFS. For priority
2 reports, the investigation must be initiated within 72 hours of
receipt; for priority 3 reports, the investigation must be initiated
within 7 calendar days of the time that the report is received. The
results of this assessment were the following:

-   Item 1 was rated as a Strength in 23 (70%) of the 33 applicable
    cases (8 of which were foster care cases).

-   Item 1 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement in 10 (30%) of the
    33 applicable cases (2 of which were foster care cases).

This item was rated as a Strength when (1) the initiation of a response
to child maltreatment reports occurring during the period under review
was in accordance with agency policy for the risk level assigned to the
report, and (2) face-to-face contact was established with the subject of
the report in a timely manner. For the 10 cases rated as Area Needing
Improvement, reviewers noted that the agency did not respond to one or
more reports of child maltreatment in accordance with the time frames
established by policy or did not make face-to-face contact with the
child in a timely manner. Of the cases rated as Area Needing
Improvement, 5 were assigned a priority 2 rating, 1 was assigned a
priority 3 rating, and 3 cases were assigned both priority 2 and 3
ratings.

Some stakeholders commenting on this issue noted that DFYS is very
responsive to allegations of physical abuse but does not always
intervene in a timely manner when maltreatment reports involve
allegations of neglect, particularly neglect resulting from alcohol
abuse. In one site, a few stakeholders expressed concern that the
agency\'s delay in initiating investigations, and particularly in making
face-to-face contact with children, results in children not being
sufficiently protected from harm even when reports do not involve
physical abuse or imminent danger. Stakeholders also suggested that the
lack of a clear agency policy regarding time frames for initiating
face-to-face contact creates confusion as to what constitutes the
initiation of an investigation and what is an appropriate response to
ensure that children are adequately protected.

Other stakeholders voiced the opinion that because the more highly
trained workers are available during the day, the response time is not
as effective after hours as it is during the day. These stakeholders
suggested that it would be useful if the agency used cell phones and
pagers to access the more highly trained workers when necessary.

Stakeholders provided several reasons why the agency may not meet the
established timeframes for initiating an investigation of a child
maltreatment report or making timely face-to-face contact. These were
the following:

-   Inclement weather resulting in transportation issues (particularly
    in more rural areas of the State).

-   Staff vacancies that result in increased workloads for remaining
    workers.

-   Lack of concrete standards regarding face-to-face contacts.

In one site, it was noted that when inclement weather makes it difficult
for the agency to respond, the agency often will use individuals in the
local villages to \"assess the situation.\" However, it is not clear
whether these individuals are adequately trained to make the necessary
safety assessments in allegations of maltreatment.

***Determination and Discussion:*** Item 1 was assigned an overall
rating of Area Needing Improvement based on the finding that in 30
percent of the cases, DFYS did not respond to a maltreatment report in a
timely manner. Although none of these cases involved a priority 1
emergency report, there were 5 reports in which it was determined that
the risk of harm was sufficient to require a response within 72 hours
(priority 2). A key concern expressed by stakeholders pertained to the
absence of clear policy guidelines regarding face-to-face contact.
According to the Statewide Assessment, DFYS has a recognized procedure
for conducting workload adjustments on child protective services
reports. This procedure allows some reports that meet the criteria for
investigation to not be assigned for investigation due to lack of staff.
However, this does not appear to explain the lack of timely responses to
reports that were assigned for an investigation.

**Item 2. Repeat maltreatment**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

***Review Findings:*** The assessment of item 2 was applicable for all
50 cases. In assessing this item, reviewers were to determine whether
there had been at least one substantiated or indicated maltreatment
report during the period under review, and if so, whether another
substantiated or indicated report occurred within 6 months. The results
of the assessment were the following:

-   Item 2 was rated as a Strength in 37 (74%) of the 50 applicable
    cases (20 of which were foster care cases).

-   Item 2 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement in 13 (26%) of the
    50 applicable cases (3 of which were foster care cases).

Item 2 was rated as a Strength in cases in which there was no repeat
maltreatment. Eleven of these cases were foster care cases in which the
child entered foster care prior to the period under review and remained
in foster care during the entire period under review. Ten cases were
in-home services cases that were opened prior to the period under review
and did not have a substantiated or indicated report during the period
under review.

The item was rated as an Area Needing Improvement when there was at
least one substantiated/indicated maltreatment report during the period
under review and this report occurred within 6 months of another
substantiated/indicated child maltreatment report. Among the 29 cases in
which there was at least one substantiated or indicated maltreatment
report during the period under review, 13 (45%) had at least one other
substantiated or indicated report within a 6-month period.

In the majority of cases reviewed, there were multiple maltreatment
reports over the life of the case. Although not all reports were
substantiated or indicated, 14 cases had between 5 and 10 reports over
the life of the case, and 21 cases had more than 10 maltreatment reports
over the life of the case. Of these 21 cases, there were 4 cases with
more than 40 reports over the life of the case, with 2 of these cases
having more than 60 reports.

Some stakeholders and reviewers suggested that the repeat maltreatment
rate may be even higher than the officially reported rate, because not
all incidents of repeat maltreatment are being investigated. For
example, if a new report is filed on an open case, the investigation may
be delayed for weeks or even months, and sometimes no investigation
occurs. Another concern, noted by reviewers in one site, is that reports
that meet the State's criteria for investigation are being screened out
instead of investigated.

Several stakeholders suggested that the rate of maltreatment recurrence
is high because of the large percentage of cases involving
alcohol-related neglect. A stakeholder in one site suggested that
parental alcohol abuse is viewed by the courts as a temporary situation
and, therefore, the courts are unlikely to support a request by the
agency to assume custody in these cases. Several stakeholders noted that
there are not enough treatment resources to serve the number of parents
with alcohol abuse problems, and often a parent who is willing to seek
treatment may have to wait 2 or 3 months to receive it.

***Determination and Discussion:*** Item 2 was assigned an overall
rating of Area Needing Improvement based on the following:

-   According to the State Data Profile, the State's incidence of repeat
    maltreatment for 2000 was 23.6 percent, which does not meet the
    national standard of 6.1 percent.

-   In 26 percent of the cases, reviewers determined that there had been
    two substantiated/indicated child maltreatment reports within a
    6-month period, with at least one report occurring during the period
    under review.

Similar to stakeholder interviews, the Statewide Assessment attributes
the State's high incidence of maltreatment recurrence to the lack of
treatment services and follow-up support services for alcohol abuse,
particularly in remote areas. Also similar to stakeholder interviews,
information provided in the Statewide Assessment suggests that
maltreatment most often involves neglect cases and Native Alaska
children.

The Statewide Assessment also notes, however, that the incidence of
maltreatment recurrence within 6 months reported in the State Data
Profile may not reflect the actual incidence. According to the Statewide
Assessment, additional disclosures of prior incidents of abuse or
neglect are included in the recurrence rate. For example, if a child who
is receiving services because of a report discloses a prior incident,
that incident becomes a report that enters the system with the date
received rather than the date of the actual maltreatment occurrence.
This results in increased rates of recurrence within the 6-month period.
The Statewide Assessment also notes that the State's definition of an
unconfirmed report is very different than the Federal definition of an
indicated report, but that unconfirmed reports are assumed to be
equivalent to indicated reports for the Federal calculations of repeat
maltreatment. According to the Statewide Assessment, when substantiated
reports are counted, the recurrence rate drops to 20.3 percent (which is
still above the national standard), and the total number of children in
the group decreases by over one-half.

######## 

######## Safety Outcome 2

  ---------------------- --------------- ------------ ---------- ---------- --------------
  **Outcome S2: Children                                                    
  are safely maintained                                                     
  in their homes                                                            
  whenever possible and                                                     
  appropriate.**                                                            

  **Number of cases                                                         
  reviewed by the team                                                      
  according to degree of                                                    
  outcome achievement:**                                                    

                         **Anchorage**   **Mat-Su**   **Nome**   **Total    **Total
                                                                 Number**   Percentage**

  Substantially          14              9            7          30         60.0
  Achieved:                                                                 

  Partially Achieved:    6               2            5          13         26.0

  Not Achieved or        6               1            0          7          14.0
  Addressed:                                                                

  Not Applicable:        0               0            0          0          
  ---------------------- --------------- ------------ ---------- ---------- --------------

**STATUS OF SAFETY OUTCOME 2**

Alaska did not achieve substantial conformity with Safety Outcome 2.
This determination was based on the finding that the outcome was
substantially achieved in 60.0 percent of the cases reviewed, which is
less than the 90 percent required for a rating of substantial
conformity.

A general CFSR finding was that the agency is effective in reducing risk
by removing children from their homes and providing services to
families. However, the agency is not as effective in maintaining
children safely in their own homes. The key concern identified by case
reviewers was that the services offered to families were not adequate to
ensure children's safety and reduce risk of harm, and often did not
address underlying issues contributing to the maltreatment. Another
concern identified was that although services were offered to families,
there was insufficient monitoring on the part of the agency to assess
whether services were actually provided, whether parents were fully
participating in services, and/or whether children continued to be safe.

Findings pertaining to the specific items assessed under Safety Outcome
2 are presented and discussed below.

**Item 3. Services to family to protect child(ren) in home and prevent
removal**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

***Review Findings***: There were 36 cases for which an assessment of
item 3 was applicable. Fourteen cases were excluded from this assessment
because the children were in foster care for the entire review period or
because there were no substantiated or indicated maltreatment reports or
identified risks of harm to the children in the home during the period
under review. For this item, reviewers assessed whether, in responding
to a substantiated or indicated maltreatment report or risk of harm, the
agency made diligent efforts to provide services to families to prevent
removal of children from their homes while at the same time ensuring
their safety. The results of this assessment were the following:

-   Item 3 was rated as a Strength in 25 (69%) of the 36 applicable
    cases (8 of which were foster care cases).

-   Item 3 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement in 11 (31%) of the
    36 applicable cases (2 of which were foster care cases).

Twenty-four cases were rated as a Strength for this item when reviewers
determined that DFYS assessed the family's service needs appropriately
and provided or referred the family for services to meet those needs to
prevent an initial placement (22 cases) or a re-entry after
reunification (2 cases). One case was rated a Strength because the
children were appropriately removed from the home to ensure their
safety. Reviewers noted that the services offered in these cases
appropriately targeted underlying needs and that the cases reflected
coordination and collaboration among service providers. The services
offered to families in these cases included (but not limited to)
parenting education (e.g., parenting skills and information on child
development), stress management, grief work, substance abuse assessment
and treatment, anger management classes, domestic violence counseling,
food vouchers, counseling, independent living services, mental health
counseling, respite care, and medication management.

Cases were rated as Area Needing Improvement for this indicator when
reviewers made one or more of the following determinations:

-   Services were provided to the family, but they were not adequate to
    maintain the child safely in the home because they did not address
    underlying issues that lead to the abuse/neglect (9 cases).

-   Services recommended by professionals based on assessments were not
    provided (2 cases).

-   No services were provided after the family was reunified (2 cases).

-   The child was removed from the home but reviewers determined that
    provision of services could have prevented removal (1 case).

In general, stakeholders commenting on this issue expressed the opinion
that in many instances the agency is effective in providing services to
maintain children safely in their own homes. Stakeholders also noted
that when DFYS is able to engage a family in services, it is effective
in preventing removal. Some stakeholders reported that the provision of
services, particularly culturally relevant services, is greatly
facilitated by the agency's partnerships with other agencies and with
the Tribes. However, in one site, stakeholders noted that children are
being removed because the high workloads prohibit caseworkers from
conducting a comprehensive needs assessment and providing services
necessary to keep children safely in their homes.

A few stakeholders voiced concern about the lack of post-reunification
services. They suggested that in some cases children are being reunified
without the parent\'s substance abuse problems being adequately treated,
and that the agency is not providing follow up in these cases.

***Determination and Discussion:*** This item was assigned an overall
rating of Area Needing Improvement because in 31 percent of the
applicable cases, reviewers determined that DFYS had not made diligent
efforts to provide services that ensured children\'s safety while
preventing their placement in foster care. According to the Statewide
Assessment, although State policy supports pre-placement services and
the agency has access to a family preservation program, there are
concerns about the accessibility of these services to all families. The
Statewide Assessment also notes that participants of a Roundtable,
convened as part of the State's self-assessment, reported a shortage of
prevention-oriented programs and a need for immediate crisis
intervention services.

**Item 4. Risk of harm to child**

\_\_\_\_ Strength \_\_[X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

# 

***Review Findings:*** An assessment of item 4 was applicable for all 50
cases reviewed. In making this assessment, reviewers were to determine
whether the agency had made, or was making, diligent efforts to reduce
the risk of harm to the children involved in each case. The assessment
resulted in the following findings:

-   Item 4 was rated as a Strength in 34 (68%) of the 50 applicable
    cases (20 of which were foster care cases).

-   Item 4 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement in 16 (32%) of the
    50 applicable cases (3 of which were foster care cases).

This item was rated as a Strength when reviewers determined the
following:

-   The risk of harm to children was appropriately managed by removing
    the children from home (including placing them with a relative on a
    voluntary basis) and providing or offering services to parents (17
    cases).

-   The risk of harm to children was appropriately addressed by removing
    the children from the home and seeking termination of parental
    rights (TPR) (7 cases).

-   The risk of harm to children was appropriately managed by providing
    services to families to address risk concerns while the children
    remain in the home (10 cases).

The item was rated as an Area Needing Improvement when reviewers
determined the following:

-   There was insufficient monitoring of families to assess ongoing
    risk, including whether parents were engaging in services (5 in-
    home services cases)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The services provided to parents and children were not matched to
    meet the needs of the family or were insufficient to reduce risk of
    harm to children, usually due to inadequate assessments (7 in-home
    services cases).

-   Children were left in their homes when the level of risk was too
    high and they should have been removed because parents were not
    engaging in services (as evidenced by continued maltreatment
    reports) (2 cases).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   There was insufficient monitoring of children in foster care during
    home visits (1 case).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The foster care placement with a relative was not adequately
    assessed, leaving the children at risk of harm in their foster care
    placement (1 case).

Stakeholders commenting on this issue noted that DFYS recently began
using a new risk assessment tool (structured decision making). Although
training has been provided on the use of this tool, some stakeholders
suggested that workers may not being using it consistently as yet,
because it requires a major shift in practice from the prior assessment
process. However, these stakeholders also indicated that they anticipate
that appropriate use of the tool will increase with greater experience.
Some stakeholders suggested that although assessments are improving,
there is a need for greater service resources and for these resources to
be implemented in the initial phases of a case.

Several stakeholders expressed concern about the fact that there is some
confusion regarding the roles and expectations of the different agencies
and players working with the families. For example stakeholders noted
the following opinions: (1) dual track agencies do not monitor families
to ensure that they are following through with services (and do not
appear to view this as their responsibility); (2) DFYS does not always
\"take back\" referrals from the dual track agencies when it is
appropriate for them to do so; (3) dual track providers do not identify
the existing level of risk when making decisions to close cases (4) in
one site, the local Tribal Organization is expected to implement the
services, but DFYS does not always follow up to see if this is being
done and there appears to be a lack of clarity about responsibilities;
and (5) the communication between the investigative and ongoing workers
is not always sufficient to ensure complete exchange of information.

Other stakeholders expressed concern that children are being left in
their homes when they should be removed due to the level of risk in the
home. These stakeholders suggested that some children are not being
removed because (1) there is a shortage of foster homes, and/or (2)
workers are unwilling to involve the courts because they perceive that
the courts require a high level of evidence before sanctioning a
removal.

As noted previously, stakeholders indicated that there are insufficient
services provided after reunification to support the reunification by
monitoring the level of risk and preventing repeat maltreatment.

Although no stakeholders commented on the risk of harm to children in
foster care, the incidence of maltreatment while in foster care reported
in the State Data Profile (1.91%) is higher than the national standard
(.57%), suggesting that this area of risk may be a challenge for DFYS.

***Determination and Discussion:*** This item was assigned an overall
rating of Area Needing Improvement because in 32 percent of the
applicable cases, reviewers determined that DFYS was not effective in
its efforts to reduce risk of harm to children. As noted in the
Statewide Assessment and in the stakeholder interviews, the State has
recently implemented a Structured Decision Making model of risk
assessment and provides training to all workers on using this model.

The case reviews and stakeholder interviews suggest that DFYS is most
effective in managing risk when it removes children from their homes,
but is less successful in managing risk of harm to children when the
children remain in their homes. The key problem identified is a lack of
follow up with families, which may be attributed in part to a lack of
clarity regarding the roles and responsibilities of the various agency
and non-agency workers involved with the family.

**II. PERMANENCY**

######## Permanency Outcome 1

+---------------------+-------+---+-----+----+---+--------+---+----------+
| **Outcome P1:       |       |   |     |    |   |        |   |          |
| Children have       |       |   |     |    |   |        |   |          |
| permanency and      |       |   |     |    |   |        |   |          |
| stability in their  |       |   |     |    |   |        |   |          |
| living              |       |   |     |    |   |        |   |          |
| situations.**       |       |   |     |    |   |        |   |          |
+---------------------+-------+---+-----+----+---+--------+---+----------+
| **Number of cases   |       |   |     |    |   |        |   |          |
| reviewed by the     |       |   |     |    |   |        |   |          |
| team according to   |       |   |     |    |   |        |   |          |
| degree of outcome   |       |   |     |    |   |        |   |          |
| achievement:**      |       |   |     |    |   |        |   |          |
+---------------------+-------+---+-----+----+---+--------+---+----------+
|                     | **A   | * |     | ** |   | *      |   | **Total  |
|                     | nchor | * |     | No |   | *Total |   | Perc     |
|                     | age** | M |     | me |   | Nu     |   | entage** |
|                     |       | a |     | ** |   | mber** |   |          |
|                     |       | t |     |    |   |        |   |          |
|                     |       | - |     |    |   |        |   |          |
|                     |       | S |     |    |   |        |   |          |
|                     |       | u |     |    |   |        |   |          |
|                     |       | * |     |    |   |        |   |          |
|                     |       | * |     |    |   |        |   |          |
+---------------------+-------+---+-----+----+---+--------+---+----------+
| Substantially       | 1     | 3 |     | 1  |   | 5      |   | 21.7     |
| Achieved:           |       |   |     |    |   |        |   |          |
+---------------------+-------+---+-----+----+---+--------+---+----------+
| Partially Achieved: | 8     | 3 |     | 3  |   | 14     |   | 60.9     |
+---------------------+-------+---+-----+----+---+--------+---+----------+
| Not Achieved or     | 4     | 0 |     | 0  |   | 4      |   | 17.4     |
| Addressed:          |       |   |     |    |   |        |   |          |
+---------------------+-------+---+-----+----+---+--------+---+----------+
| Not Applicable:     | 13    | 6 |     | 8  |   | 27     |   |          |
+---------------------+-------+---+-----+----+---+--------+---+----------+
| **Conformity of     |       |   |     |    |   |        |   |          |
| Statewide data      |       |   |     |    |   |        |   |          |
| indicators with     |       |   |     |    |   |        |   |          |
| national            |       |   |     |    |   |        |   |          |
| standards:**        |       |   |     |    |   |        |   |          |
+---------------------+-------+---+-----+----+---+--------+---+----------+
|                     | **Nat |   | **S |    | * |        | * |          |
|                     | ional |   | tat |    | * |        | * |          |
|                     | Stand |   | e's |    | M |        | D |          |
|                     | ard** |   | Per |    | e |        | o |          |
|                     |       |   | cen |    | e |        | e |          |
|                     | *     |   | tag |    | t |        | s |          |
|                     | *(per |   | e** |    | s |        | N |          |
|                     | centa |   |     |    | S |        | o |          |
|                     | ge)** |   |     |    | t |        | t |          |
|                     |       |   |     |    | a |        | M |          |
|                     |       |   |     |    | n |        | e |          |
|                     |       |   |     |    | d |        | e |          |
|                     |       |   |     |    | a |        | t |          |
|                     |       |   |     |    | r |        | S |          |
|                     |       |   |     |    | d |        | t |          |
|                     |       |   |     |    | * |        | a |          |
|                     |       |   |     |    | * |        | n |          |
|                     |       |   |     |    |   |        | d |          |
|                     |       |   |     |    |   |        | a |          |
|                     |       |   |     |    |   |        | r |          |
|                     |       |   |     |    |   |        | d |          |
|                     |       |   |     |    |   |        | * |          |
|                     |       |   |     |    |   |        | * |          |
+---------------------+-------+---+-----+----+---+--------+---+----------+
| Foster care         | 8.6   |   | 4.6 |    | X |        |   |          |
| re-entries          |       |   |     |    |   |        |   |          |
+---------------------+-------+---+-----+----+---+--------+---+----------+
| Length of time to   | 76.2  |   | 5   |    |   |        | X |          |
| achieve             |       |   | 3.8 |    |   |        |   |          |
| reunification       |       |   |     |    |   |        |   |          |
+---------------------+-------+---+-----+----+---+--------+---+----------+
| Length of time to   | 32.0  |   | 2   |    |   |        | X |          |
| achieve adoption    |       |   | 1.8 |    |   |        |   |          |
+---------------------+-------+---+-----+----+---+--------+---+----------+
| Stability of foster | 86.2  |   | 7   |    |   |        | X |          |
| care placements     |       |   | 0.6 |    |   |        |   |          |
+---------------------+-------+---+-----+----+---+--------+---+----------+

**STATUS OF PERMANENCY OUTCOME 1**

Alaska did not achieve substantial conformity with Permanency Outcome 1.
This determination was based on the following:

-   21.7 percent of the cases were rated as having substantially
    achieved Permanency Outcome 1, which is less than the 90 percent
    required for an overall rating of substantial conformity;

-   The State did not meet the national standard for the percentage of
    children reunified who were reunified within 12 months of placement
    into foster care;

-   The State did not meet the national standard for the percentage of
    children experiencing 2 or fewer placements during their first 12
    months in foster care; and

-   The State did not meet the national standard for the percentage of
    finalized adoptions within 24 months of a child's entering foster
    care.

According to the State Data Profile, Alaska meets the national standard
for the incidence of re-entries into foster care within 12 months of
discharge from a prior foster care episode. This is consistent with the
case review finding that re-entries into foster care occurred in only
one of the seven cases applicable for an assessment of this indicator.
For the most part, however, the CFSR revealed that achieving permanency
and stability for children in foster care continues to be a significant
challenge for DFYS. Concerns were noted with regard to placement
stability, the establishment of appropriate permanency goals in a timely
manner, and the achievement of permanency in a timely manner.

Findings pertaining to the specific items assessed under Permanency
Outcome 1 are presented below.

**Item 5. Foster care re-entries**

[\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Strength \_\_\_\_ Area Needing Improvement

***Review Findings:*** Seven of the 23 foster care cases were applicable
for an assessment of foster care re-entries because they involved
children who entered foster care at some time during the period under
review. In assessing this item, reviewers determined whether the entry
into foster care during the period under review had occurred within 12
months of discharge from a prior foster care episode. The results of
this assessment were the following:

-   Item 5 was rated as a Strength in 6 (86%) of the 7 applicable cases.

-   Item 5 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement in 1 (14%) of the 7
    applicable cases.

Cases were assigned a rating of Strength for this item when there was
one entry into foster care during the period under review, but the entry
was not within 12 months of discharge from a prior foster care episode.
The one case rated an Area Needing Improvement involved an entry into
foster care that was a re-entry within 12 months of discharge.

***Determination and Discussion***: This item was assigned an overall
rating of Strength for the following reasons:

-   Reviewers noted that re-entry into foster care did not occur in 86
    percent of the applicable cases.

-   The State Data Profile indicates that the re-entry rate for Alaska
    is 4.6 percent, which meets the national standard of 8.6 percent.

**Item 6. Stability of foster care placement**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

***Review Findings:*** All 23 foster care cases were applicable for an
assessment of Item 6. In assessing this item, reviewers were to
determine whether the child experienced multiple placement settings
during the period under review and, if so, whether the changes in
placement settings were necessary to achieve the child\'s permanency
goal or meet the child\'s service needs. The findings of this assessment
were the following:

-   Item 6 was rated as a Strength in 14 (61%) of the 23 applicable
    cases.

-   Item 6 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement in 9 (39%) of the 23
    applicable cases.

Additional findings of the case reviews were the following:

-   Children in 15 cases experienced no more than 2 placement settings
    during the period under review.

-   Children in 5 cases experienced between 3 and 4 placement settings
    during the period under review.

-   Children in 3 cases experienced 5 or more placement settings during
    the period under review (one child experienced 11 placement
    settings).

-   Children in 13 cases experienced multiple placements prior to the
    period under review, with 6 children experiencing more than 10
    placement settings prior to the period under review.

Cases were assigned a rating of Strength for this item when reviewers
determined that a child experienced placement stability during the
period under review or that changes in placement were in the child\'s
best interest.

A rating of Area Needing Improvement for this item was assigned for the
following reasons:

-   Foster parents requested the removal of the children and reviewers
    determined that the agency had not made efforts to support foster
    parents in maintaining the placement (2 cases).

-   Reviewers determined that the agency made an inappropriate match or
    placed a child in a foster placement that did not meet the child\'s
    needs (i.e., placed children in emergency foster homes or shelters
    as their initial placements, rather than attempting to find
    relatives or more stable foster homes at the time of removal) (4
    cases).

-   Reviewers determined that the current placement was unstable (one
    due to constant runaway episodes, one due to the foster mother being
    ill, and one due to the foster mother's application for adoption
    being rejected because of her age and health) (3 cases).

Stakeholders in one site noted that placements are stable in that site
because the agency supports the foster families (who are mostly relative
caregivers) with services and does not use shelter care or emergency
placements on a routine basis. In contrast, stakeholders in another site
noted that there is routine use of emergency foster homes at that site
and, although children are supposed to stay in those homes for 1 -10
days, they often stay for longer periods of time. Stakeholders in the
third site reported that children in that site experience placement
instability because of the high turnover in foster parents, which was
attributed to DFYS\'s insufficient efforts to provide the services and
supports necessary to retain foster parents.

All stakeholders commenting on placement stability were in general
agreement that when placement changes do occur, they are usually the
result of a lack of proper matching of children and foster parents based
on child\'s needs and foster parents\' training and skills. However,
stakeholders also acknowledged that effective matching often is
difficult given the scarcity of available foster home placements.

In one site reviewers noted that each time a foster child came into a
HUB community for medical care and stayed in overnight foster care due
to flight schedules, the State information system (PROBER) counted the
placement as a move. Including these placements inflates the number of
moves as reported in PROBER.

***Determination and Discussion:*** Item 6 was assigned an overall
rating of Area Needing Improvement based on the following findings:

-   In 39 percent of the applicable cases, reviewers determined that the
    children had not experienced stability in their placement settings
    during the period under review.

-   The State Data Profile indicates that of all children in foster care
    for 12 months or less, 70.6 percent experienced no more than 2
    placement settings, which does not meet the national standard of
    86.2 percent.

Information provided in the Statewide Assessment is consistent with the
case review findings and the stakeholder comments. According to the
Statewide Assessment, placement instability may be attributed to a lack
of foster homes, which restricts the ability of workers to match the
needs of children to the skills and training of the foster parents; poor
matching is the primary cause of placement disruptions. The Statewide
Assessment also notes that 21.5 percent of children in foster care had 6
or more placements, and 49.2 percent of those children had at least one
residential placement, suggesting children with multiple placements may
have significant behavioral and emotional issues.

**Item 7. Permanency goal for child**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

***Review Findings:*** All 23 foster care cases were applicable for an
assessment of item 7. In assessing this item, reviewers were to
determine whether the agency had established an appropriate permanency
goal for the child in a timely manner. The results of this assessment
were the following:

-   Item 7 was rated Strength in 14 (61%) of the 23 applicable cases.

-   Item 7 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement in 9 (39%) of the 23
    applicable cases.

The case review found that the children in the 23 foster care cases had
the following permanency goals:

-   6 had a goal of guardianship.

-   7 had a goal of reunification.

-   10 had a goal of adoption, with 2 of these cases having concurrent
    goals of adoption and reunification.

-   2 had a goal of emancipation.

Cases were assigned a rating of Strength for this item when reviewers
determined that the goal was appropriate and had been established in a
timely manner. Cases were assigned a rating of Area Needing Improvement
when reviewers determined that the current goal was inappropriate and
unrealistic (4 cases), and that workers seemed to ignore concerns and
signs that the goal was not likely to be achieved. Cases also were rated
as an Area Needing Improvement when reviewers determined that a plan for
reunification had remained in effect for too long (2 cases), or that
there had been multiple goal changes over the years, with no real focus
on any particular goal or plan and attainment of permanency unlikely to
occur in the near future (3 cases).

There were 13 cases in which children had been in foster care for 15 of
the most recent 22 months. TPR had been filed in 8 of those cases and
achieved in 6 cases. For the five cases in which TPR had not been filed,
compelling reasons for not filing were identified in three cases, but in
two cases, no compelling reasons were found in the file. Although there
were cases in which concurrent goals had been established, reviewers in
two sites expressed the opinion that workers were not working toward
both goals, but rather waiting to see what happened with one goal before
working on the other.

Stakeholders commenting on this issue had differing perspectives on
DFYS's effectiveness in establishing appropriate permanency goals in a
timely manner. Stakeholders in two sites suggested that the permanency
goals are appropriate in that they match the needs of the children.
However, in one of these sites, stakeholders noted that there often are
delays in establishing these goals because of the relationship between
DFYS and the Tribes. Some Tribal stakeholders suggested that the Tribes
are not comfortable with the timeframes established by the Adoption and
Safe Families Act (ASFA). In addition, some stakeholders indicated they
preferred to have the child in a non-permanent placement rather than
have the child in a permanent placement with a family that is not
related to the child. Several stakeholders indicated that foster parents
should have more input into the permanency planning efforts.

There was general agreement among stakeholders that concurrent goals are
being established. In one site, stakeholders noted that reunification is
always the first plan, and concurrent planning does not begin until
after adjudication. A few stakeholders suggested that there are delays
in filing for TPR because of a lack of services for parents, including
long waiting lists to obtain services. As a result, in some cases the
State agency is not ready to file for TPR at 15 months because they
cannot establish that reasonable efforts were made to reunify the
children with their parents.

***Determination and Discussion:*** Item 7 was assigned an overall
rating of Area Needing Improvement based on the finding that in 39
percent of the applicable cases, reviewers determined that the agency
had not established an appropriate goal for the child in a timely
manner. According to the Statewide Assessment, establishing permanency
goals is difficult for children with behavioral and/or mental health
problems and children who are age 15 and older. Both case reviews and
stakeholder interviews indicate that while concurrent goals are being
established for children, concurrent planning is not consistently
implemented.

**Item 8. Reunification, Guardianship, or Permanent Placement With
Relatives**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

***Review Findings:*** Item 8 was applicable for 13 cases. In assessing
these cases, reviewers were to determine whether the agency had achieved
the goals of reunification, guardianship, or permanent placement with
relatives for the children in a timely manner or, if the goal had not
been achieved in a timely manner, whether the agency had made, or was in
the process of making, diligent efforts to achieve the goals. The
results of this assessment were the following:

-   Item 8 was rated as a Strength for 4 (31%) of the 13 applicable
    cases.

-   Item 8 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement for 9 (69%) of the
    13 applicable cases.

Cases were rated as a Strength for this item when reviewers determined
that the agency was making or had made concerted efforts to achieve the
goal of reunification or guardianship. Reviewers reported that the
permanency goal was achieved for 4 of the 13 applicable cases (2
guardianship and 2 reunification). In one case in which guardianship was
the goal, the goal was achieved within 12 months.

This item was rated as an Area Needing Improvement when reviewers
determined that the agency had not made diligent efforts to achieve the
goal of either reunification or guardianship within 12 months (3 cases),
or that the efforts made were insufficient to achieve the goal given the
circumstances of the case (6 cases).

Some stakeholders commenting on this issue expressed the opinion that
the agency is effective in working with parents toward achieving
reunification but that reunification is not always achieved because of a
lack of improvement in the parents' capacity to care for their children.
Other stakeholders, however, indicated that there are agency-related
barriers to reunification such as lack of clear goals in the case plans,
failure to provide services to families in a timely manner, and lack of
agency follow-up on service provision. This is consistent with
stakeholder comments regarding long waiting lists for both in-patient
and out-patient substance abuse treatment services. In one site, the
presence of a "Balloon" worker was noted to have been extremely helpful
in moving children to permanency. Workers from the State's "Balloon"
permanency project are dedicated workers assigned to cases involving
children who have been in foster care for long periods of time to move
children towards permanency.

Most stakeholders praised Alaska's subsidized guardianship program
(which is offered to licensed foster parents as well as relatives),
noting that it is a good option for children and is used on a frequent
basis. However, a few stakeholders suggested that caseworkers are not
using this option to its full potential and sometimes do not do the home
studies or do not offer the families subsidies for guardianship.

Finally, a few stakeholders suggested that while the agency may take
longer to return children to their homes, once reunification occurs it
is generally [successful](http://successful/), with children remaining
safely at home.

***Determination and Discussion:*** This item was assigned an overall
rating of Area Needing Improvement based on the following:

-   Reviewers determined that in 69 percent of the applicable cases the
    agency had not made diligent efforts to achieve the goals of
    reunification or guardianship in a timely manner.

-   Data from the State Data Profile indicate that the percentage of
    reunifications occurring within 12 months of entry into foster care
    (58.3%) does not meet the national standard of 76.2 percent.

Information from the Statewide Assessment suggests that the timeliness
of reunifications is affected by (1) the lack of access and availability
of services in the parents' home community; (2) the general scarcity of
alcohol treatment and in-home follow-up services, resulting in long
waiting lists for services; and (3) the fact that children and parents
have multiple problems that must be addressed before children can be
safely reunified. The Statewide Assessment also notes that the data
reported in the State Data Profile do not include children who are
returned to their families on a trial basis without discharge from State
custody. As noted in the Statewide Assessment, if these children are
considered, the percentages of children reunified within 12 months of
removal increases from 58.3 percent to 68 percent (which is still below
the national standard).

**Item 9. Adoption**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

***Review Findings:*** 10 of the foster care cases were assessed for
item 9. In assessing this item, reviewers were to determine whether
appropriate and timely efforts had been, or were being, undertaken, to
achieve finalized adoptions. The results were the following:

-   Item 9 was rated as a Strength in 3 (30%) of the 10 applicable
    cases.

-   Item 9 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement in 7 (70%) of the 10
    applicable cases.

At the time of the review, adoption had been finalized in 2 of the 10
cases, but in both cases, the finalization did not occur within 24
months of the child's removal from the home. Also at the time of the
review, four children with a goal of adoption were in an adoptive
placement, three of them with foster parents and one with a relative.

This item was assigned a rating of Strength in three cases in which
reviewers determined that diligent efforts were being, or had been, made
to achieve a finalized adoption in a timely manner. In one case,
adoption was the concurrent goal and reunification had not been
completely ruled out. Reviewers noted that the caseworker had identified
two potential adoptive placements and was working toward that goal while
engaging in reunification efforts.

Cases were rated as an Area Needing Improvement when reviewers
determined that there were, or had been, unnecessary delays in attaining
a finalized adoption. In all seven of these cases, reviewers determined
that the delays were due to agency-related issues, such as lack of
timely decisions and lack of follow up with the child and family. In one
case, the reviewer noted that a parent's appeal on TPR was holding up
the process, but that there had been a history of a lack of timely
decisions and actions prior to filing for TPR.

Across sites, stakeholders commenting on this issue provided the
following reasons for delays in achieving the goal of adoption:

-   Filing for TPR very late in the case.

-   Delays in the decision process regarding changing the goals to
    adoption.

-   Court delays.

-   Delays in addressing children's medical needs.

-   Delays in searching for relatives as placement resources.

-   Delays in conducting home studies (one stakeholder noted that
    families often have to wait for more than a year for a home study to
    be conducted).

-   Difficulties finding families for children who have been diagnosed
    with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) or Fetal Alcohol Exposure (FAE).

-   Lack of a sufficient number of adoption specialists to assist
    workers.

In one site, stakeholders attributed delays in large part to the fact
that the courts in that site are reluctant to grant TPR and require an
exceedingly high degree of evidence and extended periods of time
attempting reunification.

***Determination and Discussion:*** This item was assigned an overall
rating of Area Needing Improvement based on the following:

-   In 70 percent of the applicable cases, reviewers determined that
    DFYS had not made diligent efforts to achieve adoptions in a timely
    manner; and

-   The State Data Profile demonstrates that the percentage of finalized
    adoptions in FY 2000 that occurred within 24 months of removal from
    home (21.8%) did not meet the national standard (32%).

According to the Statewide Assessment the percentage of children exiting
to adoption within 24 months increased dramatically from 1998 (9.8
percent) to 2000 (21.8 percent). In September 2001, a Simple New
Adoption Process pilot project was launched that is expected to reduce
by half the length of time it takes to achieve adoption. This project
was developed in response to information from focus group participants
indicating that the adoption process is time-consuming and cumbersome
and needs to be streamlined. The Statewide Assessment also notes that
the State also has implemented the Home Study Project designed to
expedite home studies and Project Succeed, which helps search for
families for specific children.

**Item 10. Permanency goal of other planned permanent living
arrangement**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

***Review Findings:*** Two of the foster care cases were assessed for
item 10. In assessing these cases, reviewers were to determine if the
agency had made, or was making, diligent efforts to assist children in
attaining their goals related to other planned permanent living
arrangements. The results of this assessment were the following:

-   Item 8 was rated as a Strength in 1 (50%) of the 2 applicable cases.

-   Item 8 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement in 1 (50%) of the 2
    applicable cases.

The case rated as a Strength for this item received that rating because
independent living services were made available to the child after she
turned 17. In the case assigned a rating of Area Needing Improvement for
this item, reviewers noted that the child did not receive independent
living services because of lack of funds for those services. Reviewers
also noted that after the child was emancipated, she still needed
services, but they were not available.

***Determination and Discussion:*** This item was assigned an overall
rating of Area Needing Improvement because in one of the two applicable
cases, reviewers determined that DFYS had not provided the child with
the services needed to support successful transition from foster care to
independent living.

######## Permanency Outcome 2

+---------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+----------+
| # Outcome P2: The c |       |        |        |         |          |
| ontinuity of family |       |        |        |         |          |
|  relationships and  |       |        |        |         |          |
| connections is pres |       |        |        |         |          |
| erved for children. |       |        |        |         |          |
+---------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+----------+
| **Number of cases   |       |        |        |         |          |
| reviewed by the     |       |        |        |         |          |
| team according to   |       |        |        |         |          |
| degree of outcome   |       |        |        |         |          |
| achievement:**      |       |        |        |         |          |
+---------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+----------+
|                     | **A   | **Ma   | **     | **      | **Total  |
|                     | nchor | t-Su** | Nome** | Total** | Perc     |
|                     | age** |        |        |         | entage** |
+---------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+----------+
| Substantially       | 7     | 5      | 3      | 15      | 65.2     |
| Achieved:           |       |        |        |         |          |
+---------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+----------+
| Partially Achieved: | 6     | 1      | 1      | 8       | 34.8     |
+---------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+----------+
| Not Achieved or     | 0     | 0      | 0      | 0       | 0        |
| Addressed:          |       |        |        |         |          |
+---------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+----------+
| Not Applicable:     | 13    | 6      | 8      | 27      |          |
+---------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+----------+

**STATUS OF PERMANENCY OUTCOME 2**

Alaska is not in substantial conformity with Permanency Outcome 2. This
determination was based on the finding that this outcome was
substantially achieved in 65.2 percent of the cases reviewed, which is
less than the 90 percent required for a rating of substantial
conformity.

The CFSR revealed that DFYS is effective in placing children in close
proximity to their parents or close relatives and in ensuring that
siblings are placed together, whenever appropriate. However, DFYS was
found to be inconsistent with respect to facilitating and supporting
visits between children and their parents and siblings, preserving
children's connections, seeking relatives as potential placement
resources, and promoting or maintaining the parent-child bond.

The findings pertaining to the specific items assessed under Permanency
Outcome 2 are presented and discussed below.

**Item 11. Proximity of foster care placement**

[\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Strength \_\_\_\_ Area Needing Improvement

***Review Findings:*** Of the 23 foster care cases, 21 were applicable
for an assessment of item 11. Cases determined to be not applicable were
those in which TPR had been attained prior to the period under review or
in which contact with parents was not considered to be in the child\'s
best interest. In assessing item 11, reviewers were to determine whether
the child\'s foster care setting was in close proximity to the child\'s
parents or close relatives. This assessment resulted in the finding that
item 11 was rated as a Strength in all 21 (100%) applicable cases.

In the 21 cases rated as a Strength, children either were placed in the
same community as parents or relatives (16 cases), or placement in a
different community or State was necessary to meet the child's treatment
needs (4 cases) or to place the child with siblings (1 case).

Stakeholders commenting on this issue were in general agreement that
DFYS makes diligent efforts to place children near their families of
origin and noted that the use of relative placements furthers this
effort. Stakeholders in one site expressed the opinion that DFYS's
efforts to engage the Tribes in making placement decisions have resulted
in children being placed in their villages. However, stakeholders in
this site also noted that placement proximity is more difficult to
achieve for adolescents because of a lack of placement resources for
this population.

***Determination and Discussion:*** Item 11 was assigned an overall
rating of Strength because in 100 percent of applicable cases, children
were placed in close proximity to parents or close relatives or
placement in another community was justified based on the child's needs.

**Item 12. Placement with siblings**

[\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Strength \_\_\_\_ Area Needing Improvement

***Review Findings:*** Twenty of the 23 foster care cases involved a
child with siblings who were also in foster care. In assessing item 12,
reviewers were to determine whether siblings were, or had been, placed
together and, if not, whether separation was necessary to meet the needs
(service or safety needs) of one or more of the children. This
assessment resulted in the following findings:

-   Item 12 was rated as a Strength in 18 (90%) of the 20 applicable
    cases.

-   Item 12 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement in 2 (10%) of the
    20 applicable cases.

In 12 of the 20 applicable cases, the child was in a placement with at
least one other sibling, and in 6 of these cases, the child was in a
placement with all siblings. This item was rated as a Strength when
siblings were placed together or when reviewers determined that
children's separation from some or all siblings was in the best interest
of the siblings, usually because the separation was necessary to meet
the treatment needs of at least one of the siblings.

Cases were assigned a rating of Area Needing Improvement for this item
when siblings were separated and reviewers determined that there was no
justifiable reason for the separation.

Stakeholders commenting on this issue noted that placement with siblings
is a strength for DFYS.

***Determination and Discussion:*** This item was assigned an overall
rating of Strength based on the finding that in 90 percent of the cases,
siblings were either placed together or the separation was deemed
necessary to meet the needs of one or more of the children.

**Item 13. Visiting with parents and siblings in foster care**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

***Review Findings:*** An assessment of item 13 was applicable for 22 of
the 23 foster care cases. In the one case rated as not applicable for
this assessment, there had been a TPR, the parents were no longer
involved in planning for the child, and the child resided with all
siblings. In assessing this item, reviewers were to determine (1)
whether the agency had made, or was making, diligent efforts to
facilitate visitation between children in foster care and their parents
and siblings in foster care, and (2) whether these visits occurred with
sufficient frequency to meet the needs of children and families. The
findings of this assessment were the following:

-   Item 13 was rated as a Strength in 16 (73%) of the 22 applicable
    cases.

-   Item 13 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement in 6 (27%) of the
    22 applicable cases.

The case review process revealed that visits between children and their
mothers typically occurred with the following frequencies:

-   Visits occurred on a weekly basis in nine cases.

-   Visits occurred twice a month in one case.

-   Visits occurred monthly in four cases.

-   Visits occurred less than monthly in five cases, with no visits
    occurring in two of these cases.

-   Visitation with mother was not applicable in two cases.

In three of the cases in which the mother and child visited less than
monthly, reviewers determined that the agency had made diligent efforts
to promote greater visitation.

Visits between children and fathers typically occurred with the
following frequency:

-   Visits occurred on a weekly basis in three cases.

-   Visits occurred twice a month in one case.

-   Visits occurred less than monthly in ten cases, with no visits
    occurring in nine of the cases.

-   Visitation with father was considered to be not applicable in eight
    cases.

In three of the ten cases in which visitation with fathers was less than
monthly, reviewers determined that the agency had made diligent efforts
to promote greater visitation.

Visits between siblings in foster care typically occurred with the
following frequency:

-   Visits occurred on a weekly basis in four cases.

-   Visits occurred twice a month in two cases.

-   Visits occurred once a month in one case.

-   Visits occurred less than monthly in seven cases, with two cases
    involving no visits.

In five of the seven cases in which visitation with siblings occurred
less frequently than once a month, reviewers determined that the agency
had made diligent efforts to promote more frequent visitation.

Cases were rated as a Strength for this item when reviewers determined
(1) that frequency of visitation between the child and mother, father,
and siblings, was of sufficient frequency to meet the needs of the child
and family, or (2) that the frequency was not sufficient, but the agency
had made diligent efforts to promote more frequent visitation. Reviewers
noted that caseworkers frequently promoted visitation by engaging
providers and foster parents to help with visitation, and by providing
transportation (including air transportation) to support parent-child
contact.

Cases were assigned a rating of Area Needing Improvement when it was
determined that (1) visits with siblings were not of sufficient
frequency to meet the child's needs (4 cases), (2) the agency had not
made sufficient efforts to locate the father and promote visitation (1
case), or (3) the quality of the visitation with parents was not
sufficient to promote the child's goal of reunification (1 case).

Some stakeholders commenting on this issue expressed concern that
although in most cases siblings are placed together, when siblings are
separated in foster care, there is little visitation. In contrast,
reviewers noted that in cases in which siblings were separated, the
foster parents facilitated visitation. A few stakeholders suggested that
visitation is problematic because of worker caseloads and that it is
often left up to the foster parents to arrange.

***Determination and Discussion:*** Item 13 was assigned an overall
rating of Area Needing Improvement because in 27 percent of the cases,
reviewers determined that DFYS had not made diligent efforts to promote
children's visitation with parents and siblings in foster care.
According to the Statewide Assessment, comments from a variety of
sources indicated that DFYS has difficulty complying with the visitation
plans that are developed in case plans. This may be attributed to a lack
of "family-friendly" facilities and to worker caseloads that make it
difficult for them to provide more than 1 hour of supervised visitation
per week. The Statewide Assessment noted that Anchorage has a new
visitation center.

**Item 14. Preserving connections**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

***Review Findings:*** Item 14 was applicable for assessment in all 23
foster care cases. In assessing item 14, reviewers were to determine
whether the agency had made, or was making, diligent efforts to preserve
the child\'s connections to family, neighborhood, community, traditions,
family, faith, and friends while the child was in foster care. The
assessment resulted in the following findings:

-   Item 14 was rated as a Strength in 17 (74%) of the 23 applicable
    cases.

-   Item 14 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement in 6 (26%) of the
    23 applicable cases.

Reviewers indicated that in 16 of the 23 cases, children\'s primary
connections had been "significantly" preserved while they were in foster
care, and in 7 of the 23 cases, children's primary connections had been
"partially" preserved. One case in which a child\'s primary connections
were rated as partially maintained was appropriately rated a strength on
the overall item. In 16 cases, the child was an Alaska Native, and in 14
of these cases, reviewers noted that the Tribe had been notified of the
placement in a timely manner. Seven of the 16 Native children were
placed with extended family or a Tribal family.

Cases were rated as a Strength for this item when reviewers determined
that critical primary connections were "significantly" preserved. Cases
were rated as an Area Needing Improvement for this item when reviewers
determined that connections with extended family had been "partially"
preserved while the child was in foster care, and/or the child's
connections with the traditions and customs of his Tribe had not been
adequately maintained in the placement.

Stakeholders commenting on this issue expressed different perceptions
with regard to the agency's efforts to work with the Tribes to ensure
that children's connections to their heritage are preserved. While
stakeholders in one site expressed the opinion that the agency does an
outstanding job in adhering to the requirements of the Indian Child
Welfare Act (ICWA), stakeholders in another site suggested that Tribes
are not receiving notification early enough, although they acknowledged
that there have been improvements in this area.

Stakeholders were in agreement that relative placements contribute to
preserving children's ties to their heritage and communities. Some
stakeholders noted, however, that for Native children it sometimes is
difficult to find relative placements. Stakeholders in one site
indicated that many non-Native foster parents encourage participation of
their foster children in cultural activities, will prepare Native foods,
and will attempt to link children to members of the Tribe for specific
activities. It was noted that Tribes generally will support non-relative
or non-Tribal placements when the foster parents maintain contacts with
the Tribe. However, in another site, it was noted that some non-Native
foster parents do not give sufficient attention to cultural issues to
help the child maintain those ties.

***Determination and Discussion:*** Item 14 was assigned an overall
rating of Area Needing Improvement because in 26 percent of the cases,
reviewers determined that DFYS had not made diligent efforts to maintain
connections to family, community, culture, faith, and friends for
children in foster care. As noted in the Statewide Assessment, this
issue is of critical importance because approximately 50 percent of the
children in care are Alaska Natives. (Of the cases reviewed,
approximately 70 percent were Alaska Native.)

**Item 15. Relative placement**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

***Review Findings:*** All 23 foster care cases were applicable for an
assessment of item 15. In assessing this item, reviewers were to
determine whether the agency had made diligent efforts to locate and
assess relatives (both maternal and paternal relatives) as potential
placement resources for children in foster care. The results of this
assessment were the following:

-   Item 15 was rated as a Strength in 16 (70%) of the 23 applicable
    cases.

-   Item 15 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement in 7 (30%) of the
    23 applicable cases.

Cases were rated as a Strength when reviewers determined that children
were already placed with relatives (7 cases) or that children were not
placed with relatives, but the agency had made diligent efforts to seek
relatives and assess them as placement resources (9 cases). In most of
these latter cases, relatives had been considered but not accepted. Of
the seven children placed with relatives, two were placed with a
maternal aunt or uncle, three with a maternal grandparent, and two with
a paternal grandparent.

This item was rated as an Area Needing Improvement when reviewers
determined the following:

-   The agency had not explored relatives as potential placement
    resources (3 cases).

-   The agency had not searched for paternal relatives, even though the
    maternal relatives identified were not interested in taking the
    children (3 cases).

-   The agency had conducted a limited exploration of potential relative
    placements, not going beyond immediate relatives (1 case).

Stakeholders commenting on this issue suggested that lack of sufficient
relative searches for children needing placement is a general problem
for the agency, particularly for Native children. As one stakeholder
noted, if the agency does not search for relatives early on, then the
children usually end up in a "non-preference" placement.

Stakeholders expressed differing opinions regarding the role of ICWA
workers in searching for relatives. Although some stakeholders suggested
that for Native children, ICWA workers should assist the agency in
seeking relative placements, other stakeholders reported that sometimes
ICWA workers believe that DFYS is asking them to be responsible for this
effort when the agency should be conducting the search and assessing the
relatives.

***Determination and Discussion:*** Item 15 was assigned an overall
rating of Area Needing Improvement because reviewers determined that in
30 percent of the cases, DFYS had not made diligent efforts to locate
and assess relatives as potential placement resources. A primary problem
identified was that workers were not fully exploring paternal relatives
as placement options. The Statewide Assessment notes that 30 percent of
children in foster care are in placement with relatives. This is
consistent with findings of the review that 7 of 23 children in foster
care were placed with relatives.

**Item 16. Relationship of child in care with parents**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

***Review Findings:*** An assessment of item 16 was applicable for 21 of
the 23 foster care cases. A case was considered not applicable for an
assessment of this item if parental rights had been terminated and
parents were no longer involved with the child, or if a relationship
with the parents was considered to be not in the child's best interests.
In assessing this item, reviewers were to determine whether the agency
had made diligent efforts to support or maintain the bond between the
child and both of his/her parents through visitation and provision of
services that promote bonding. The results of this assessment were the
following:

-   Item 16 was rated as a Strength in 17 (81%) of the 21 applicable
    cases.

-   Item 16 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement in 4 (19%) of the
    21 applicable cases.

This item was rated as a Strength when reviewers determined that (1)
there was a strong bond between the parent and the child that DFYS
supported through facilitating frequent visitation or, (2) there was not
a strong bond between the parent and the child, but DFYS made concerted
efforts to promote bonding through frequent visitation or services
designed to strengthen the parent-child relationship. These services
included parenting classes, therapy/counseling, and in-home services
designed to enhance parenting skills.

In two of the cases rated as Area Needing Improvement for this item,
reviewers determined that DFYS had not made diligent efforts to locate
or engage the father. In one case, reviewers determined that
insufficient efforts were made to promote a bond between parent and
child. In another case, the reviewers rated the case as Area Needing
Improvement because the agency had not promoted the relationship prior
to TPR nor subsequent to TPR despite evidence that the parent and child
desire to maintain this relationship.

Stakeholders in one site noted that workers in that site made concerted
efforts to support the bond between parents and children in foster care
by ensuring that they had frequent contact with one another and by
involving parents in decision making and in activities such as taking
children to medical and dental appointments. Some stakeholders noted,
however, that efforts to locate absent fathers are not being
consistently implemented throughout the agency and when attempts are
made to find fathers, it is more likely to be related to filing for TPR
than to building or maintaining a relationship with the child.

***Determination and Discussion***: Item 16 was assigned an overall
rating of Area Needing Improvement because reviewers determined that in
19 percent of applicable cases, the agency had not made diligent efforts
to support the parent-child relationships of children in foster care.
Information from both case reviews and stakeholder interviews suggests
that a key concern with regard to this issue is the inconsistency of
agency efforts to locate absent fathers and to promote relationships
between children and fathers.

**III. CHILD AND FAMILY WELL-BEING**

**Well-Being Outcome 1**

+---------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+----------+
| # Outcome           |       |        |        |         |          |
|  WB1: Families have |       |        |        |         |          |
|  enhanced capacity  |       |        |        |         |          |
| to provide for thei |       |        |        |         |          |
| r children's needs. |       |        |        |         |          |
+---------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+----------+
| **Number of cases   |       |        |        |         |          |
| reviewed by the     |       |        |        |         |          |
| team according to   |       |        |        |         |          |
| degree of outcome   |       |        |        |         |          |
| achievement:**      |       |        |        |         |          |
+---------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+----------+
|                     | **A   | **Ma   | **     | **Total | **Total  |
|                     | nchor | t-Su** | Nome** | N       | Perc     |
|                     | age** |        |        | umber** | entage** |
+---------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+----------+
| Substantially       | 4     | 6      | 4      | 14      | 28.0     |
| Achieved:           |       |        |        |         |          |
+---------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+----------+
| Partially Achieved: | 13    | 4      | 5      | 22      | 44.0     |
+---------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+----------+
| Not Achieved or     | 9     | 2      | 3      | 14      | 28.0     |
| Addressed:          |       |        |        |         |          |
+---------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+----------+
| Not Applicable:     | 0     | 0      | 0      |         |          |
+---------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+----------+

**STATUS OF WELL-BEING OUTCOME 1**

Alaska did not achieve substantial conformity with Well-Being Outcome 1.
This determination was based on the finding that the outcome was rated
as substantially achieved for 28.0 percent of the cases reviewed, which
is less than the 90 percent required for a determination of substantial
conformity.

A general CFSR finding was that DFYS is not effective in its efforts to
ensure that families have enhanced capacity to provide for their
children's needs. In many cases, the service needs of children, parents,
and foster parents were neither assessed nor addressed and DFYS did not
consistently involve parents and children in the case planning process.
However, the key concerns identified related to caseworker visits with
children and parents. In over 70 percent of the cases, reviewers
determined that the frequency and quality of visitation with both
children and parents was not adequate to meet the needs of the child or
promote attainment of case goals.

Findings pertaining to the specific items assessed under Well-Being
Outcome 1 are presented and discussed below.

**Item 17. Needs and services of child, parents, foster parents**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

***Review Findings:*** An assessment of item 17 was applicable for all
50 cases. In assessing this item, reviewers were to determine whether
the agency had (1) adequately assessed the needs of children, parents,
and foster parents; and (2) provided the services necessary to meet
those needs. The results were the following:

-   Item 17 was rated as a Strength in 26 (52%) of the 50 applicable
    cases (15 of which were foster care cases).

-   Item 17 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement in 24 (48%) of the
    50 applicable cases (8 of which were foster care cases).

Reviewers made the following determinations from the case records and
case-related interviews:

-   Children\'s needs were assessed in 39 of the 50 cases and services
    were provided in 37 cases**.**

-   Mothers' needs were assessed in 35 of the 47 cases for which an
    assessment of mothers' needs was applicable. Services were provided
    to mothers in all 35 cases.

-   Fathers' needs were assessed in 12 of the 24 cases for which an
    assessment of fathers' needs was considered applicable. Services
    were provided in 10 of those cases.

-   Foster parents\' needs were assessed in 12 of the 21 cases involving
    foster parents and services were provided in 16 cases.

Cases were rated as a Strength for this item when there were no unmet
assessment or service needs for the children, parents, or foster
parents.

A rating of Area Needing Improvement was assigned to cases in which
reviewers made one or more of the following determinations:

-   Father's assessment/service needs were not adequately addressed (6
    cases).

-   Mother's assessment/service needs were not adequately addressed (13
    cases).

-   Child\'s assessment/service needs were not adequately addressed (15
    cases).

-   Foster parent's assessment/service needs were not adequately
    addressed (9 cases).

-   Services provided to children did not meet their needs (2 cases).

-   No services were provided (1 case).

Both reviewers and stakeholders commenting on this issue expressed
concerns about the quality and comprehensiveness of services in cases
that were referred to the dual track agency. Reviewers and stakeholders
also both noted that while the agency conducts many assessments at the
onset of a case, assessments are not always conducted on an ongoing
basis. Stakeholders suggested that this may be attributed to the high
caseloads that workers carry that prohibit all but the most essential
activities. In addition, in one site, stakeholders noted that foster
parents often are not getting their needs met and feel that they are not
being heard by the agency.

Some stakeholders in one site suggested that workers are not always
aware of the services that are available to families, and consequently
the families do not receive those services. Stakeholders in another site
suggested that service provision is limited by the poor quality of the
case plans. As one stakeholder noted, "case plans for seriously abused
children look like case plans for neglect." There is no effort to
identify and then address underlying family issues.

***Determination and Discussion:*** Item 17 was assigned an overall
rating of Area Needing Improvement because in 48 percent of the cases,
reviewers determined that DFYS had not been effective in addressing the
needs and services of children, parents, and/or foster parents. A
specific problem identified from the case review process was inadequate
assessments that resulted in a failure to capture and address underlying
problems for both children and parents. Another concern was that foster
parents are in need of services that they are not receiving. According
to the Statewide Assessment, workers are required to develop case plans
that assess families\' priority needs and protective capacities. The
Statewide Assessment also noted that participants of a Roundtable held
during the State's self-assessment process indicated a need for more
focus on the child, including medical, special needs, and assessment of
counseling needs.

**Item 18. Child and family involvement in case planning**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

***Review Findings:*** An assessment of item 18 was applicable for all
50 cases. In assessing this item, reviewers were to determine whether
parents (including pre-adoptive parents or permanent caregivers) and
children (if age-appropriate) had been involved in the case planning
process, and if not, whether their involvement was contrary to the
child\'s best interest. A determination of involvement in case planning
required that a parent (or child) had actively participated in
identifying the services and goals included in the case plan. This
assessment produced the following findings:

-   Item 18 was rated as a Strength in 24 (48%) of the 50 cases (13 of
    which were foster care cases).

-   Item 18 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement in 26 (52%) of the
    50 cases (10 of which were foster care cases).

In assessing this item, reviewers made the following determinations:

-   Mothers were appropriately involved in the case planning process in
    31 cases. In 16 cases, the mother was not involved but should have
    been. There was one case in which the mother was not available to
    participate, and two cases in which the mother\'s participation was
    considered to be contrary to the child\'s best interest.

-   Fathers were appropriately involved in the case planning process in
    11 cases. In 18 cases the father was not involved but should have
    been. There were 16 cases in which the father was not available to
    participate, and 5 cases in which the father\'s participation was
    considered to be contrary to the child\'s best interest.

-   Children were appropriately involved in the case planning process in
    16 cases. In 16 cases, children were not involved although reviewers
    determined that they were old enough to have been involved. There
    were 18 cases in which reviewers determined that the children were
    not old enough to participate in the case planning process.

Cases were assigned a rating of Strength for this item when reviewers
determined that all relevant parties had actively participated in the
case planning process. The item was rated an Area Needing Improvement
when reviewers determined that one or more of the key parties had not
been involved in the case planning process. Although fathers were most
likely not to be involved in the case planning process, there were many
cases in which mothers and children were not involved. .

A Tribal stakeholder commented that there was no consultation with
Tribes on case plan development. This stakeholder said that the Tribes
and parents are told to sign the plans that are developed by DFYS and
parents are considered non-compliant if they refuse. Some other Tribes
commented that increased involvement, often earlier, was desirable.

***Determination and Discussion:*** Item 18 was assigned an overall
rating of Area Needing Improvement based on the finding that in

52 percent of the applicable cases, reviewers determined that DFYS had
not appropriately involved parents or children in the case planning
process. According to the Statewide Assessment, Roundtable participants
reported that there had been a significant increase in parent
participation in case planning recently, and noted that the time spent
connecting with parents resulted in more successful engagement of the
parents. However, social workers surveyed as part of the State's
self-assessment process indicated that the initial case plan usually is
not developed with parent involvement and that it is more common for
workers to develop the initial case plan and present it to family
members. Lack of involvement in case planning was attributed in the
Statewide Assessment to workload issues and difficulties engaging some
parents.

**Item 19. Worker visits with child**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

***Review Findings:*** All 50 cases were applicable for an assessment of
item 19. In conducting this assessment, reviewers were to determine
whether the frequency of visits between the caseworkers and the children
were sufficient to ensure adequate monitoring of the child\'s safety and
well-being and whether visits focused on issues pertinent to case
planning, service delivery, and goal attainment. The results of the
assessment were the following:

-   Item 19 was rated as a Strength in 14 (28%) of the 50 applicable
    cases (10 of which were foster care cases).

-   Item 19 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement in 36 (72%) of the
    50 applicable cases (13 of which were foster care cases).

Reviewers noted the following with respect to frequency and quality of
visits for the 23 foster care cases:

-   In 1 case, visits typically occurred once a week.

-   In 1 case, visits typically occurred twice a month.

-   In 8 cases, visits typically occurred once a month.

-   In 13 cases, visits typically occurred less frequently than once a
    month.

-   In 19 cases, reviewers determined that visits focused on issues
    pertinent to case planning, service delivery, and goal attainment.

Reviewers noted the following with respect to frequency of visits for
the 27 in-home cases:

-   In 2 cases, visits typically occurred once a week.

-   In 1 case, visits typically occurred twice a month.

-   In 3 cases, visits typically occurred once a month.

-   In 21 cases, visits occurred less frequently than once a monthly.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In 11 cases, reviewers determined that visits focused on issues
    pertinent to case planning, service delivery, and goal attainment.

Cases were assigned a rating of Strength for this item when reviewers
determined that the frequency and quality of visits between caseworkers
and children were sufficient to ensure adequate monitoring of the
child\'s safety and well-being. Cases were rated as an Area Needing
Improvement when reviewers determined that visits were not conducted
with sufficient frequency.

Stakeholders commenting on this issue noted that due to high caseloads,
caseworker turnover, and weather and transportation problems most,
caseworkers do not have a sufficient level of face-to-face contact with
the children in their cases. A few stakeholders suggested, however, that
some workers are visiting foster care children and their foster parents
on a fairly frequent basis.

***Determination and Discussion:*** Item 19 was assigned an overall
rating of Area Needing Improvement based on the finding that in 72
percent of the cases, reviewers determined that caseworker visits with
children were not of sufficient frequency to ensure their safety and
well being. The State assessment noted that in 2002 the agency upgraded
its worker-child contact requirements to require substantive individual
face-to-face monthly communication. The new policy also requires the
worker to contact the substitute care provider monthly. Previously, the
contact standard for worker-child contact was based on risk, distance,
and worker service level. The Statewide Assessment and the onsite review
indicate, that workers experience difficulty visiting children in the
homes in which they reside and meeting the contact standards for
children in foster care, usually due to distance and high caseloads.

# Item 20. Worker visits with parents

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

***Review Findings:*** An assessment of item 20 was applicable for 46 of
the 50 applicable cases. Cases that were considered not applicable for
an assessment of this item were those in which (1) parental rights had
been terminated and the parents were no longer involved in planning for
the child; or (2) the parents could not be located despite diligent
efforts by the agency. Reviewers were to assess whether the caseworker
had sufficient face-to-face contact with the children's mothers and
fathers to promote attainment of the child\'s permanency goal or to
ensure the child\'s safety and well being. The results of this
assessment were the following:

-   Item 20 was rated as a Strength in 13 (28%) of the 46 applicable
    cases (9 of which were foster care cases).

-   Item 20 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement in 33 (72%) of the
    46 applicable cases (10 of which were foster care cases).

In assessing item 20, case reviewers made the following determinations
regarding workers visits with mothers:

-   In 2 cases, mothers were visited weekly.

-   In 3 cases, mothers were visited twice a month.

-   In 8 cases, mothers were visited monthly.

-   In 31 cases, mothers were visited less frequently than once a month,
    with one case involving no visits with mother.

-   In 6 cases, visitation with mother was considered not applicable.

-   For 30 of the 44 applicable cases, visits with mothers dealt with
    issues pertaining to attainment of the child\'s goal.

Reviewers made the following determinations regarding workers' visits
with fathers:

-   In 1 case, the father was visited weekly.

-   In 2 cases, the fathers were visited monthly.

-   In 29 cases, fathers were visited less frequently than once a month,
    with 8 cases involving no visits with father.

-   In 18 cases, worker visits with fathers were not applicable

-   In 19 of 32 applicable cases, visits with fathers dealt with issues
    pertaining to attainment of the child\'s goal.

This item was rated as a Strength when reviewers determined that visits
occurred with sufficient frequency to meet the needs of parents and
children and that visits focused on issues pertinent to case planning,
service delivery, and goal attainment. Cases were rated as an Area
Needing Improvement when reviewers determined that visits were not
sufficiently frequent to meet the needs of parents and children.

***Determination and Discussion.*** This item was assigned an overall
rating of Area Needing Improvement because in 72 percent of the
applicable cases, reviewers determined that caseworker visits with
parents were not of sufficient frequency or quality to promote the
safety and well-being of the child or enhance attainment of permanency.
This was particularly challenging for in-home cases. In 23 of 27 in-home
cases, reviewers rated this item as an Area Needing Improvement.
According to the Statewide Assessment, in January of 2002 the State
contact standard between parents and social worker was established at
one time per month in the parent\'s home.

**Well-Being Outcome 2**

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

  **Number of cases                                                         
  reviewed by the team                                                      
  according to degree of                                                    
  outcome achievement:**                                                    

                         **Anchorage**   **Mat-Su**   **Nome**   **Total    **Total
                                                                 Number**   Percentage**

  Substantially          18              7            6          31         79.5
  Achieved:                                                                 

  Partially Achieved:    0               1            2          3          7.7

  Not Achieved or        3               1            1          5          12.8
  Addressed:                                                                

  Not Applicable:        5               3            3          11         
  ---------------------- --------------- ------------ ---------- ---------- --------------

**STATUS OF WELL-BEING OUTCOME 2**

Alaska did not achieve substantial conformity with Well-Being Outcome 2
based on the finding that 79.5 percent of the cases reviewed were found
to have substantially achieved this outcome. This is less than the 90
percent required for substantial conformity.

The findings for the item assessed for Well Being Outcome 2 are
presented below.

**Item 21. Educational needs of the child**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

***Review Findings:*** An assessment of item 21 was applicable for 39 of
the 50 cases reviewed. Cases that were not applicable for assessment
were foster care cases in which the children were too young to be
enrolled in school or preschool, or in-home services cases in which the
children did not have needs pertaining to education-related issues and
the caseworker did not take any actions in that arena. In assessing this
item, reviewers were to determine whether children\'s educational needs
were appropriately assessed and whether services were provided to meet
those needs. The results of this assessment were the following:

-   Item 21 was rated as a Strength in 31 (79%) of the 39 applicable
    cases (21 of which were foster care cases).

-   Item 21 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement in 8 (21%) of the
    39 applicable cases (2 of which were foster care cases).

Ten in-home services cases were rated as a Strength for this item when
reviewers determined that the caseworkers actively participated in
efforts to assess children\'s educational needs and ensure that services
were provided. In-home services cases were rated as an Area Needing
Improvement for this item when reviewers determined that children in the
family had education-related needs that should have been addressed by
the caseworker, but were not.

Twenty-one foster care cases were assigned a rating of Strength for this
item because reviewers determined that either the DFYS caseworker or the
foster parents took responsibility for ensuring that the children\'s
education-related needs were met and educational records were documented
in the case files. Foster care cases were assigned a rating of Area
Needing Improvement when reviewers determined that educational needs
were not fully assessed or addressed.

Stakeholders commenting on this issue noted that when children are in
foster care, the agency usually expects the foster parents to address
any educational needs or issues and advocate for the children with the
school system. Some stakeholders expressed the opinion that foster
parents receive adequate information from the agency about the
children's educational status, but others reported that many foster
parents do not receive this information at the time of placement.
Stakeholders in one site voiced concern that caseworkers and foster
parents do not understand the education system well enough to advocate
for the children and that more training is needed in this area.

***Determination and Discussion:*** Item 21 was assigned an overall
rating of Area Needing Improvement because reviewers determined that in
21 percent of the cases, the educational needs of children were not
effectively and appropriately addressed. The key problem identified
pertained to in-home services cases in which children had
education-related issues to which the agency was not responding.
Although the Statewide Assessment noted that maintaining children in
their "home" school is challenging given the number of moves in foster
care and transportation difficulties, this was a problem for only four
of the foster care children in the 23 foster care cases reviewed.

**Well-Being Outcome 3**

  ---------------------- --------------- ------------ ---------- ---------- --------------
  **Outcome WB3:                                                            
  Children receive                                                          
  adequate services to                                                      
  meet their physical                                                       
  and mental health                                                         
  needs.**                                                                  

  **Number of cases                                                         
  reviewed by the team                                                      
  according to degree of                                                    
  outcome achievement:**                                                    

                         **Anchorage**   **Mat-Su**   **Nome**   **Total    **Total
                                                                 Number**   Percentage**

  Substantially          18              7            5          30         65.2
  Achieved:                                                                 

  Partially Achieved:    4               0            1          5          10.9

  Not Achieved or        4               3            4          11         23.9
  Addressed:                                                                

  Not Applicable:        0               2            2          4          
  ---------------------- --------------- ------------ ---------- ---------- --------------

**STATUS OF WELL-BEING OUCOME 3**

Alaska did not achieve substantial conformity with Well-Being Outcome 3.
This determination was based on the finding that the outcome was rated
as substantially achieved in 65.2 percent of the applicable cases, which
is less than the 90 percent required for a determination of substantial
conformity.

The key problems identified with respect to physical health services
were inconsistencies with regard to (1) providing health screenings for
children at entry into foster care, and (2) providing foster parents
with children's health records. The concerns identified with regard to
mental health services pertained to inconsistencies with regard to
assessing children's mental health needs and providing the necessary
mental health services.

Findings pertaining to the specific items assessed under Well-Being
Outcome 3 are presented and discussed below.

**Item 22. Physical health of the child**

\_\_\_\_ Strength \_[X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

***Review Findings:*** An assessment of item 22 was applicable for 30 of
the 50 cases reviewed. Cases that were not applicable for this
assessment were in-home services cases for which no physical health
issues were identified. In assessing this item, reviewers were to
determine whether (1) children\'s physical health needs had been
appropriately assessed, and (2) the services designed to meet those
needs had been, or were being, provided. The findings of this assessment
were the following:

-   Item 22 was rated as a Strength in 23 (77%) of the 30 applicable
    cases (19 of which were foster care cases).

-   Item 22 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement in 7 (23%) of the
    30 applicable cases (4 of which were foster care cases).

Additional findings in the assessment of foster care cases for this item
were the following:

-   In 6 cases, the children did not receive a health screening at entry
    into foster care.

-   In 2 cases, children had health needs that were not addressed.

-   In 2 cases, children did not receive preventive health services
    (i.e., did not receive regular physical examinations).

-   In 2 cases, children did not have regular dental check ups.

-   In 7 cases, foster parents were not given health records at the time
    of placement.

Additional findings in the assessment of in-home services cases for this
item were the following:

-   In 3 cases, children had medical needs that were not addressed by
    the caseworkers.

-   In 1 case, the child was not receiving needed dental services and
    the caseworker did not make efforts to ensure that this service was
    received.

In general, cases were rated as a Strength when reviewers determined
that the children\'s health needs were assessed and services provided as
needed, including regular preventive services. Cases were rated as an
Area Needing Improvement when reviewers determined that children's
health needs (including dental health and a need for eye glasses) were
not adequately addressed (7 cases).

[]{.mark}

Stakeholders commenting on this issue in one site noted that some of the
remote villages have health aides that assist children and families in
those communities and are in contact with doctors on a daily basis.
Other stakeholders commenting on this issue reported that foster parents
do not always receive health information on a child at the time of
placement, and do not view themselves as responsible for arranging for
the children's health screening at the time of placement.

***Determination and Discussion:*** Item 22 was assigned an overall
rating of Area Needing Improvement based on the finding that in 23
percent of the applicable cases, reviewers determined that DFYS was not
adequately addressing the health needs of children in foster care and
in-home services cases. A key problem identified was that children's
health needs were not being appropriately assessed particularly at entry
into foster care. According to the Statewide Assessment, State policy
requires the care provider to arrange for a routine physical exam of a
child within 30 days if the child is under three years of age and has
not had an exam within the last 3 months, or if the child is over 3 and
has not had an exam within one year. Alaska Native Health Services is a
resource for medical and dental care for Alaska Native children; in
rural areas community health aides are used to assist with medical care.
Many communities have medical providers that accept Medicaid but few
dentists are willing to accept Medicaid. The Statewide Assessment also
noted that the State child welfare division has provided for medical and
dental services when needed. Anchorage has a health passport program
operating in three work units to track the medical care of children less
than seven years of age and children with special health care needs.
Eligible children\'s health needs are screened and tracked by a public
health nurse co-located in the Anchorage office.

**Item 23. Mental health of the child**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

***Review Findings:*** An assessment of item 23 was applicable for 41 of
the 50 cases reviewed. Cases that were not applicable were foster care
cases in which the child was too young for an assessment of mental
health needs, and in-home services cases in which the children\'s mental
health needs were not an issue. In assessing this item, reviewers were
to determine whether (1) mental health needs had been appropriately
assessed and, (2) appropriate services to address those needs had been
offered or provided. The findings of this assessment were the following:

-   Item 23 was rated as a Strength in 27 (66%) of the 41 applicable
    cases (15 of which were foster care cases).

-   Item 23 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement in 14 (34%) of the
    41 applicable cases (5 of which were foster care cases).

For the 41 applicable cases, reviewers noted that children\'s mental
health needs were \"significantly assessed\" in 26 cases, "partially
assessed" in 9 cases, and "not at all assessed" in 6 cases. Reviewers
also reported that mental health needs were "significantly met" in 24
cases, "partially met" in 9 cases, "not at all" met in 7 cases and one
case was \"not applicable\" because it was assessed and no needs were
identified.

Cases were assigned a rating of Strength if mental health needs were
\"significantly\" assessed and the children\'s mental health needs were
\"significantly\" met. Some cases were also assigned a rating of
Strength if mental health needs were partially assessed but
significantly met. The item was rated as an Area Needing Improvement
when reviewers determined that assessments and services were provided
"partially" or "not at all".

Stakeholder's comments on this issue primarily addressed the lack of
mental health services across the State. Stakeholders also expressed
concern regarding the lack of services for children who are diagnosed as
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) or Fetal Alcohol Exposure (FAE). Although
there is a newly trained FAS team, it was noted that this team can serve
only12 children a year.

***Determination and Discussion:*** Item 23 was assigned an overall
rating of Area Needing Improvement because in 34 percent of the
applicable cases, reviewers determined that DFYS was not meeting
children\'s mental health needs. According to the Statewide Assessment,
there is a general lack of mental health services, particularly
culturally relevant mental health services. In addition, rural and
remote areas receive mental health services on an itinerant basis and
services are not always available during a time of crisis. Roundtable
participants noted a need for more child psychiatrists and clinicians
with knowledge of child development. However, the Statewide Assessment
noted that there are mental health services for seriously emotionally
disturbed children.

**2. SYSTEMIC FACTORS**

**IV. STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM**

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| #           |             |             |             |             |
|  Rating of  |             |             |             |             |
| Review Team |             |             |             |             |
|  Regarding  |             |             |             |             |
| Substantial |             |             |             |             |
|  Conformity |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Rating      | # Not in    |             | #           |             |
|             | Substantial |             | Substantial |             |
|             |  Conformity |             |  Conformity |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | 1           | 2           | 3X          | 4           |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

**STATUS OF STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM**

Alaska is in substantial conformity with the factor of Statewide
Information System. Findings with respect to the item assessed for this
factor are presented below.

**Item 24. State is operating a Statewide information system that, at a
minimum, can readily identify the status, demographic**

**characteristics, location, and goals for the placement of every child
who is (or within the immediately preceding 12**

**months, has been) in foster care.**

[\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Strength [\_\_ \_\_]{.underline} Area Needing
Improvement

This item was rated a Strength because information on the status,
demographic characteristics, location and goals for each child in foster
care is retrievable from the State\'s data system.

According to the Statewide Assessment, DFYS\' information
system---called PROBER---can identify the demographic characteristics,
legal status, placement, and permanency goals for children in foster
care. The system was first developed in 1976 and efforts in the late
1990s to replace it with a Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information
System (SACWIS) failed when the development contractor was unable to
fulfill the obligation. Alaska is in the process of hiring a new firm to
develop and implement a SACWIS system called ORCA (Online Resources for
Children in Alaska) by September 2004.

According to the Statewide Assessment, the State believes that the data
system does not meet its needs for a case management system and does not
collect much of the data needed for the Federal data reporting
requirements for the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting
System (AFCARS) or the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System
(NCANDS).

The Statewide Assessment identified the following strengths of the
PROBER data system.

-   Data are available in all offices.

-   Information on reports of harm as well as placement and custody
    history on children placed in out-of-home care are collected and are
    accessible.

-   Reports can be generated for local and central offices.

The problems identified were:

-   It is difficult to combine data and generate reports.

-   It is necessary to use other data systems such as the Provider
    Payment System and the Adoption DataBase to fill in information
    gaps.

-   There are problems with the quality of the data.

-   PROBER relies on replicated data base technology.

The Statewide Assessment notes that Roundtable participants complimented
DFYS on fully utilizing PROBER despite its limitations. However,
Roundtable participants also voiced concerns about the difficulties of
entering data into the system and the fact that the ability to modify
PROBER to meet changing needs is extremely limited.

Stakeholders commenting on this issue expressed views consistent with
information reported in the Statewide Assessment. Stakeholders noted
that almost all workers have desktop access to the system, find the
system's e-mail helpful, and use the system to find information on
families. Stakeholders indicated that information on demographics,
status, location, and goals are available in the information system.
Some Stakeholders noted that they use some of the management reports
generated by the system, but others indicated that they do not have
confidence in the information included in these reports. The primary
concern regarding the information in the system pertains to how
up-to-date it is rather than its quality. Stakeholders expressed the
opinion that there are delays in entering the data and that this may be
due to the cumbersome data entry process. Stakeholders also noted that
that one of the non-PROBER data systems is needed to obtain the location
of children placed in unlicensed homes. Stakeholders expressed a need
for a tracking system for reviews and hearings.

# V. CASE REVIEW SYSTEM

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| #           |             |             |             |             |
|  Rating of  |             |             |             |             |
| Review Team |             |             |             |             |
|  Regarding  |             |             |             |             |
| Substantial |             |             |             |             |
|  Conformity |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Rating      | # Not in    |             | #           |             |
|             | Substantial |             | Substantial |             |
|             |  Conformity |             |  Conformity |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | 1           | 2X          | 3           | 4           |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

# STATUS OF CASE REVIEW SYSTEM

Alaska is not in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Case
Review System. Findings with regard to specific items assessed for this
factor are presented below.

**Item 25. Provides a process that ensures that each child has a written
case plan to be developed jointly with the child's**

**parent(s) that includes the required provisions.**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

Item 25 was rated an Area Needing Improvement because of the lack of
clear goal-oriented case plans and the lack of a system to consistently
and actively involve parents and children in case planning.

According to the Statewide Assessment, DFYS policy requires that all
casework activities be planned in conjunction with families, and that
case plans should be discussed at each client visit with regard to the
progress being made. Case planning is intended to include parents, care
providers, Guardians Ad Litem, the child (if age appropriate), and a
representative from the child's Tribe for all Native children. Initial
case planning is to begin within 1 week of removal of the child from the
home and must be completed no later than 60 days after removal of the
child from the home**.** The Statewide Assessment also reports that the
plan must be structured to parallel Federal requirements and State
initiatives in areas of safety, permanency, child and family well-being,
and cultural continuity.

The following comments and concerns regarding case plan development and
parent involvement were noted in the Statewide Assessment:

-   Roundtable participants reported a significant increase in parent
    participation in case planning.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Survey respondents noted that case plans often are written by and
    for social workers and service providers and not for parents and are
    developed or changed without much input from outside of the agency.

-   Some case plans are developed with parents over the telephone due to
    high caseloads.

-   Activities that support cultural continuity are not always addressed
    in case plans.

-   Tribes need to be involved earlier in the case planning process.

-   Lack of primary language and/or use of jargon can contribute to lack
    of understanding of case plans.

-   Parental involvement is difficult when parents are in denial.

-   Initial case plans frequently do not have parent involvement but are
    developed by the social workers and presented to the family.

The Statewide Assessment identified the following challenges to
involving parents in case planning process:

-   High caseloads.

-   The fact that the parents' attorneys sometimes encourage resistance
    to involvement in case planning.

-   The fact that the parents have limited abilities or disagree with
    agency involvement.

The Statewide Assessment also identified the following efforts to
improve the case planning process:

-   Development of a Parent Handbook that outlines the Child in Need of
    Aid process.

-   The Administrative Review process.

-   The implementation of Structured Decision Making (SDM) April, 2002.

-   The provision of case planning training to all workers in the
    initial training.

In two sites, stakeholders commenting on this issue expressed the
opinion that parents and children are not being appropriately involved
in case planning. Stakeholders in these sites noted that the general
message is that parents are to be involved but that there is no system
in place that ensures consistent involvement of parents or children in
this process. In contrast, stakeholders in one site reported that in
that site, case plans are developed in a timely manner and often involve
not only parents but also all relevant service providers in a team
approach. However, it was noted that at this site incarcerated parents
usually are omitted completely from case plan development*.*

Stakeholders also noted other issues relevant to the case planning
process, including the following:

-   A lack of clarity in the expectations and format for developing case
    plans for in-home services cases.

-   Some case plans in dual track cases are not goal oriented and do not
    include time limits and the responsibilities of providers.

-   A lack of specificity in case plans involving children placed in
    foster care.

Case review information indicates that the agency was not effective in
involving parents or children in the case planning process in 52 percent
of the cases.

**Item 26. Provides a process for the periodic review of the status of
each child, no less frequently than once every 6 months,**

**either by a court or by administrative review.**

[\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Strength \_\_\_\_ Area Needing Improvement

This item was rated a Strength because periodic reviews are held in a
timely manner and the quality of these reviews is reported to be
excellent.

According to the Statewide Assessment, administrative reviews are held
every 6 months in accordance with Federal regulations. In addition to
the administrative reviews, during the first year a child is in foster
care, DFYS holds a case conference at 3 months and a permanency
conference at 9 months. As noted in the Statewide Assessment, the State
believes that these efforts are effective in reviewing every child in
care in a timely manner. Administrative reviews are conducted by DFYS
and may include parents, GALs, Tribal representatives and other
community providers. DFYS employees facilitate the administrative
reviews unless the child is Native American. When the child is Native
American, the review is facilitate by the ICWA Specialist in the region

Roundtable participants noted that invited participants do not always
receive notice of the reviews in a timely manner. Also, the current data
system (PROBER) is not able to track and schedule reviews.

Stakeholders commenting on this issue were in agreement that there are
reviews of the status of each child in foster care at least once every 6
months. Some stakeholders reported that the agency is in the process of
developing a form for reviewers to track information that can be used to
help identify practice concerns or areas needing improvement.
Stakeholders said that there was a wide variety of parties participating
in the reviews and that the reviews were meaningful. In two sites,
stakeholders noted that workers encourage parents to participate in the
reviews and support participation via telephone. Stakeholders estimated
that 50 to 60 percent of parents participate in these reviews.
Stakeholders also noted that ICWA Specialists conduct reviews for cases
involving Native children and also review cases every 30 days if Native
Alaska children are not in ICWA-preferred placements.

A few stakeholders expressed concern that local citizens are not
included as members of the administrative review board. A few
stakeholders also noted that workers sometimes do not follow through on
some of the Administrative Review recommendations.

# Item 27. Provides a process that ensures that each child in foster care under the supervision of the State has a permanency 

**hearing in a qualified court or administrative body no later than 12
months from the date the child entered foster**

**care and no less frequently than every 12 months thereafter.**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

Item 27 was rated an Area Needing Improvement because permanency
hearings are not consistently held in a timely manner.

According to the Statewide Assessment, Alaska State law mandates that
the court hold a permanency hearing within 12 months after the date a
child enters foster care to determine if continued placement, as it is
being provided, is in the best interest of the child, and to develop a
permanent plan for the child. The court must review the permanent plan
at least annually thereafter until the permanency goal has been
successfully achieved. As noted in the Statewide Assessment, permanency
hearings usually occur on time, but there are sometimes delays caused by
continuances requested by one or more parties to permit additional time
to prepare for the hearings.

The Statewide Assessment also reported the following comments from
Roundtable and survey participants:

-   Permanency hearings are occurring in Anchorage and Fairbanks within
    prescribed timeframes.

-   High caseloads of agency social workers and judges can interfere
    with compliance with timelines for permanency hearings.

-   Permanency hearings are seen as helpful in moving cases to TPR or
    reunification.

-   The practice of scheduling permanency hearings at the time of
    disposition in Anchorage and Fairbanks has enhanced the timeliness
    of the hearings.

Stakeholders commenting on this issue noted that the timeliness of
permanency hearings varies across the State because some courts have
strict timeframes for the hearings while others do not. Identified
barriers to timeliness of hearings were the scheduling of court dockets,
the availability of parties, incorrect tracking from delayed
dispositional hearings, and the court practice of granting continuances.
Stakeholders also noted positively that the agency convenes permanency
planning conferences after the child has been in foster care for 9
months to prepare for the permanency hearing.

Stakeholders expressed the opinion that the timeliness of permanency
hearings would be enhanced if due dates for reviews and hearings could
be tracked through PROBER.

In one site, timeliness of hearings was a key concern for stakeholders.
In two sites, a lack of understanding of the roles of the court and the
agency in permanency planning was noted. Stakeholders in one site noted
a lack of understanding of the scope and purpose of permanency hearings.
Stakeholders also noted that courts need to establish more of a balance
between parents' rights and children's need for permanency. At present,
parents' rights seem to receive greater consideration than children's
needs.

**Item 28. Provides a process for termination of parental rights
proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Adoption**

**and Safe Families Act.**

[\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Strength \_\_\_\_ Area Needing Improvement

Item 28 was rated a Strength because the State has implemented
procedures for filing for TPR and is filing in a timely manner.

According to the Statewide Assessment, DFYS is required to report a
compelling reason to the court if TPR is not being pursued within the
required time frames. The findings of the case review process indicate
that there were two cases out of 13 applicable cases that did not meet
the time frame requirements for filing for TPR and that did not have
compelling reasons noted in the case file.

State level stakeholders and stakeholders in two sites noted that
filings are occurring within the Federal timeframes. Stakeholders at the
third site noted some inconsistencies in the timeliness filings, but
acknowledged that there are recent improvements in this area.

Stakeholders reported that the agency is not consistently documenting
compelling reasons not to file for TPR. Stakeholders in one site noted a
preference for choosing a compelling reason instead of filing because of
a misconception on the part of the court that filing unsuccessfully for
TPR would result in the need to return the child home. Stakeholders in
another site noted court delays in hearing the TPR due to granting
continuances.

**Item 29. Provides a process for foster parents, preadoptive parents,
and relative caregivers of children in foster care to be**

> **notified of, and have an opportunity to be heard in, any review or
> hearing held with respect to the child.**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

Item 29 was rated an Area Needing Improvement because foster parents do
not consistently receive notification of permanency hearings and are not
consistently provided an opportunity to be heard in accordance with
ASFA.

According to the Statewide Assessment, State law requires that DFYS must
provide notice to the parent(s), Tribe, foster parent or other
out-of-home care provider, guardian, GAL, and grandparent of all court
proceedings. Caregivers are given an opportunity to express their
concerns in case conferences and administrative reviews. Grandparents
were added to the list of people to be notified in response to recent
State legislation.

The Statewide Assessment provided the following comments from Roundtable
participants concerning this issue:

-   Notice is not provided very far in advance of the hearing.

-   Scheduling of Administrative Reviews is not always in accordance
    with foster parent's schedules.

-   All parties are not always notified of court hearing changes.

Stakeholders commenting on this issue noted that DFYS is not consistent
regarding notifying foster parents or pre-adoptive parents of hearings
and expressed concern about the timeliness of notices when they are
provided. Stakeholders indicated that the State is attempting to resolve
this issue by hiring people whose job it will be to track hearings and
issue the notifications.

Stakeholders noted that foster parents do receive timely notice of
6-month administrative reviews and participate about 50-60 percent of
the time. Stakeholders at one site noted that while foster parents have
an opportunity to be heard at the beginning of 6-month reviews, they are
excluded from the rest of the review. Some stakeholders reported that
Tribes are not regularly notified of reviews and hearings.

**VI. QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM**

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| #           |             |             |             |             |
|  Rating of  |             |             |             |             |
| Review Team |             |             |             |             |
|  Regarding  |             |             |             |             |
| Substantial |             |             |             |             |
|  Conformity |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Rating      | # Not in    |             | #           |             |
|             | Substantial |             | Substantial |             |
|             |  Conformity |             |  Conformity |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | 1           | 2x          | 3           | 4           |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

**STATUS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM**

Alaska is not in substantial conformity with the factor of Quality
Assurance System. Findings with regard to specific items assessed for
this factor are presented below.

**Item 30. The State has developed and implemented standards to ensure
that children in foster care are provided**

**quality services that protect the safety and health of the children.**

[\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Strength \_\_\_\_ Area Needing Improvement

Item 30 was rated a Strength because the State has developed and
implemented the necessary standards to protect children in foster care.

According to the Statewide Assessment, DFYS has established standards
for care through the Community Care Licensing (CCL) Manual and the Child
Protective Services (CPS) Manual. Alaska has recently developed new
policies to ensure the safety and well-being of children who come to the
attention of the agency. These include:

-   Evaluating children on whom four or more reports of harm are
    received.

-   Forwarding reports of harm received on children in foster care for
    special review by the evaluation unit.

-   Conduct new office-wide reviews by the Evaluation unit beginning in
    July 2002.

The following comments from Roundtable participants regarding this issue
were cited in the Statewide Assessment

-   When standards are developed by DFYS, they undergo extensive review
    by supervisors, providers, external agencies, and the public.

-   High caseloads create difficulty for workers in meeting practice
    requirements.

Stakeholders commenting on this issue noted that the State has new
licensing standards and an extensive policy and procedures manual
outlining timeframes, contact requirements, and other actions to be
taken to ensure safety and to protect children.

**Item 31. The State is operating an identifiable quality assurance
system that is in place in the jurisdictions where the services**

**included in the CFSP are provided, evaluates the quality of services,
identifies strengths and needs of the service**

**delivery system, provides relevant reports, and evaluates program
improvement measures implemented.**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

Item 31 was rated an Area Needing Improvement because the State does not
have a Statewide quality assurance process and has no formal process for
clients or stakeholders to evaluate agency performance.

According to the Statewide Assessment, DFYS\' primary quality assurance
activity is the case conferencing system that takes place for every
child in custody. The conference focuses on issues pertaining to safety,
permanency, and well-being for all children in foster care and are
facilitated by Regional supervisors or administrative reviewers.

The Statewide Assessment also noted that DFYS has a Balloon Project
oversight committee that provides guidance regarding quality
improvements to expedite the process of establishing permanence for
children in out-of-home care. In addition, a recently created Citizen
Review Board (CRB) will review and make recommendations regarding the
provision of child abuse prevention services and protection services to
families and children in their own homes. Alaska also has a Child
Fatality Review Team (CFRT), which is an interdisciplinary team that
reviews every child death in Alaska.

Many stakeholders commenting on this issue expressed the opinion that
the DFYS quality assurance process needs to be improved. These
stakeholders noted that there is no State-level quality assurance
process and local level efforts vary widely. In addition, there is no
formal or periodic process for clients or stakeholders to evaluate
agency performance. Some stakeholders reported that the agency is in the
process of implementing quarterly supervisory reviews and that the
evaluation unit reviews will incorporate features of the Federal CFSR
process beginning in July 2002. Stakeholders indicated that they expect
these efforts to result in improvements in both quality assurance and
practice. However, Stakeholders voiced the opinion that for the reviews
to be effective, it is critical that DFYS develop formal procedures for
sharing the results of evaluation reviews with program staff and the
training academy.

**VII. TRAINING**

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| #           |             |             |             |             |
|  Rating of  |             |             |             |             |
| Review Team |             |             |             |             |
|  Regarding  |             |             |             |             |
| Substantial |             |             |             |             |
|  Conformity |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Rating      | # Not in    |             | #           |             |
|             | Substantial |             | Substantial |             |
|             |  Conformity |             |  Conformity |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | 1           | 2           | 3X          | 4           |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

**STATUS OF TRAINING**

Alaska is in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of
Training. Findings with regard to specific items assessed for this
factor are presented below.

**Item 32. The State is operating a staff development and training
program that supports the goals and objectives in the CFSP,**

**addresses services provided under titles IV-B and IV-E, and provides
initial training for all staff who deliver these**

**services.**

[\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Strength \_\_\_\_ Area Needing Improvement

Item 32 was rated a Strength because the agency has an initial training
program and workers complete training before being assigned a caseload.
Additional training is available on a range of issues and it is
available in a variety of ways to accommodate both local and distance
learning.

As noted in the Statewide Assessment, DFYS has a contract with the
University of Alaska School of Social Work to provide a training academy
for all agency workers. The University provides training for all current
agency workers and ensures that all training meets the competencies
established by the Child Welfare League of America. The University also
tracks attendance and provides feedback to management and staff
regarding attendance. Attendance is excellent for the first six months
of employment and new workers complete basic training prior to being
assigned a caseload.

The basic training program, called Training and Orientation of New
Employees (TONE), provides ten days of training for all new social
workers that must be completed before workers are assigned a caseload.
In addition to the 10 initial days of training, workers are required to
attend 5 days in the first 6 months on the job and 11.5 more days in the
second 6 months.

According to a chart in the Statewide Assessment, 100 percent of new
workers attend the first ten days of TONE training. Almost 90 percent of
the workers attend the 2 additional TONE training sessions (5 additional
days) that are required in the first 6 months of employment**.**
According to the Statewide Assessment**,** only 55 percent of workers
complete the specialized ICWA training provided during the second 6
months, and only 48 percent of workers completed the required
specialized foster care and adoption training, also required in the
second 6 months. Subsequent information from the State of Alaska
indicates that attendance at these sessions has increased substantially
in the last 12 months.

The Statewide Assessment provided the following comments from Roundtable
and survey participants regarding the training program for new workers:

-   TONE is generally seen as improving the skills of new staff and
    providing consistency in job-related training.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Training is offered in major training sites and by distance delivery
    through computer classes.

-   Other staff are overloaded while new social workers attend training.

-   More Tribal involvement in training is needed to address local
    issues.

-   Tribal staff needs training.

Stakeholders commenting on this issue were generally positive about
TONE. They noted that all workers do receive training before being
assigned a caseload and that agency management has demonstrated a
commitment to establishing training requirements. Stakeholders also
noted that TONE is available to Tribal staff and contract staff (i.e.
dual track workers), but they usually have to pay their own travel
expenses.

**Item 33. The State provides for ongoing training for staff that
addresses the skills and knowledge base needed to carry out**

**their duties with regard to the services included in the CFSP.**

[\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Strength \_\_\_\_ Area Needing Improvement

Item 33 was rated a Strength because the State provides for ongoing
training for staff.

As noted in the Statewide Assessment, DFYS offers ongoing training to
staff who have completed the first year of training. In addition,
supervisors are offered an array of courses to enhance skills in
supervision and management. The Statewide Assessment provides the
following comments from Roundtable participants and survey respondents
regarding ongoing training.

-   Despite a 5-year emphasis on ICWA training, there continue to be
    comments that training generally lacks sufficient Tribal
    involvement.

-   Travel limitations create barriers to accessing training.

-   Social workers and collaborative partners are positive about the
    quality of the academy's training.

Stakeholders commenting on this issue reported that the Training Academy
provides an array of in-service training to DFYS staff. They noted the
training was of high quality and that efforts were made to reach all
workers by sending trainers to rural sites, and using distance learning
technologies. Specialized training has been developed in areas such as
Structured Decision Making, forensic interviewing, and adult
psychopathology. Stakeholders noted, however, that there is insufficient
training on adolescent issues, legal issues, and cultural issues, and
there is no formal process to determine workers\' training needs.

Although 23 hours of in-service training each year are mandated,
stakeholders noted that workers do not routinely attend ongoing
training. Several stakeholders noted that high caseloads make attending
training difficult for many workers.

Stakeholders also commented on the high staff turnover among
caseworkers. As one stakeholder noted, even with quality training it
takes 2 to 3 years for a worker to become really proficient. Because
workers rarely stay that long, most are not fully experienced.

Stakeholders noted that in addition to the in-service programs, the
State has full and part-time MSW and BSW stipend programs. One
stakeholder noted that a MSW and BSW practicum coordinator is placed at
the agency in Anchorage and Fairbanks and supervises a student unit.
These students share management of a caseload with the practicum
coordinator as a part of their field work.

**Item 34. The State provides training for current or prospective foster
parents, adoptive parents, and staff of State**

**licensed or approved facilities that care for children receiving
foster care or adoption assistance under title IV-E**

**that addresses the skills and knowledge base needed to carry out their
duties with regard to foster and adopted**

**children.**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

Item 34 was rated an Area Needing Improvement because foster parents are
not consistently receiving initial core training or completing ongoing
training, and they routinely provide care for children prior to
receiving training.

The Statewide Assessment notes that DFYS contracts with the Alaska
Foster Parent Training Center (AFPTC) to provide training to foster
parents. AFPTC provides orientation for foster parents in Fairbanks,
Anchorage, and Juneau; regularly scheduled training for new foster
parents (6 week/15 hour program) in Anchorage and Fairbanks; and
individual training for foster parents in other areas as resources
allow. There are specific requirements for both foster parents and
adoptive parents related to training courses that they must attend.
Course offering*s* are widely publicized.

As noted in the Statewide Assessment, Roundtable participants and survey
respondents made the following comments regarding foster parent and
adoptive parent training:

-   Training is needed regarding special needs children.

-   Foster parent training should be required prior to licensing.

-   There is a lack of training for rural caregivers and an under
    utilization of training by foster parents.

Stakeholders commenting on this issue reported that there is no
requirement that foster parents receive training before a child can be
placed in their homes and some foster parents care for children for a
period of time before receiving any training. Stakeholders noted that
core training is provided several times a year in Anchorage and in other
areas core training is available through a self-study packet.
Stakeholders expressed the opinion that the initial training for foster
parents focuses on the mechanics and technical aspects of becoming a
foster parent rather than preparing them for dealing with children who
have experienced maltreatment and may have serious behavioral and
emotional problems.

Stakeholders reported that the State requires foster parents to complete
10-15 hours of ongoing training each year and offers a variety of
ongoing training activities available through books and videos as well
as onsite training. Some stakeholders noted that foster parents perceive
training and technical assistance from the AFPTC and information
provided in the biennial foster care conference as helpful to them.
However, stakeholders noted that many foster parents do not complete the
ongoing training requirements.

Stakeholders expressed the following concerns about foster parent
training:

-   Self-study training is not the most appropriate or effective way to
    train Native Alaska foster homes.

-   Some foster parents do not receive information on how to access
    training by mail.

-   There is insufficient emphasis by DFYS on the training requirement
    and insufficient DFYS monitoring of foster parent completion of
    initial and ongoing training.

-   Some foster parents do not perceive the self-study training as
    effective.

-   Lack of child-care is a barrier to participation by some foster
    parents.

-   About 29 percent of foster homes have no documented training.

Stakeholders expressed the opinion that there is a need for more
cultural competency training for foster parents. It was noted that at
present, this training is not offered on a Statewide basis.

Stakeholders commenting on training provided to residential care
providers suggested that it is \"strong and relevant.\"

**VIII. SERVICE ARRAY**

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| #           |             |             |             |             |
|  Rating of  |             |             |             |             |
| Review Team |             |             |             |             |
|  Regarding  |             |             |             |             |
| Substantial |             |             |             |             |
|  Conformity |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Rating      | # Not in    |             | #           |             |
|             | Substantial |             | Substantial |             |
|             |  Conformity |             |  Conformity |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | 1X          | 2           | 3           | 4           |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

**STATUS OF SERVICE ARRAY**

Alaska did not achieve substantial conformity with the factor of service
array. Findings with regard to specific items assessed for this factor
are presented below.

**Item 35. The State has in place an array of services that assess the
strengths and needs of children and families and determine**

**other service needs, address the needs of families in addition to
individual children in order to create a safe home**

**environment, enable children to remain safely with their parents when
reasonable, and help children in foster and**

**adoptive placements achieve permanency.**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

Item 35 was rated an Area Needing Improvement because services are not
available in sufficient quantity in either rural or urban communities.
Shortages of services have a negative impact on prevention,
reunification, permanency planning and the agency\'s efforts to provide
for the wellbeing of both children and families.

According to the Statewide Assessment, there is a wide array of services
available to families in the State. The Statewide Assessment notes that
services to families to prevent removal include family preservation
services, family support services, and day care. These services are
offered through programs such as the Community-Based Family Resource
Grants, the Alaska Children\'s Trust, and the Dual Track/Alternative
Response program. Services to families to facilitate reunification are
offered primarily through 12 community-based agencies that provide
family preservation services and time-limited family reunification
services. Other services are provided through the Division of Mental
Health and Development Disabilities and the Division of Alcohol and Drug
Abuse.

The Statewide Assessment also reported that DFYS has made concerted
efforts to develop and provide services designed to achieve permanency
for children. To promote permanency for children who have been in foster
care for long periods of time, DFYS developed the Balloon Project. This
project involved hiring over a dozen new staff and increasing the number
of attorneys available to process cases. As noted in the Statewide
Assessment, several other projects grew out of the Balloon Project,
including the Home Study Project, designed to expedite home studies;
Project Succeed, which implements procedures to search for adoptive
families for specific children; and a new process called Simple New
Adoption Process (SNAP) that is designed to expedite the adoption
process.

Additional services that the State has recently developed include new
programs for youth aging out of foster care, a new visitation site in
Anchorage, and a dual track program in Mat-Su.

The Statewide Assessment provided the following comments from Roundtable
participants and survey respondents regarding the service array:

-   The lack of available services for families is a major barrier to
    achieving safety, permanency, and well-being for children in both

rural and urban areas of Alaska.

-   The greatest need is for in-home services, substance abuse treatment
    services, and services victims of sexual abuse.

-   Tribes need to be involved earlier in the service provision process.

-   There is great need, across the State, for partnering with other
    agencies to provide services.

-   Visitation resources are inadequate.

-   Transportation is a barrier to accessing services.

-   Follow-up support is needed for families that are reunified.

-   Post-adoption services are needed.

Stakeholders commenting on this issue noted that there are service gaps
in the following areas:

-   Foster homes, particularly therapeutic foster homes.

-   Substance abuse assessment and treatment services.

-   Mental health assessment and treatment services. Treatment services
    for children and adults who have been diagnosed with Fetal Alcohol
    Syndrome (FAS) or Fetal Alcohol Exposure (FAE).

-   Residential care facilities resulting in children being sent out of
    State or bouncing from program to program.

-   Respite care and day care services.

-   Culturally appropriate services in all service areas.

-   Home-based services.

Stakeholders suggested that despite the fact that there is an
insufficient quantity of service, Alaska has some quality service
providers and some quality programs. Some of these programs include:

-   Child Advocacy Centers, which provide integrated services to
    children and families in sexual abuse cases.

-   Inpatient substance abuse program for mothers and children.

-   Programs through which the Tribes offer an extensive array of
    services available to Native children and families

-   An extensive subsidized guardianship program.

-   Independent Living programs funded by the Federal Chaffee Foster
    Care Youth Independence Program.

-   Family Resource Centers.

-   The Alaska Youth Initiative.

-   Program for children with developmental disabilities.

**Item 36. The services in item 35 are accessible to families and
children in all political jurisdictions covered in the State's CFSP.**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

Item 36 was rated an Area Needing Improvement because services are not
readily available in all communities in the State.

According to the Statewide Assessment, there is an array of services
available throughout the State, but families cannot always easily access
them. The State Assessment noted that services are limited in rural
communities and that remote areas need more immediately accessible
services. Parents and children are required to travel to larger
communities to obtain specific services. Stakeholders noted that such
travel can be difficult because of long distances and inclement weather.
Stakeholders also noted the additional challenges experienced by clients
who receive services away from their home community and have to
transition back to the community.

Stakeholders noted staff and service provider travel to remote areas is
costly and time-consuming and requires additional resources.
Stakeholders also noted the need for more case-specific coordination
between the State, Tribal worker, and village worker to ensure
follow-through on rural cases and the need for additional expertise in
villages when assessing safety and providing emergency response.

Stakeholders noted as strengths efforts the state makes to provide
services including flying families out to services, flying specialized
service providers to HUB communities, and sending providers (such as
behavioral health services specialists) to villages. It also noted as a
strength the arrangements for an extensive network of village-based
Tribal workers to provide some services.

While obtaining services is challenging in rural Alaska, stakeholders
expressed the opinion that many services lacking in rural communities
tend to also be lacking in other communities in the State and that the
issue of scarcity of services and resulting long waiting lists is a
Statewide problem, and not limited to a particular jurisdiction.
Stakeholders noted that independent living services were reported to be
strong in two of the sites but not in the third site.

**Item 37. The services in item 35 can be individualized to meet the
unique needs of children and families served by the agency.**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

Item 37 was rated an Area Needing Improvement because service provision
is influenced by availability rather than underlying needs of the
children and families.

According to the Statewide Assessment, case plans can be tailored to fit
the child\'s and family\'s needs. However, stakeholders noted that the
scarcity of services often results in service provision being based on
what is available and addressing general concerns rather than specific
problems. Stakeholders noted a lack of family-centered services and a
lack of focus on the underlying needs of children and families.
Stakeholders also noted that there is a lack of unique or individualized
services, particularly for in-home cases. Stakeholders in one site also
noted a need for more coordination of services between the agency and
the Tribal Organization to ensure that underlying needs are addressed
and for services to be more culturally appropriate.

Despite these concerns, stakeholders in the sites included in the review
process reported that DFYS local agencies have access to flexible funds
to pay for specialized services that may be needed by children or
parents or to address individual needs. The local agencies also were
able to provide wraparound services, particularly through the Alaska
Youth Initiative. Finally, stakeholders also noted examples of Tribes
using funds to address service gaps.

# IX. AGENCY RESPONSIVENESS TO THE COMMUNITY

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| #           |             |             |             |             |
|  Rating of  |             |             |             |             |
| Review Team |             |             |             |             |
|  Regarding  |             |             |             |             |
| Substantial |             |             |             |             |
|  Conformity |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Rating      | # Not in    |             | #           |             |
|             | Substantial |             | Substantial |             |
|             |  Conformity |             |  Conformity |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | 1           | 2           | 3X          | 4           |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

**STATUS OF AGENCY RESPONSIVENESS TO THE COMMUNITY**

Alaska is in substantial conformity with the factor of Agency
Responsiveness to the Community. Findings with regard to the specific
items assessed for this factor are discussed below.

**Item 38. In implementing the provisions of the CFSP, the State engages
in ongoing consultation with Tribal representatives,**

> **consumers, service providers, foster care providers, the juvenile
> court, and other public and private child- and**
>
> **family-serving agencies and includes the major concerns of these
> representatives in the goals and objectives of the CFSP.**

[\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Strength \_\_\_\_ Area Needing Improvement

Item 38 was rated a Strength because the State has an active
Tribal-State collaboration group, some positive local collaboration
efforts, and managers at all levels of the agency who are seen as easily
accessible to community stakeholders when questions or issues arise.

According to the Statewide Assessment, due to the small population in
Alaska, many community service providers have direct contact with agency
management and staff regarding policies and practices. The Statewide
Assessment also notes that Tribal relationships are significantly
enhanced through the Tribal-State Collaboration Group, which meets
regularly to review State policies, issues, and concerns. Other groups
with whom the division meets regularly include:

-   Alaska Association of Homes for Children - residential care
    providers.

-   Family Support and Child Abuse Network - service provider grantees.

-   Balloon Project Steering Committee - permanency planning issues.

-   Children\'s Justice Act Task Force - Agencies involved in child
    protection issues.

Stakeholders commenting on this issue suggested that the agency was
generally responsive to the community and engaged in consultation with a
wide range of community and Tribal stakeholders and partners. Local
offices collaborate at regularly scheduled meetings and stakeholders
report primarily positive relationships. Multi-disciplinary teams (MDT)
are one of the primary venues for collaboration. There is some
inconsistency in the extent to which they address systemic issues as
well as case specific issues. In one site, the MDT efforts led to the
establishment of a Child Advocacy Center and a project with the schools.
Stakeholders noted the Tribal-State Collaboration Group has improved
Tribal-State communication and has resulted in increased joint efforts,
including Title IV-E Agreements and efforts to develop Tribal licensing
standards. One stakeholder noted that the agency also participates in a
provider group that addresses service delivery issues at a systems
level. Despite these efforts, stakeholders expressed the opinion that
the agency is not proactive and seems to respond more to requests for
information rather than reaching out to the community to form
partnerships.

**Item 39. The agency develops, in consultation with these
representatives, annual reports of progress and services delivered**

**pursuant to the CFSP.**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

Item 39 was rated an Area Needing Improvement because involvement in the
Child and Family Services Planning Process is limited to review and
comment instead of active involvement in setting goals and priorities.

The State Assessment notes that the DFYS has actively involved many
agencies in its planning process and that community agencies are
involved in planning for projects and services that are incorporated
into the State Plan. The State Assessment indicates DFYS sends draft
copies of the State Plan to all Alaska Tribes and issues public notice
regarding commenting on the State Plan.

Stakeholders commenting on this issue, however, expressed the opinion
that the agency is not proactive in getting the community involved in
policy development and planning, although the agency is receptive to
suggestions from community members. Stakeholders noted involvement in
the CFSP was primarily by review and comment. Tribal stakeholders in one
site noted that instead of being involved in the plan, they had to ask
the agency for a copy of the final plan.

**Item 40. The State's services under the CFSP are coordinated with
services or benefits of other Federal or federally assisted**

**programs serving the same population.**

[\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Strength \_\_\_\_ Area Needing Improvement

Item 40 was rated a Strength because the State has collaborative efforts
among Federal and federally assisted programs.

According to the Statewide Assessment, DFYS engages in significant
coordination efforts with other State Agencies as is evidenced by the
following list of activities and projects that are in place to respond
to the issues of child abuse and neglect in Alaska:

-   Interdepartmental Agreement on Child Abuse.

-   The ASPIN interagency agreement between the division and law
    enforcement.

-   Multi-Disciplinary Teams.

-   Child Advocacy Centers - now in six locations.

-   Interagency Sex Offender Working Group.

-   Alaska Youth Initiative.

-   Coordination with School Districts.

-   DFYS now has five Tribal IV-E agreements in place.

-   Regional Placement Committees.

The Statewide Assessment notes that greater coordination efforts are
needed with the Department of Education and Early Development. The
Statewide Assessment also addresses the efforts of DFYS to build Tribal
relationships to better respond to the cultural needs of the Native
children and families served. Early and frequent reviews of children\'s
cases involving Tribal representatives as well as family members and
others are designed to bring the cases into compliance with ICWA and
work actively toward resolution. Extensive data is collected on these
children and efforts are made to place them in ICWA preference
placements quickly. Current efforts are underway to recognize Tribal
court adoptions, recognize Tribally licensed foster homes, and to
develop strategies to serve more Native children through the Independent
Living Program.

Stakeholders commenting on this issue expressed the opinion that there
are effective coordination efforts, particularly at the case level, in
many areas. Examples cited by stakeholders include the Child Advocacy
Centers and the Multidisciplinary Teams. One stakeholder noted that the
Federal Court Improvement Program in Alaska is providing training to
judges on child welfare issues. In addition to Tribal-State
collaboration and title IV-E agreements, stakeholders also noted
collaboration efforts through the Governor's Children's Cabinet, with
Indian Health Services, with the Department of Mental Health &
Developmental Disabilities and with law enforcement and domestic
violence programs. One site noted one of these relationships had
resulted in child welfare clients being given priority for service.

Problem areas noted by stakeholders concerned (1) the lack of sufficient
contact between ICWA workers and agency workers in one of the sites
included in the onsite review, (2) difficulties in coordinating services
and interventions with local school systems, and (3) inconsistent
coordination with the TANF agency to ensure that conflicting demands are
not placed on shared clients.

X.  **FOSTER AND ADOPTIVE PARENT LICENSING, RECRUITMENT, AND RETENTION**

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| #           |             |             |             |             |
|  Rating of  |             |             |             |             |
| Review Team |             |             |             |             |
|  Regarding  |             |             |             |             |
| Substantial |             |             |             |             |
|  Conformity |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Rating      | # Not in    |             | #           |             |
|             | Substantial |             | Substantial |             |
|             |  Conformity |             |  Conformity |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | 1           | 2X          | 3           | 4           |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

Alaska is not in substantial conformity with the factor of Foster and
Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention. Findings with
respect to the items assessed for this factor are presented below.

**Item 41. The State has implemented standards for foster family homes
and child-care institutions which are reasonably in**

**accord with recommended national standards.**

[\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Strength \_\_\_\_ Area Needing Improvement

This item was rated a Strength because the State has issued and
implemented comprehensive new licensing standards as of December 2001.

The Statewide Assessment reports that DFYS has established standards for
approving foster family homes and child care institutions. According to
the Statewide Assessment, foster and adoptive homes are assessed
differently. Adoptive homes are required to have a comprehensive home
study, while foster homes are subject to a \"standard by standard\"
process for studying whether the home meets the requirements. Both
processes address safety issues. Relatives who are licensed meet the
same standard as all licensed foster parents.

The Statewide Assessment provided the following comments from Roundtable
participants:

-   The establishment of new licensing standards is a positive step.

-   The licensing process is too lengthy and intimidating (particularly
    for Alaska Native families), and results in discouraging potential
    foster parenting.

-   DFYS should recognize Tribally-licensed homes.

-   Licensing standards do not take into account the culture and child
    rearing standards of some communities.

Stakeholders commenting on this issue noted that the State has licensing
standards and is working with the Tribes to recognize Tribal standards
and licensure.

**Item 42. The standards are applied to all licensed or approved foster
family homes or child care institutions receiving title IV-**

**E or IV-B funds.**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

Item 42 was rated an Area Needing Improvement because application of
variances results in full licensing standards not being applied to all
foster homes.

According to the Statewide Assessment, DFYS requires that all licensed
foster homes in Alaska comply with the same set of standards. Relatives
who are licensed meet the same standards as other licensed providers.
Variances can be approved for specific standards. The Statewide
Assessment notes that DFYS does use an \"emergency\" approval status,
which allows the immediate placement of children with relatives or
others known to them. Stakeholders reported that homes with emergency
approval status do not receive funds from title IV-E for children in
their care while in "emergency approval" status.

Stakeholders commenting on this issue noted that the same licensing
standards are applied to all homes including relative foster homes.
However, stakeholders noted that some variances are being used to waive
standards instead of to meet the standards in an alternate way in both
relative and non-relative homes. Stakeholders noted that while the State
has a training requirement in their licensing standards, this
requirement is not consistently enforced.

Stakeholders also reported that Tribal standards for foster homes are
not the same as agency standards. Some stakeholders suggest that the
DFYS should work more closely with the Tribes to ensure that high
standards are met. Other stakeholders, however, suggested that ICWA
homes are available but Federal and State restrictions exclude very good
homes due to licensing and criminal history requirements that cannot be
met.

**Item 43. The State complies with Federal requirements for criminal
background clearances as related to licensing or**

**approving foster care and adoptive placements and has in place a case
planning process that includes provisions for**

**addressing the safety of foster care and adoptive placements for
children.**

[\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Strength \_\_\_\_ Area Needing Improvement

Item 43 was rated a Strength because criminal records checks are
completed on all homes.

According to the Statewide Assessment, the State is required to complete
criminal background checks both at the State and Federal level for all
foster and adoptive homes. The Statewide Assessment reported the
following activities relevant to this issue:

-   Alaska utilizes the APSIN (Alaska Public Safety Information System)
    to complete a background check on all potential providers of
    out-of-home care.

-   National fingerprint background checks are done on all applicants
    for foster care licenses.

-   The APSIN Flag Project assures criminal background checks occur on
    an ongoing basis by sharing with law enforcement the names of all
    residents in licensed foster homes. When there is any contact with
    these individuals due to potential criminal behavior, DFYS is
    notified immediately.

-   Residential care facilities must provide finger print cards or
    clearance forms for all employees and volunteers who come in contact
    with children.

Stakeholders commenting on this issue noted that criminal background
checks are completed on all homes.

**Item 44. The State has in place a process for ensuring the diligent
recruitment of potential foster and adoptive families that**

**reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of children in the State for
whom foster and adoptive homes are needed.**

\_\_\_\_ Strength [\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Area Needing Improvement

Item 44 was rated an Area Needing Improvement because the State does not
have an effective recruitment plan and needs more recruitment
strategies.

According to the Statewide Assessment, DFYS has a statewide recruitment
and retention campaign, entitled \"Foster a Future,\" which promotes
foster parenting through ads on TV and radio. Locally, efforts are
underway to work closely with many Tribes to recruit and license Native
foster homes. The State also has implemented Project Succeed in two
sites, is in the planning stages of developing a post-adoption program
and a collaborative recruitment campaign, and is beginning to establish
procedures for recognizing foster homes licensed by the Tribes. The
Statewide Assessment noted that there is a need for Native foster
parents and for non-native minority foster homes.

Stakeholders commenting on this issue noted a critical need for more
homes and a need to be more pro-active in recruiting and retaining
homes. Stakeholders in one site reviewed noted that insufficient staff
time was available for recruitment causing them to rely primarily on
statewide recruitment efforts. Stakeholders noted the following
challenges:

-   The State has a number of recruiting mechanisms in place but they do
    not yield results.

-   There are many Native children in out-of-preference ICWA placements
    due to lack of Native Alaskan foster homes.

-   Stringent regulations are hard for some Native homes in rural areas
    to meet the standards.

-   Lack of day care in some communities prevents successful recruitment
    of working adults.

-   The children that are coming into care have multiple problems and
    not all families are suitable.

-   Living expenses are high and foster care payments are inadequate to
    cover costs.

-   Foster parents incur expenses and then must wait to receive payment
    through the mail.

-   The State is having trouble retaining foster homes, either by losing
    homes through adoption or not providing enough support such as
    respite or day care.

-   Criminal background checks eliminate some potential families.

-   Some potential families do not follow through because of frustration
    with the paperwork requirements.

-   Respite care is needed.

Stakeholders identified some recruitment efforts through Youth for
Christ (a recruiting effort through churches and faith-based
organizations), the Foster a Future advertising campaign, foster parent
appreciation events, and word of mouth as the primary recruitment
strategies. Some Tribal child welfare staff are used to recruit in
villages and help with completion of licensing paperwork.

Item 45. The State has in place a process for the effective use of
cross-jurisdictional resources to facilitate timely adoptive or
permanent placements for waiting children.

[\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Strength \_\_\_\_ Area Needing Improvement

Item 45 was assigned a rating of Strength because the State utilizes the
Alaska Exchange and the Northwest Adoption Exchange to seek placements
for children.

The Statewide Assessment notes that children who are legally free and in
need of a permanent home are referred to the Alaska Adoption Exchange,
and after 3 months, are referred to the Northwest Adoption Exchange for
promoting and recruitment of a home specifically for them. Stakeholders
commenting on this issue noted that the State does register children
with the Northwest Adoption Exchange. However, stakeholders also noted
that some workers do not support sending children out-of-State for
adoption.

**XI. DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY**

For each outcome and systemic factor listed below, mark **"Y"** where
the State is determined to be in substantial conformity and **"N"**
where the State is determined not to be in substantial conformity. For
each outcome or systemic factor marked **"N,"** place a check beside the
performance indicator, listed by item number in this form, that has been
determined to be an area needing improvement.