###### OREGON

### 

### *Child and Families Services Review*

##### FINAL REPORT 

##### August 2001

**U.S. Department of Health and Human Services**

**Administration for Children and Families**

**Seattle Regional Office**

**Department of Health and Human Services** Administration for Children
and Families

![](media/image1.wmf){width="0.74375in"
height="0.8006944444444445in"}*Seattle Regional Office*

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

*Telephone: (206)-615-2547 FAX: (206)-615-2574 2201 Sixth Avenue, Suite
600*

*E-Mail:* <ACF-Seattle@ACF.DHHS.GOV> *Seattle, WA 98121-1827*

August 3, 2001

Bobby Mink

Director

Oregon Department of Human Services

500 Summer St. NE E15

Salem, OR 97301-1097

Dear Mr. Mink:

The Administration for Children and Families in collaboration with the
Oregon Services to Children and Families (SCF) recently completed a
review of Oregon 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, 2000 with an assessment by SCF of areas seen as critical to
the effective functioning of the State\'s child welfare system and an
analysis of data related to the safety, permanency, and well-being of
children served by SCF. During the week of June 4, 2001, an on-site
review was completed. 50 cases were reviewed, and interviews and focus
groups were conducted with approximately 130 key stakeholders. The final
report on this CFS Review is enclosed.

We appreciate the amount of time and effort that your staff committed to
the planning and implementation of the CFS Review. We wish to commend
Ramona Foley, SCF Administrator, for her leadership throughout the
entire review process. Her commitment to utilizing this process to
improve outcomes for children and families was a major factor in the
success of Oregon\'s review. We also wish to recognize the contributions
of our state partners, especially Shelley Jones, Mickey Serice and Cheri
Emahiser. Their hard work throughout a very complex process was
invaluable.

The State can take pride in the strength of its child welfare system. We
have determined that SCF is operating in substantial conformity in one
outcome area and five systemic areas that comprise the CFS reviews.
Also, as indicated in the report, we have identified six outcome areas
and two systemic factors that are not in substantial conformity. As you
know, under the regulations, financial penalties associated with these
findings are held in abeyance pending successful

Page 2 -- Bobby Mink

completion of a Program Improvement Plan (PIP). The PIP process is
detailed in our regulations at 45 CFR 1355.35. We estimate Oregon\'s
maximum potential penalty liability to be approximately \$620,000.

The regional office is ready to assist you in developing a PIP. We will
work with your staff to jointly establish the timeframes and evaluation
process applicable to the PIP.

We wish to remind you that the Federal regulations, at 45 CFS 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. The Administration for Children and Families is
obliged to respond to inquiries regarding such information as well.

In accordance with our regulations, at 45 CFR 1355.32(b)(2), we plan to
conduct the next full CFS review two years from approval of the Program
Improvement Plan.

John Henderson will be in contact with your staff regarding the
development of the PIP and to assist in identifying federal and other
resources available to address your needs. Please be assured that we
will continue to work collaboratively to assist you in your efforts to
ensure the safety, permanency and well-being of children and families in
Oregon

Sincerely,

/s/

Stephen Henigson

Regional Administrator

Table of Contents­

Introduction [2](#introduction)

Key Findings For Systemic Factors
[4](#key-findings-for-systemic-factors)

Key Findings For Safety, Permanency And Well-Being Outcomes
[7](#key-findings-for-safety-permanency-and-well-being-outcomes)

Summary Of Findings [12](#summary-of-findings)

Part 1: Performance Outcomes On Safety, Permanency And Well-Being
[12](#part-1-performance-outcomes-on-safety-permanency-and-well-being)

I. Safety [12](#i.-safety)

II\. Permanency [20](#ii.-permanency)

III\. Child And Family Well-Being
[36](#iii.-child-and-family-well-being)

Part 2: Seven Systemic Factors [45](#part-2-seven-systemic-factors)

1\. Statewide Information System [45](#statewide-information-system)

2\. Case Review System [47](#case-review-system)

3\. Quality Assurance System [53](#quality-assurance-system)

4\. Training [56](#training)

5\. Service Array [60](#service-array)

6\. Agency Responsiveness To The Community
[64](#agency-responsiveness-to-the-community)

7\. Foster And Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, And Retention
[68](#foster-and-adoptive-parent-licensing-recruitment-and-retention)

Appendix A Summary Of Findings Chart
[73](#summary-of-findings-chart-appendix-a)

Appendix B Oregon Review - Penalty Calculation Estimate
[74](#appendix-b)

Appendix C Acronyms [75](#appendix-c)

Appendix D Oregon Child And Family Services Review Team
[76](#appendix-d)

#  

# Introduction

A review of the State of Oregon child and family services programs was
completed pursuant to section 1123A of the Social Security Act and 45
CFR 1355.31 through 1355.37. These sections charge the Administration
for Children and Families (ACF) with the review of such programs. The
purpose of the reviews is to determine substantial conformity with State
plan requirements and other program requirements under titles IV-B and
IV-E of the Act.

The reviews cover the range of child and family services funded through
titles IV-B and IV-E, including child protective services, foster care,
adoption, independent living, and family support and preservation
services. The review process evaluates seven specific safety, permanency
and well-being outcomes of services delivered to children and families.
In addition to reviewing for case outcomes, the review process also
examines seven systemic factors that affect the State\'s capacity to
deliver services in a manner that promotes positive outcomes for
children and families.

The review process features two major phases. The first phase consists
of the development of a State Profile, derived from data for FFY 1999
contained in the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System
(AFCARS) and for CY 1999 from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data
System (NCANDS). This data profile provides information on the key
indicators relating to safety and permanency for children entering the
child welfare system. States develop their Statewide Assessment using
this data and other sources of information. The assessment analyzes the
process, procedures and policies of the State\'s child protective
services, and foster care and adoption programs. This assessment also
focuses on the systemic factors that are in place, which enable the
State to carry out the process, procedures and policies of the program.

The second phase is the Onsite Review that includes intensive reviews of
a sample of cases and interviews with state and local stakeholders in
the provider and service delivery community. Information from both
phases of the review is used to determine the State\'s substantial
conformity with the requirements under review.

In reviewing for outcomes and systemic factors, the review process is
designed to identify both the strengths and areas needing improvement in
the State\'s programs. For those areas in which the State is determined
not to be operating in substantial conformity with the requirements
under review, the State has the opportunity to implement a Program
Improvement Plan (PIP) designed to correct the areas of nonconformity.
According to 45 CFR 1355.34(b)(3) for the first state CFS review, each
outcome must be substantially achieved in 90 percent of the cases
examined during the Onsite Review in order to be determined in
substantial conformity. Although the State is advised of applicable
penalties associated with the degree of nonconformity, the penalties are
not assessed until the State has had an opportunity to correct the area
of nonconformity through the Program Improvement Plan.

The period under review for the Child and Family Service Onsite Review
in Oregon was from April 1, 2000 to June 8, 2001. The review process
consisted of the following activities:

-   The State completed the Statewide Assessment in April 2001 in
    consultation with the ACF Regional Office.

-   The State and the ACF Regional Office selected three locations in
    the State for the Onsite Review: Lincoln, Multnomah, and Umatilla
    counties. The Onsite Review was conducted during the week of June
    4-8, 2001.

-   A State and Federal review team of 51 persons reviewed a total of 50
    cases. Review teams at each site consisted of a site leader from the
    Federal staff, a co-site leader from the State staff, and two-person
    State/Federal case review teams. These teams reviewed and rated the
    services provided these children and families in relationship to
    safety, permanency and well-being. This was done by conducting a
    review of the case records, and interviewing those involved with the
    case such as parents, caseworkers, foster parents, service
    providers, and when appropriate, the children themselves.

-   The teams also conducted interviews and focus groups with
    approximately 130 State and local stakeholders, including foster
    parents, managers, caseworkers and supervisors, citizen review
    boards, judges, and other community partners.

The results of the Statewide Assessment, the Onsite Case Review and the
Stakeholder Interviews were compiled and used to make a determination
about the State\'s substantial conformity with regard to each of the
seven outcomes and each of the seven systemic factors.

This report summarizes the information obtained from the review
pertaining to each outcome and systemic factor, and the performance
indicators used to evaluate them. The ACF Regional Office will be
working with Oregon Services to Children and Families (SCF) to develop a
Program Improvement Plan that addresses those areas not in substantial
conformity.

# Key Findings for Systemic Factors

Each of the seven systemic factors was rated on a scale from \"1\" to
\"4\" on the basis of review information on state performance on
multiple state plan and program requirements associated with that
particular systemic factor. If all the requirements for a systemic
factor were met, the systemic factor was rated a \"4\". If all except
one requirement was met, the systemic factor was rated a \"3\". A rating
of \"3\" or \"4\" resulted in a determination that the State was in
substantial conformity on that factor.

If some of the requirements for a systemic factor were in place but more
than one (or, in the case of the information system systemic factor,
one) were rated as an area needing improvement, the systemic factor was
rated a \"2\" and resulted in a determination that the State was not in
substantial conformity on that factor.

1.  **Statewide Information System**

    ***This Systemic Factor was rated \"3\" and is in substantial
    conformity.***

Oregon has a sophisticated data system (FACIS) which can readily
identify the status, demographic characteristics, location, and goals
for the placement of children in foster care. The system is able to
provide helpful case information to caseworkers and supervisors and is
beginning to be used to provide outcome-based reports to the community
and SCF managers. FACIS could be better utilized to provide managers and
supervisors with sufficient reports on field practice. Currently use is
limited by significant data accuracy, completeness and consistency
problems and the lack of a culture that values data and uses the system.

2.  **Case Review System**

    ***This Systemic Factor was rated \"2\" and is not in substantial
    conformity.***

In many cases the use of Family Decision Meetings (FDMs) and
strength/needs-based planning engaged families in the case planning
process and resulted in individualized plans. However, some cases did
not have current plans and/or did not have meaningful plans. This was
particularly true in cases in which System of Care/FDM practices were
not used and in cases of children in longterm foster care or residential
treatment. As a result, case planning was identified as an area needing
improvement.

Timely periodic reviews held by the Citizen Review Board (CRB) were
rated an area of strength. Both internal and external stakeholders were
familiar with ASFA timeframes and noted that court hearings were
resulting in more movement towards permanency. At the same time, they
noted a lack of clarity and purpose in the conduct of permanency
hearings and expressed serious concerns about some permanency decisions
made. Permanency hearings were rated an area needing improvement.

A process is in place and utilized for meeting the ASFA TPR
requirements. This item was rated a strength.

Foster parents are receiving regular notice of their opportunity to be
heard in reviews and hearings. A significant number are attending and
are being heard. This item was rated a strength.

3.  **Quality Assurance**

    ***This Systemic Factor was rated \"4\" and is in substantial
    conformity.***

SCF has a formal quality assurance process used to regularly review each
branch. This process is inclusive and results in comprehensive findings
used for program improvement. Stakeholders expressed serious concern
that this process might be discontinued in the new biennium. Continued
attention must be given to ensure that the State has a consistent
outcomes-based quality assurance process.

4.  **Training**

    ***This Systemic Factor was rated a \"2\" and is not in substantial
    conformity.***

SCF has a strong program to provide training through the Portland State
Child Welfare Partnership and has good core training. However, most
staff are not receiving the initial in-service training prior to
carrying cases, and many staff do not participate in ongoing training.
Consequently, these items were rated as an area needing improvement.

Foster parent training was rated as a strength. Most foster parents felt
their training met their needs. Foster parents did note a need for
childcare to participate in training and suggested computer based
training that could be completed at home.

5.  **Service Array**

    ***This Systemic Factor was rated a \"3\" and is in substantial
    conformity.***

A wide array of services is available for families and children in
Oregon. Safety nets provide early preventive services and SCF provides
formal and informal services to families served by SCF. However, the
review team noted service needs of several types. Services to teens are
lacking, residential treatment resources were in short supply, and the
independent living program needed improvement. Stakeholders also noted a
lack of foster homes and therapeutic foster homes in two of the sites
reviewed. This was rated as an area needing improvement.

Service accessibility and individualization of services, however, were
noted strengths. While service provision is challenging in rural areas,
System of Care flexible funds and Title IV-E waiver funds are used to
meet individual needs.

6.  **Agency Responsiveness to the Community**

    ***This Systemic Factor was rated \"4\" and is in substantial
    conformity.***

Stakeholders indicated SCF Central Administration is responsive and that
SCF shares information with community partners and actively seeks input.
Tribal stakeholders noted positive examples of agency responsiveness to
their concerns.

7.  **Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment and Retention**

    ***This Systemic Factor was rated \"4\" and is in substantial
    conformity.***

SCF has implemented new certification standards emphasizing health and
safety. These standards are applied to all homes caring for children.
SCF obtains criminal background checks as required by federal law.

SCF diligently recruits foster and adoptive parents that reflect the
ethnic and racial diversity of children in SCF care. SCF in one site has
a successful practice recruiting through churches and in another site is
developing a neighborhood based foster care program.

SCF utilizes strategies to maximize access to cross-jurisdictional
resources and is recognized as a leader in making out-of-state
placements.

# Key Findings for Safety, Permanency and Well-being Outcomes

In order for a state to be determined to be in substantial conformity on
any given outcome, the outcome must be substantially achieved in 90% of
the cases reviewed in the State's first CFSR. In addition, the State
must meet the national standard for the statewide aggregate data
indicators related to that particular outcome.

### SAFETY OUTCOMES

1.  **Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and
    neglect.**

    ***This Outcome is not in substantial conformity.***

-   86% of the cases reviewed substantially achieved Safety Outcome 1.

-   The statewide data indicator for repeat maltreatment is at 6.81% and
    does not meet the national standard of 6.1%

-   The statewide data indicator for maltreatment of children in foster
    care is at .796% and does not meet the national standard of .57%

Emergent high-risk reports of abuse and neglect were responded to
promptly and investigated within agency requirements. Staff demonstrated
persistent and effective efforts to contact families. Overall, in two
thirds of the cases in which reports were received during the review
period, investigations met the required state timeframes. In the
remaining one third of the applicable cases reviewed, caseworkers did
not have face to face contact within required timeframes due to delays
in assignment or worker response.

Stakeholders and reviewers noted concerns about consistency related to
screening decisions, response time designations, application of threat
of harm, and investigative/assessment disposition.

In terms of the repeat maltreatment measure, both the State data
indicator and cases reviewed demonstrated that State performance is
close to meeting the national standard.

2.  **Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible
    and appropriate.**

    ***This Outcome is not in substantial conformity.***

-   80.4% of the applicable cases reviewed substantially achieved Safety
    Outcome II.

Services to families in-home are both a focus and strength in SCF.
Family Support Teams typically produced exceptional case assessment,
management and service delivery. Family Decision Meetings were for the
most part associated with comprehensive and risk-related/strength-based
case plans and services. Cases reflected a broad array of agency and
community based services. Local office discretionary funding and special
projects provide strength based and family focused resources. However,
available family focused resources and services were not consistently
applied to all cases.

In some cases, services were not matched to risk, and re-assessment of
risk factors was absent at critical decision-making junctures such as
reunification or case closure. Stakeholders expressed concern regarding
services and monitoring available post-reunification and inappropriate
delegation of some aspects of child safety to community partners.

**II. PERMANENCY OUTCOMES**

1.  **Children have permanency and stability in their living
    situations.**

    ***This Outcome is not in substantial conformity.***

-   85.7% of the applicable cases reviewed substantially achieved
    Permanency Outcome I.

-   The statewide indicator for foster care re-entries is at 20.41% and
    does not meet the national standard of 8.6%.

-   The statewide indicator for length of time to achieve reunification
    is at 79.06% and meets the national standard of 76.2%.

-   The statewide indicator for length of time to achieve adoption is at
    24.22% and does not meet the national standard of 32%.

-   The statewide indicator for stability of foster care placements is
    at 83.65% and does not meet the national standard of 86.7%.

Foster care re-entry rates raised data discrepancy issues that the State
elected not to resolve prior to completing this report. Although the
State data profile reported a 20.41% re-entry rate, there were no
re-entry cases identified during the review period. Data integrity
and/or MIS/SACWIS program logic will require exploration to determine
possible explanations of the discrepancy. This will be a PIP
expectation.

Stability of foster care placements was a noted strength. Relative
resources, neighborhood foster care projects and support to foster
parents contributed to this result which is close to meeting the
national standard.

Relative and foster-adopt placements are substantial resources for
adoption and often enabled preservation of family and community
connections. Stakeholders observe that establishment and implementation
of permanency plans is moving much more rapidly, and attribute this to
the State's implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA).
However, crowded court calendars delays in setting termination trials
and court continuances were concerns expressed across the three sites.

Oregon continues to face challenges in achieving timely appropriate
permanency plans. Concurrent planning tends to be a sequential rather
than parallel process. Stakeholders attributed some delays to a lack of
Attorney General involvement prior to termination of parental rights
(TPR) resulting in technical oversights and legal insufficiency.
Stakeholders and the review team also noted a lack of urgency post-TPR
to complete the adoptive process.

A significant number of children have permanency plans other than
reunification or adoption. Some children with serious behavioral/mental
health problems were considered unadoptable and subsequently efforts
were not made to identify adoption resources.

The perceived or real disparity between foster care maintenance
reimbursement and adoption subsidy was cited as another cause for delay
and sometimes resulted in an alternate permanent plan of longterm foster
care being established in lieu of adoption.

2.  **The continuity of family relationships and connections is
    preserved for children.**

    ***This Outcome is in substantial conformity.***

-   94.3% of the applicable cases reviewed substantially achieved
    Permanency Outcome II.

Proximity of foster care placements to the child's family was a
substantial and consistent strength. Placement and visits with siblings,
visits between parents and their children and preserving connections
were also strengths. Family decision meetings and System of Care
resources supported positive outcomes as did major initiatives such as
Family to Family and Neighborhood Foster Care. In relevant cases, there
was good practice and effort related to working with tribes and meeting
Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) requirements.

Both SCF staff and foster parents focus on and contribute to maintaining
the parent-child relationship. Relatives and extended family often play
a role as well. Open adoptions that often have utilized mediation in the
process further support this practice.

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

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  **Families Have Enhanced Capacity To Provide For Their Children\'s
    Needs.**

    ***This Outcome is not in substantial conformity.***

-   76% of the cases reviewed substantially achieved Well-being Outcome
    1.

Oregon uses strengths/needs based practice, family decision meetings,
and flexible funds successfully to meet the needs of children and their
families. However, Oregon continues to face challenges in serving
families that are not motivated to engage in services and in serving
older youth. Meeting the needs of children and families was identified
as an area needing improvement.

Including families in case planning is standard practice in Oregon. In
almost all cases families and children (where appropriate) were involved
in case planning.

Oregon has made frequent contact with children and families a priority
in a new policy effective January 15, 2001. As a result foster parents
and some families noted positively a marked increase in the numbers of
worker/child visits in the last few months. However, over one third of
the applicable cases did not have sufficient visits between workers and
children and one fourth did not have adequate visits between workers and
parents. Consequently, visitation between the agency and child/parent
was identified as an area needing improvement.

2.  **Children Receive Appropriate Services To Meet Their Educational
    Needs.**

    ***This Outcome is not in substantial conformity.***

-   82.1% of the cases reviewed substantially achieved Well-being
    Outcome 2.

While foster parents and some social workers successfully advocated to
obtain services to ensure children\'s educational needs were met, some
children\'s educational needs were not met. SCF needs to more
consistently address identified educational needs either by follow-up,
referral, advocacy or services.

3.  **Children Receive Adequate Services To Meet Their Physical and
    Mental Health Needs.**

    ***This Outcome is not in substantial conformity.***

-   83% of the cases reviewed substantially achieved Well-being Outcome
    3.

In most of the cases reviewed children had health care screenings and
assessments and their physical health needs were met. Access in some
cases was difficult, especially for dental care, but foster parents
persisted in securing the needed services.

Most cases had mental health screenings and mental health assessments.
However, this item was rated as needing improvement because some of the
children for whom treatment needs were identified did not receive the
services they needed.

# Summary of Findings

## Part 1: Performance Outcomes on Safety, Permanency and Well-being

## I. SAFETY

  ---------------------- ------------ -------- -------------- -------- ------------ ---------- ------------ --------------
  **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:**                                                                                    

                         **Team 1**   **Team                  **Team                **Total                 **Total
                                      2**                     3**                   Number**                Percentage**

  Substantially          22           11                      10                    43                      86%
  Achieved:                                                                                                 

  Partially Achieved     0            1                       2                     3                       6%

  Not Achieved or        4            0                       0                     4                       8%
  Addressed                                                                                                 

  Not Applicable:        0            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%                  6.81%                                           X            

  Maltreatment of        .57%                  .796%                                           X            
  children in foster                                                                                        
  care                                                                                                      
  ---------------------- ------------ -------- -------------- -------- ------------ ---------- ------------ --------------

**[Status of Outcome S-1: Not in Substantial Conformity.]{.underline}**
Of the applicable cases reviewed, 86% substantially achieved Safety
Outcome 1, less than the required 90%. Neither of the statewide
indicators for repeat maltreatment or maltreatment of children in foster
care met national standards.

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

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

Reports are \"screened\" to determine whether a face‑to‑face contact
will occur and then the information is recorded in the data system.
Based on the reported information, if SCF believes that children are
safe, these reports are entered and closed at screening. Some of these
reports are referred to community partners for service. Reports that
place a child at a high risk of harm as defined by agency policy IB2.2
require an immediate plan for intervention and safety. Non-emergency
reports require a face to face contact within 7 days. Assessments are to
be completed within 30 days.

Concern has been expressed by stakeholders that some decisions appear to
be made regarding child safety (primarily at screening) without a
face‑to‑face contact with the child and family, that assessment is
sometimes delayed or incomplete, or that there are too many referrals
prior to a family receiving services. SCF is concerned about the quality
of the front‑end process for screening and length of time to complete
assessments and would like improve the specificity of the criteria and
increase the number of reports that are assessed within 24 hours.

In some communities in Oregon, law enforcement agencies respond to
referrals involving child maltreatment after normal work hours and on
weekends. It is a practice which sometimes results in a short term
removal of a child from the home until trained protective service staff
can conduct the assessment regarding child safety and well‑being.

SCF notes an increase in CA/N reports over the last three years in
conjunction with an increasing proportion of reports being screened-out.
The increase in screen-outs is in part attributed to \"triage\" at
intake used to effect workload management in the face of increasing
reports and unchanged staffing levels. The issue of workload may well be
having an effect on timelines of initiating investigations.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   For 21 applicable cases, 14 were rated \"strength\".

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In the majority of cases where timelines were met, emergent cases
    typically received a same day response while non-emergent
    assessments were initiated within 3 days.

-   Staff at times demonstrated persistent and effective efforts in
    contacting less than readily available clients.

-   Response to reports of threat-of-harm is viewed by some stakeholders
    as a strength although some inconsistency in application of
    screening/assignment decisions was noted as well.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   7 out of 21 applicable cases did not meet investigative timelines.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Extending the screening process and delaying assignment was a
    problem identified by stakeholders and consistent with some case
    findings. Workload and vacant positions were associated with a
    delayed intake/assignment process.

-   In some instances new information that may have constituted a new
    report of maltreatment was noted in the record by the assigned
    worker but not officially input as a new CA/N report and thus was
    not subject to the usual intake, screening and assessment protocols.
    Similarly, records review of both in-home and foster care cases
    raised concern that some reports from law enforcement were not
    officially recorded as reports. At times those enforcement reports
    were slow in being sent to SCF. These issues were raised by
    stakeholders or evident through case review across the three sites.

-   Documentation of response time/date assigned and face to face
    contact was at times less than adequate.

-   Some written reports/information received through intake was not
    date stamped and it was not clear when the information had been made
    available to SCF.

-   Some stakeholders expressed concern regarding the "triaging" of
    cases at intake and perceive only the more serious cases screen-in.
    There were some noted differences between offices regarding
    screening criteria and response time designation.

-   Stakeholders and reviewers noted general concerns regarding
    consistency between offices in intake and screening response time
    designations, and investigative/assessment disposition.

-   Stakeholders expressed some concern that while threat-of-harm is
    viewed positively by the community in terms of proactive
    intervention, the potential workload threatens the agency\'s
    capacity and quality of existing services.

-   Stakeholders observe that CA/N reports regarding teens are not well
    served and often are not assigned for assessment.

-   Some tribal stakeholders reported that they felt the intake screen
    was higher for native children and families in terms of imminent
    risk and some reports as a result did not receive an assessment or
    placement.

    **Item 2. Repeat maltreatment**

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

This data element is an indicator of the percentage of all the children
in Oregon who were victims of substantiated or indicated child abuse and
or neglect during the first six months following the substantiation of
the initial abuse or neglect. In the 1999 data set, 428 of the recorded
6,295 child abuse victims experienced a recurrence of maltreatment. This
is 6.80 % of the total child abuse victim population. This figure
exceeds the national standard set at 6.1%. The total number of children
who suffered a recurrence of maltreatment included children in their own
homes who had not been placed in foster care.

Statewide aggregate data indicates 89 out of 11,186 children (.796%)
were subject to maltreatment while in foster care. This rate exceeds the
national standard (.57%) and therefore does not conform to the national
standard. The state is concerned regarding this data indicator and
raises questions related to the state's policy of "threat of harm"
possibly skewing data. Possible inflation of data from "threat of harm"
does not however seem to entirely explain the difference between state
and national performance.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   Of 50 applicable cases, 46 were rated \"strength\".

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   There were no case reviews noting maltreatment in foster care.

-   The rate of repeat maltreatment appears to be a decreasing trend
    over the last few years.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   4 out of 50 cases were rated \"area needing improvement\".

-   This 8% repeat maltreatment rate is close to the State data of 6.8%,
    for which program improvement is required.

-   In some instances, case reviews found that new allegations of CA/N
    on open cases were treated simply as information noted in the record
    and were not processed as a new intake subject to screening, risk
    assessment, assignment and investigative timelines. This raises some
    safety concerns for those cases and may result in under-reporting of
    maltreatment.

-   Although the relatively few cases needing improvement did not
    establish a substantial pattern, it appears that when considering
    these cases and others outside the review period, that most
    recurrence occurred within the context of neglect cases in which
    there had been no out-of-home placement. Not infrequently the
    recurrence arose post-case closure. These recurring cases tended to
    begin with low to moderate risk and escalate in severity over time.
    Some cases demonstrated a substantial and escalating prior history.

  ---------------------- -------- -------- -------- ---------- --------------
  **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:**                                       

                         **Team   **Team   **Team   **Total    **Total
                         1**      2**      3**      Number**   Percentage**

  Substantially          19       9        9        37         80.4%
  Achieved:                                                    

  Partially Achieved:    2        1        2        5          10.9%

  Not Achieved or        3        1        0        4          10.8%
  Addressed:                                                   

  Not Applicable:        2        1        1        4          
  ---------------------- -------- -------- -------- ---------- --------------

**[Status of Outcome S2-Not in Substantial Conformity]{.underline}**: Of
the applicable cases reviewed, 80.4% substantially achieved Safety
Outcome 2, which is less than the required 90%.

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

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

The System of Care initiative and IV-E waiver project as well as the
Community Safety Net program provide a variety of innovative and
flexible services to children in home and to prevent removal. Services
are provided through SCF and through use of community partners.

Community Safety Net programs are now available to all Oregon
communities. SCF may refer low risk reports to the Safety Net program
from screening, or following assessment and disposition (some may be
founded). The Safety Net program connects families to existing systems
throughout Oregon, providing outreach and community service.

Domestic Violence referrals which may be included in the founded reports
of threat of harm may receive services from programs other than SCF such
as domestic violence treatment /outreach programs and community health
nurse services.

More and more Family Decision Meetings (FDMs) are being held with
families where the child is not removed from the home. Through this
process SCF staff and families work together to meet the child's safety
and well-being needs, while maintaining the child in their own home and
preventing removal.

Improved or additional prevention services, placement resources,
visitation services, alcohol and drug treatment, domestic violence
support and batter's treatment are needed in some areas. See also
Section VIII Service Array.

Over the past few years Oregon notes the increasing complexity of cases
reported which tend to involve several areas of risk factors. This trend
is accompanied by a slight increase in cases assigned and a growing
percentage of cases screened-out. Triaging cases for assignment as a
workload management method for local offices is also noted as a likely
outcome of increasing workload and relatively unchanged staffing
resources.

Maintaining children in their own homes is supported through a variety
of services, practice and collaborations with community partners. System
of Care, Family Decision Meetings, Family Support Teams and locally
designed IV-E Waiver projects enable efforts to maintain and reunify
families.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   Of 20 applicable cases, 15 were rated \"strength\".

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Involvement of the Family Support Team typically produced
    exceptional case assessment, management and service delivery.

-   Cases utilizing Family Decision Meetings were for the most part
    associated with comprehensive and risk-related/strength based case
    plans and services. Families in these situations tended to be open
    to and co-operative with services.

-   Generally speaking, there appears to be a broad and flexible array
    of services available to children and families either through
    community-based services or SCF resources including several
    discretionary funds at the local level. Resources through SOC and
    IV-E waiver projects are evident and useful.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   5 out of 20 cases were rated \"area needing improvement\".

-   In some cases in each of the branches, services arranged did not
    address pertinent risk factors. At times both drug/alcohol abuse and
    domestic violence concerns were not addressed through specific
    services.

-   There was little documentation in records regarding reassessment of
    risk while services were being provided or at case closure.
    Similarly, stakeholder interviews and case reviews noted that some
    families appeared to receive services without resulting in real
    change and that the risk did not appear to be reassessed nor was a
    change in parent behavior or skill evaluated.

-   Stakeholders express concern about the adequacy of safety plans in
    reunification cases and the availability of services and supports
    after reunification. This is particularly noted when a child with
    high needs return to parents with minimally adequate parenting
    skills and resources. Stakeholders perceive that re-entry tends to
    be characterized by children 10 years and older with very difficult
    behaviors and insufficient support to the home.

-   Stakeholders expressed concern that some aspects of a child's safety
    were inappropriately delegated to community partners and that SCF
    should clearly retain primary responsibility for follow-up to ensure
    a child's safety.

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

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

From 1997 through 1999 CA/N reports made to the agency increased 23.8
yet the number opened for assessment remained relatively the same. The
number of cases that were closed at screening increased 54.6% from 1997
(10,988) to 1999 (16,989). The SA indicates that SCF efforts to mange
increasing CA/N referral workload may be resulting in a screening triage
and an increasing proportion of referrals screened out.

Oregon's abuse law lists physical abuse, sexual abuse and exploitation,
neglect, mental injury, child selling, and threat of harm as child
abuse. The distribution of founded reports for 1999 shows that most
categories of abuse declined. However, 54.7% of reports were coded
threat of harm. Threat of harm is defined in ORS 419B.005 as "subjecting
a child to a substantial risk of harm to the child's health or welfare."

Threat of harm has been interpreted differently across the state.
Confusion over threat of harm cases may be resulting in an
inappropriately high number of founded cases, some of which may not be
opened for service. Some of this is confusion over how to treat children
in families with domestic violence. Staff are asking for more
definitions and training on dispositional decisions and coding reports,
including threat of harm situations. Oregon is revising its policies and
procedures concerning dispositional decisions and anticipates that the
number of cases coded threat of harm will be reduced as a result.

At initial screening, Oregon considers a number of factors to determine
if a case will be assigned for investigation. The category \"threat of
harm\" has proved challenging in terms of consistent definition and
application of decision-making at intake across the state. Currently a
substantial project is underway to study and clarify this issue. There
is a variety of community based and SCF supported programs and services
directed towards families wherein concerns with respect to potential
CA/N exist but don\'t meet the threshold for SCF intervention.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   Of 45 applicable cases, 36 were rated \"strength\".

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In a number of cases, SCF staff made excellent use of
    relative/extended family resources to provide additional support,
    respite, monitoring and placement.

-   Many cases demonstrated excellent assessments, match of services,
    monitoring and very positive outcomes.

-   In-home services included very effective use of self-enhancement and
    basic needs type services in addition to the more conventional
    counseling/parenting services.

-   In-home case families often enjoyed a very positive working
    relations between the SCF worker and family members.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

-   9 out of 45 cases were rated \"area needing improvement\".

-   Some cases did not include interviews with child victims or other
    siblings in the home who would have been considered at risk.

-   For older adolescent youth, service plans did not continue to
    address or attempt to maintain involvement with the youth's family.
    Risk to the youth was generally not re-assessed.

-   Stakeholders believe some families superficially comply with
    requirements in order to see their children returned but there is
    little substantive change, intergenerational issues are not resolved
    and children re-enter the system. Underlying issues are not
    addressed or change assessed.

-   Stakeholders believe both policy and practice needs improvement in
    assessing, designing and implementing safety plans, assessing
    parents capacity to follow the plan and make changes. A change-based
    approach is needed in working with families and to determine when a
    case would be appropriately closed. These same observations were
    found through the case reviews.

-   In some cases there were shortcomings related to matching assessed
    or evident risk with appropriate services particularly when
    substance abuse and domestic violence were occurring within the same
    family. These cases tended to not have subsequent re-assessment of
    risk or a determination of parental change resulting from treatment
    intervention. These cases co-exist in the same office or unit with
    cases demonstrating excellent practice and suggest that newer staff
    or staff turnover may be impacting quality of assessment and case
    management.

-   Some stakeholders express concern that safety in foster homes may be
    effected by type and number of children placed in a given home even
    when placements are within the licensed capacity.

## II. PERMANENCY

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

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

                         **Team 1**   **Team                  **Team                **Total                 **Total
                                      2**                     3**                   Number**                Percentage**

  Substantially          16           8                       6                     30                      85.7%
  Achieved:                                                                                                 

  Partially Achieved:    1            1                       1                     3                       8.6%

  Not Achieved or        1            0                       1                     2                       5.7%
  Addressed:                                                                                                

  Not Applicable:        8            3                       4                     15                      

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

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

  Foster care re-entries 8.6%                  20.41%                                          X            

  Length of time to      76.2%                 79.06%                  X                                    
  achieve reunification                                                                                     

  Length of time to      32%                   24.22%                                          X            
  achieve adoption                                                                                          

  Stability of foster    86.7%                 83.65%                                          X            
  care placements                                                                                           

  Length of stay in                                                                                         
  foster care\*                                                                                             
  ---------------------- ------------ -------- -------------- -------- ------------ ---------- ------------ --------------

\*Not used to determine substantial conformity.

**[Status of Permanency Outcome P-I: Not in substantial
conformity.]{.underline}** Of the cases reviewed, 85.7% substantially
achieved the required outcome. Statewide data indicators for foster care
re-entry, length of time to achieve adoption, and stability of foster
care placements did not meet national standards while length of time to
achieve reunification met the national standard.

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

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

Statewide aggregate data indicates that for FY1999 20.41% of children in
foster care had multiple entries within the previous 12 months. The
Oregon re-entry rate of 20.41% significantly exceeds the national
standard of 8.6%.

The relevance of certain programmatic resources such as System of Care,
Safety Net, and other family based services should be considered in
light of service needs associated with foster care re-entry.

SCF efforts to evaluate its assessment process for determining whether
it is safe for a child to remain home and to determine when it is
appropriate to return home will impact both initial placement and
reunification practices.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   Of 35 foster care cases reviewed, none experienced foster care
    re-entry within the review period.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Data integrity or MIS/SACWIS program logic needs exploration to
    develop and provide reliable information to management and the field
    in order to assess current performance and future PIP progress.

-   While cases were rated only for the period under review, each site
    noted re-entry outside the period of review. As a result of the
    sampling method it appears likely that re-entry was not
    "experienced" during the period of review by relatively short-term
    cases or those longer-term cases wherein permanency had for the most
    part been established or the current placement was the intended
    permanent plan.

-   Review team members and stakeholders noted that some decisions to
    reunify were not based on substantial change in parenting capacity
    and noted such cases had a high potential for re-entry.

-   Review team members noted some reunification cases that were closed
    shortly after return home without ongoing services or follow-up, a
    situation that could result in later re-entry.

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

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

Statewide aggregate data indicates that 83.65% of children in foster
care during the previous 12 months had two or fewer placements, which is
less than the national standard of 86.7% for this indicator.

The State Assessment (SA) indicates that possible reasons for multiple
placements are Oregon\'s practice of viewing initial placements as
short-term and second, unplanned disruptions due to the foster parents\'
inability to care for a child. Oregon is in the process of gathering
more information on placement disruptions; information from this
evaluation will be available in the summer of 2001.

Oregon is below the national standard in this element and attributes
possible reasons for multiple placements as related to the not uncommon
practice of short-term \"receiving care\" which often requires a second
placement if the child is not returned home in a very short period of
time. Additionally, potential mismatches between a foster home\'s
ability and resources to provide special care for the sometimes very
difficult and challenging children entering foster care contribute to
placement changes.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   Of 35 applicable cases, 30 cases were rated \"strength\".

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   This item demonstrates considerable strength and is in close
    proximity to meeting the national standard. This is reflected in the
    many cases demonstrating placement stability often over the entire
    placement period.

-   Utilization of relative resources is a substantial contributor to
    both capacity and stability. SCF staff seeks out and identifies
    suitable relative placements.

-   Often both relative and non-relative foster families demonstrated
    very strong commitments to the children in their care with many
    developing into permanent resources when reunification was not
    appropriate.

-   Neighborhood foster care projects were viewed as a positive
    initiative with considerable potential.

-   In one review site, family foster care capacity is adequate and
    enables opportunities to thoughtfully match children with the most
    appropriate foster home.

-   In a number of cases support services provided to the foster parent
    supported placement stability.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   5 out of 35 cases were rated \"area needing improvement\".

-   This 85.72% rate of placement stability, like the State data rate of
    83.65%, is close to, but does not meet, the national standard of
    86.7% and program improvement will be required.

-   Those cases showing the most placement volatility were
    characteristically older adolescent youth whose placement histories
    would include repeated shelter placements, numerous and short-lived
    foster care placements including specialized foster homes, and
    intermittent placements with relatives or family. Those histories
    were interspersed with episodic and repeated runaways.

-   Some placement disruptions were attributed to children with very
    challenging behavioral problems being placed in foster homes without
    the experience or expertise necessary to safely care for the child.
    At times, these caretakers did not feel they had adequate support
    from SCF to assist them with additional services or support

-   The practice/policy of placing all infants in special medical foster
    care may be unnecessarily contributing to multiple placements.

    **Item 7. Permanency goal for child**

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

Oregon has had difficulty maintaining accurate permanency plan goals in
the information system and completed a massive clean-up in late 2000.
Thus data on this item must be viewed with caution.

According to the data, the percentage of children with reunification as
their permanency goal fell from 70% in 1998 to 54.8% in 1999. This is
attributed to Oregon\'s 1997 \" Best Interest of the Child\" legislation
which included provisions similar to those of ASFA limiting the length
of time for reunification. Concern is expressed in the SA that the shift
to adoption and long-term foster care goals, may be attributed to the
changes in SB 689 but also may reflect a dearth of appropriate,
available and culturally responsive services for families that could
assist them in achieving the goal of reunification.

The median length of time to reunification was 3 months in 1999. 79% of
children reunited with their parents were reunited in less than 12
months from the latest removal from the home, exceeding the national
standard of 76.2%. (The possible relationship between Oregon's short
median length of time to reunification and Oregon's rates of re-entry
are explored in Item 5 above.).

The median length of stay in foster care in Oregon is 16.36 months due
to Oregon\'s efforts both to reunite families quickly and to efforts to
implement other permanency plans for children. During the past few years
Oregon particularly emphasized permanent plans for children who would
not be returning home, especially adoption. Oregon has had a dramatic
change in the percentage of children with a goal for adoption from 16.5%
in 1998 to 25.2% in 1999.

Guardianship as a permanency goal nearly doubled from 77 to 144 children
between 1998 and 1999 but still is a very small program.

Data reports only .7% of children had a permanency goal of living with a
relative.

A need identified by the Juvenile Rights project and other child
advocates is to carefully consider a child's attachment and other
well-being issues when determining the most appropriate permanency plan
for the child who is unable to be reunified with parents.

The state assessment noted possible permanency coding errors related to
those children who met the 15/22 months ASFA termination of parental
rights (TPR) filing criteria. It also noted that of 3,596 cases
reviewed, 42% or 1,496 had compelling reasons not to file a TPR.
Overall, there appears to be an increasing number of children whose
permanent plans are other than return home. This is attributed to both
state and federal legislative changes.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   Of 34 applicable cases, 21 were rated \"strength\".

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Some cases with the permanency goal of reunification demonstrated
    focused and consistent efforts over time, complimented by very
    appropriate and effective services array to successfully achieve the
    goal in a timely fashion.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Stakeholders note improvement in timely movement towards termination
    of parental rights when appropriate.

-   Some stakeholders reported the use of compelling reasons not to file
    TPR were appropriate.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   13 out of 34 cases were rated \"area needing improvement\".

-   Several cases noted delays within the case management process that
    were attributed to changes in assigned workers. Sometimes this
    included abrupt change in the permanency plan itself while at other
    times this related to certain tasks.

-   Stakeholders observe there are many multi-problem children in
    long-term foster care that have been in the system for several
    years. They suggested looking at cases to determine what might have
    been done earlier in the life of the case to prevent or ameliorate
    the development of such severely damaged children. There is concern
    that these children's long stays in non-permanent and changing homes
    may be negatively contributing to their adjustment and well being.

-   Children with significant behavioral problems would sometimes have
    case plans primarily aimed at remediating that issue and in the
    interim recruitment or identification of potential permanent
    placement resources was not actively pursued pending the child's
    improvement.

-   Concurrent planning is more often a sequential rather than a
    parallel process. While concurrent plans may be identified, there is
    no evidence of putting time and effort into both possible plans.

-   Stakeholders believe some practice is driven by perception or
    anticipation of what the court would do, as opposed to taking the
    child\'s best interests forward.

-   Stakeholders noted that the lack of AG involvement pre-TPR petition
    is a disadvantage. This sometimes results in delaying the
    establishment of a permanency plan other than return home, issues of
    legal sufficiency, and/or technical oversights that should have been
    addressed and resolved early in judicial proceedings.

-   Compelling reasons for not filing TPR were sometimes not documented.
    Compelling reasons appear to have been used more frequently with
    older cases and less frequently with newer cases.

-   The longer children remained in care the less likelihood that
    adoption would be the accomplished plan. At times, the permanency
    plan appeared substantially influenced by the available placement.
    If a child had adoption as a plan over several years and at some
    point a resource for long-term foster care became available, then
    the plan might change accordingly. This was more evident with older
    children.

-   Some cases noted delays in completing adoption homestudies due to
    the adoptive family's recalcitrance or SCF workload.

-   There is a general lack of urgency post-TPR to finalize the adoptive
    process. Similarly, when other non-reunification permanent plans are
    established, there is less urgency to complete and finalize the
    plan.

-   Some case related interviews as well as case notes noted the
    disparity between foster care maintenance and adoption subsidy as
    delaying or causing foster parents to be disinclined to choose
    adoption. Again, in some situations the permanency plan then might
    shift to long-term foster care.

    **Item 8. Independent Living Services**

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

Some confusion exists with community partners and SCF regarding the
extent to which SCF serves teens. SCF has indicated that it serves
abused and neglected children ages 0-18 and some youth up to age 21, if
they are finishing high school or in the Independent Living Program. SCF
is trying to make sure this message is reinforced to all staff.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   Of 4 applicable cases, 3 were rated \"strength\".

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Of the three cases with children age 16 and older, there was
    demonstrated and specific attention to the youth's ILP needs. Case
    plans were reflective of appropriate services.

-   Foster parents in some cases were making substantial contributions
    to skills training and preparation for emancipation. In those
    situations, the foster parents tended to take the initiative and
    were strong advocates.

-   Some of the ILP providers were considered excellent service
    providers.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   1 out of 4 cases was rated \"area needing improvement\".

-   In this case, IL services were not offered and an IL plan was not
    completed because service delivery was viewed as contingent on
    placement stability.

-   Some areas of the state do not have contracted ILP providers. Those
    areas without contracted providers can sometimes receive services
    from neighboring counties but those arrangements were viewed as
    fragmented and not adequate. See also Item 35.

-   There is a general perception by stakeholders across the sites that
    teenagers are not well served by the agency.

-   Adolescents were visited less often by their assigned worker than
    younger children. Consistent with this, those teens had less
    attention from the worker insofar as permanency planning, ILP
    services, or on-going assessment of other needs.

    **Item 9. Adoption**

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

The percentage of children who exited foster care to finalized adoption
within 24 months in Oregon is 24.22 percent, and is less than the
national standard of 32%.

Oregon attributes this lack of conformity to a number of factors
including:

-   an initiative to move children in care the longest into adoption,

-   the fact that parents relinquishing infants for adoption are
    referred to licensed private agencies,

-   the impact of appeals and other court delays,

-   the lack of representation for the agency at court hearings,

-   the past Oregon policy on placement supervision prior to
    finalization,

-   lower adoption payment rates than the high special foster care rates
    for some children,

-   some staffing factors, and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   the time needed subsequent to the passage of state legislation and
    ASFA to see an impact on adoption.

The SA notes that the adoption program is centrally administered which
encourages more standardized practice. However, staff first were
allocated to the field without a corresponding increase in the central
Adoption Unit, creating a bottleneck during the 1997-1999 biennium.

The SA identifies as a strength the family selection process, which
carefully matches waiting children with adoptive families. The SA also
notes as a strength the additional staff allocated by the legislature to
focus on adoption and the additional recruitment staff. However, these
positions are slated to end at the end of this biennium. The ARMS
database is cited as a valuable tool in identifying and tracking waiting
children but, the SA notes, the continued need to complete the planned
roll-out of the ARMS as a companion to the FACIS system.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   Of 12 applicable cases, 9 were rated \"strength\".

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Both relative and foster adopt placements are substantial resources
    for adoption that clearly meet the child's best interests. These
    resources often enabled preservation of family and community
    connections.

-   For many children, their first placement was their permanent
    placement.

-   Stakeholders note that establishing and implementing permanency
    planning is moving much more rapidly under ASFA.

-   The combination of mediation/voluntary relinquishment was seen as a
    very positive strength and effecting both positive and timely
    outcomes.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

-   3 cases were rated \"area needing improvement\".

-   Some delays in the adoption process were attributed to the paperwork
    and case flow between the local office and centralized adoption. TPR
    referral packets would at times go back and forth for additional
    work. Homestudies/certifications were not infrequently delayed for
    lack of completion of certain forms or information. Subsidy
    applications sometimes required considerable length of time to
    complete and approve.

-   Delays were also sometimes attributed to the adoptive foster or
    relative parent not completing necessary paperwork related to the
    homestudy or subsidy application. This issue was sometimes impacted
    by the disparity between foster care support and anticipated
    reduction in services and financial support post-adoption.

-   Homestudy delays were also attributed to workload and lengthy delays
    for staff to complete the required study and report.

-   Crowded court calendars and delays in setting TPR trials was an
    expressed concern across the state.

-   Court continuances, sometimes repeatedly granted, were attributed to
    defense attorneys not being prepared.

-   Stakeholders reported the length of time to finalize the adoption
    after TPR is too long. Paperwork passed back and forth between the
    local office and centralized adoption delays the adoption
    finalization and is considered a frequent occurrence.

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

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

In the group of 1,496 children reviewed by the state permanency
specialists and determined to have compelling reasons for not filing for
TPR, nearly half are in planned permanent living arrangements other than
adoption and guardianship.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   Of 13 applicable cases, 11 were rated \"strength\".

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Several cases demonstrated clear and sound decision-making often in
    the context of compelling reasons not to file TPR and to establish
    permanent plans other than adoption. These included relative
    placements wherein the maintenance of family connections, attachment
    between the child and bio-parents and the child's expressed
    preference were deciding factors.

-   Cultural considerations were respected and practiced and in ICW
    cases children were in stable long-term arrangements as an
    alternative to adoption.

-   Several cases demonstrated appropriate inclusion of the child or
    youth in the case planning and decision making process.

-   There were stable long-term foster care placements both with
    relatives and foster parents.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   2 out of 13 cases were rated \"area needing improvement\".

-   For children and youth with significant mental health/behavioral
    issues, the permanent plan often was planned permanent living
    arrangements, such as permanent foster care. The mental
    health/behavioral issues were considered as precluding purposeful
    effort to identify adoptive resources and it appeared that these
    children were considered unadoptable. As a result, no efforts were
    made to identify an adoption resource. See also item 7.

-   An alternative plan was established in some cases when a placement
    resource indicated an interest in long-term foster care and thus the
    child\'s permanent plan was defined by virtue of the available
    resource.

-   For some children, unresolved mental health issues are a barrier to
    adoption.

-   In some cases, permanency planning was put on hold until treatment
    was completed rather than planning while the child was in treatment.

-   Some concern was raised with respect to children of a very young age
    having established permanent plans other than adoption, e.g.
    long-term foster care.

-   Case record review demonstrated the need to regularly assess the
    appropriateness of the permanent plan of permanent foster care.
    Improvements in child behavior, changes in foster parent, child or
    birth family attitudes about adoption, and the availability of the
    guardianship program were all noted as appropriate reasons to review
    the permanency goal.

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

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

                         **Team   **Team    **Team    **Total    **Total
                         1**      2**       3**       Number**   Percentage**

  Substantially          17       9         7         33         94.3%
  Achieved:                                                      

  Partially Achieved:    0        0         1         1          2.9%

  Not Achieved or        1        0         0         1          2.9%
  Addressed:                                                     

  Not Applicable:        8        3         4         15         
  ---------------------- -------- --------- --------- ---------- --------------

**[Status of Permanency Outcome P-2: Achieved.]{.underline}** Of the 35
applicable cases reviewed, 94.3% achieved substantial conformity, more
than the required 90%.

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

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

It is SCF's policy to place children as close as possible to birth
parents. Usually this means the children remain in the same county as
the parents. Special needs or relative placement may result in a child
placed out of county.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   Of 32 applicable cases, all were rated \"strength\".

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   This item is considered a substantial and consistent strength across
    the state.

-   In cases where the child was not placed in close proximity, there
    was clearly documented and sound rationale based on the child's best
    interests. Relative and specialized residential treatment placements
    at times resulted in out-of-area placements.

-   In those cases where a child was not placed in close proximity to
    their family, SCF staff would typically make constructive and
    creative efforts to maintain visitation and contact as appropriate.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

    N/A

    **Item 12. Placement with siblings**

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

It is SCF\'s policy to place siblings together unless it is not the best
interest of the children.

The SA indicates that a shortage of foster homes in some areas has lead
to a lack of choice among placement resources making placement of
siblings together sometimes not possible.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   Of 24 applicable cases 20 were rated \"strength\".

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   This item is considered a substantial strength across the state with
    few exceptions.

-   When siblings were separated, there was well-documented rationale
    and usually efforts and services developed related to maintaining
    contact and visitation between siblings.

-   Foster parents made significant contributions in this area in terms
    of transportation, visitation arrangements and supporting on-going
    contact between siblings.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   4 out of 24 cases were rated \"area needing improvement\".

-   In the few cases noted as needing improvement, the decision to
    separate siblings was not based on the needs of the children.

-   When siblings were separated, there was no indication that
    subsequent consideration or effort was made to obtain a placement
    for all the siblings together.

-   Foster home capacity limited opportunities for sibling placement,
    particularly in Lincoln County.

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

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

SCF policy requires that workers assure visits occur between parents and
child. Title IV-E waiver funds have been used to increase the contact
between children and parents and siblings**.**

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   Of 34 applicable cases, 31 were rated \"strength\".

-   This item is a substantial strength and with few exceptions
    consistent across the state.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Visitation arrangements were to a great extent reflective of staff
    efforts to develop schedules and transportation that would best
    accommodate the family's needs and resources.

-   Creative projects at the local level were impressive and again, very
    family focused and friendly.

-   Relatives and foster parents were often involved in planning,
    providing, monitoring and otherwise supporting visitation.

-   HSA staff were credited with highly professional work with excellent
    documentation skills.

-   In those few cases noted as needing improvement, visits between
    siblings were absent or infrequent, or older adolescent youth did
    not have an active or effective visitation plan. There were no noted
    barriers in these instances and other similar case situations were
    rated as strengths as visitation was arranged and regular.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   3 out of 34 cases were rated \"area needing improvement\".

-   In those few cases noted as needing improvement, visits between
    siblings were absent or infrequent, or older adolescent youth did
    not have an active or effective visitation plan. There were no noted
    barriers in these instances, and other similar case situations were
    rated as strengths as visitation was arranged and regular.

    **Item 14. Preserving Connections**

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

Family Decision Meetings and SOC practice support family and community
connections. In addition two major initiatives, Family to Family in 3
branches and the Neighborhood Foster Care Project in Portland seek to
preserve a connection to family and community.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   Of the 34 applicable cases, 32 were rated \"strength\".

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The use of mediation was an effective service enabling maintenance
    of connections in open adoptions and relative placement situations.

-   In relevant cases, good practice efforts and outcomes related to
    working with tribes and ICW requirements including notification,
    case staffing and planning were noted.

-   Foster parents often demonstrated considerable effort and advocacy
    for the child, enabling on-going community and family connections.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   2 out of 34 cases were rated \"area needing improvement\".

-   In one case where a child did not meet tribal enrollment criteria,
    there could have been more effort to assess and pursue possible
    culturally related connections.

    **Item 15. Relative Placement**

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

Overall, 28% of the children in placement are with relatives. This is an
increase from 25.5% in 1999. In February 1998, SCF issued a policy memo,
\"Relatives First and Alone.\" This was the precursor of the 1999 OAR
change (revised in early 2001) regarding the consideration of relatives
as the placement of preference for children requiring out‑of‑home care
and the requirement to conduct an early and diligent search and
assessment of relatives as potential temporary or permanent caregivers.

A significant need in Oregon is for more equitable financial treatment
of relative care providers regardless of the child\'s IV-E eligibility.
Relatives are not paid foster care unless the child is eligible for IV-E
federal funding. On average only 45% of the relative caregivers receive
payment as foster parents.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   Of 34 applicable cases, 33 were rated \"strength\".

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Relatives are generally considered and/or searched for early in the
    case.

-   ICPC is readily utilized for out-of-state considerations.

-   Relatives receive full background checks.

-   In some areas, the licensing process is expedited for relative
    placements.

-   Family Decision Meetings are cited as an important practice method
    and forum for relative inclusion and contribute to relatives'
    involvement as a placement resource.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   1 out of 34 cases was rated \"area needing improvement\".

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

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

SOC initiative emphasizes individualized planning for children with
services designed to meet the child's safety and attachment needs
including maintenance of the parent-child relationship.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   Of 27 applicable cases, 25 were rated \"strength\".

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Staff clearly places significant value on the parent-child
    relationship both in reunification and other permanency plan
    situations.

-   Foster parents make a strong contribution in this area demonstrating
    a willingness and ability to support and enable parent-child contact
    and co-parenting while sharing parenting activities and tasks.

-   Relatives and extended family engage in supporting and enabling
    positive and active relationships between the child and parents,
    both in reunification and other long-term or permanent placement.

-   Open adoptions including mediation as part of the process typically
    support long-term parent-child relations that are appropriate and in
    the child's best interests.

-   FDMs clearly support and enable best practice in this area.

-   When maintenance of the parent-child relationship was contrary to
    the child's best interests, subsequent decision-making provided a
    carefully considered rationale.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   2 out of 27 cases were rated \"area needing improvement\".

-   In those few cases that the parent-child relationship was not
    evidently being supported, there was no indication as to why this
    circumstance continued.

## III. CHILD AND FAMILY WELL-BEING

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

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

                         Team 1   Team 2    Team 3    Total      Total
                                                      Number     Percentage

  Substantially          17       10        11        38         76%
  Achieved:                                                      

  Partially Achieved:    6        2         1         9          18%

  Not Achieved or        3        0         0         3          6%
  Addressed:                                                     

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

**[Status of Outcome WB-1: Not in substantial conformity]{.underline}**.
76% of cases were rated in substantial conformity, less than the
required 90%.

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

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

System of Care and Family Decision Meetings emphasize strengths/needs
based planning and provide flexible funds for this purpose. The SOC
initiative is being implemented over an 8-year period with the last
counties implementing in the 2001-2003 biennium. The SA indicates that
emphasis has been on the child's safety needs, and less emphasis has
been given to the other life needs children, including educational,
social and well being. The State indicates that advanced SOC training is
needed, with a focus on more skill development rather than philosophy
and more focus on child well being including education, physical needs,
and mental health.

The SA indicates the state continues to struggle to have enough adequate
services. See Items 3 and 23 and Section VIII Service Array.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   34 of 50 cases reviewed were rated \"strength\".

-   Cases rated as strengths frequently included well-crafted
    strengths/needs based service plans, assessing the needs of both
    parents and children and providing flexible services.

-   Appropriate match of needs and services in some cases resulted in
    enhanced capacity for parents to meet children\'s needs.

-   In the majority of foster care cases, foster parent needs were met.
    Foster parents identified caseworker contact, assistance locating
    resources, respite care, training and support groups as helpful to
    them. Some foster parents received individualized services to help
    them meet the needs of the children in their care. Services
    included: mediation, counseling, and behavior management, as well as
    flexible funds to meet practical family needs. Services to foster
    parents were particularly strong in Multnomah County.

-   Specialized assessments were used to obtain more information in some
    cases.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   16 of 50 cases were rated \"area needing improvement\".

-   In 8 of these cases, the service needs of children were not
    adequately assessed and/or not met. This was particularly noted as a
    concern for older youth in foster care whose needs received little
    attention.

-   In some cases rated as needing improvement, parents or youth were
    not motivated to participate in assessment or services. Additional
    attention was needed in these cases to help families or youth
    acknowledge needs and engage in services. Additional effort was also
    needed to address barriers to participation, to follow-up to ensure
    service needs were met, and to periodically evaluate progress.

-   In some cases there was an incomplete assessment of parents\' needs
    and a failure to have families adequately address issues of risk.
    Some of these cases had service plans in which families were to
    engage only in superficial services of their choice, avoiding more
    serious issues such as substance abuse and sexual abuse.

-   Some stakeholders noted a need to ask foster parents what they need
    rather than relying on foster parents to speak up.

-   See also Section VIII Service Array.

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

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

Oregon statute stipulates that SCF shall adopt the plan the family
develops. FDMs are a primary tool used to identify needs and develop
service plans.

See also Item 25, case plans.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   In 41 of 45 applicable cases reviewed, parents and children (where
    appropriate) were involved in case planning.

-   Cases with active involvement in case planning were more likely to
    have had family decision meetings or family unity meetings. These
    meetings were recognized as a key element in successful planning
    with families.

-   Including families in planning is standard practice in Oregon. In
    one site all cases reviewed were rated \"strength\" on this item; in
    another site all except one were rated \"strength\".

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   SOC philosophy was not reflected in the case planning approach used
    with a few families who reported they were told what to do or who
    reported that their needs or the needs of their children were not
    addressed in the case plan.

-   Of the 4 cases that lacked involvement in case planning, 2 were
    cases in which youth were not actively involved and FDMs and SOC
    practice not utilized.

    **Item 19. Worker visits with child**

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

Oregon has made frequent and quality contact with children and families
a high priority in new policy standards (January 15, 2001) for visiting.
For children receiving in-home services and for most children in foster
care face to face contact now is required every 30 days. Previously the
foster care policy required contact by phone every 30 days and a face to
face contact every 90 days. Branches are currently discussing ways to
see children more often by re-prioritizing work.

When children are placed within the State but in another county, the
sending and receiving branches negotiate the roles and responsibilities.
This policy needs to be updated to include current contact expectations
consistent with the new policy.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   32 of the 49 applicable cases reviewed were rated \"strength\".

-   Foster parents and some families noted positively a marked increase
    in the number of worker/child visits in the last few months,
    evidence of implementation of the new agency policy. Increased
    contact is credited with enhancing the agency\'s ability to develop
    relationships, identify and meet service needs and better accomplish
    the goals of the case plan.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Of the 49 applicable cases reviewed, 17 were rated \"area needing
    improvement\".

-   This was particularly true in the largest metropolitan area where
    approximately two-thirds of the cases did not have adequate
    worker/child visits.

-   There were strong indications that high caseloads, particularly in
    the urban site, were a barrier to regular visits.

-   Youth in particular were visited infrequently. Children in permanent
    foster care were seen less frequently than every 90 days (State
    policy).

-   In some cases there was too much reliance on service providers and a
    lack of caseworker involvement in visits.

-   In some cases caseworker turnover impacted timeliness of visits.

    **Item 20. Worker visits with parents**

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

See Item 19.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   21 of 28 applicable cases were rated \"strength\".

-   Some parents reported frequent phone contact with workers in
    addition to visits and spoke positively of their relationship to
    their worker.

-   Many service providers are seeing families frequently.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In 7 out of 28 applicable cases reviewed, workers visited parents
    infrequently.

-   All of these were in-home cases. There is a reliance on treatment
    providers to see families and a lack of understanding by workers of
    the importance of continuing to visit parents until the in-home case
    is closed.

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

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

                         Team 1    Team 2    Team 3    Total     Total
                                                       Number    Percentage

  Substantially          17        8         7         32        82.1%
  Achieved:                                                      

  Partially Achieved:    2         0         2         4         10.3%

  Not Achieved or        2         0         1         3         7.7%
  Addressed:                                                     

  Not Applicable:        5         4         2         11        
  ---------------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ------------

**[Status of Outcome WB-2: Not in substantial conformity]{.underline}**.
Of the cases reviewed, 82.1% substantially achieved the outcome, less
than the required 90%.

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

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

A significant barrier to school success, identified by 70% of
respondents, was "frequent school changes as result of out-of-home
placement". This most likely is related to the limited options for
placement.

SCF workers are not routinely trained to assess the education needs of
children entering foster care nor to make written referrals for special
education services, although policy requires them to do so. SCF also has
no organized mechanism to assist foster parents in identifying and
ensuring these needs are met.

Citizen Review Boards review whether SCF is meeting the educational
needs of children and their families. School information is required in
the child\'s service plan and educational needs are discussed in FDMs.
60% of children testing below grade level have Individual Education
Plans (IEPs) in place.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   32 of the 39 applicable cases reviewed were rated \"strength\".

-   School services such as IEPs, school counseling, HeadStart, special
    education services, one-on-one assistance in the classroom, and
    mentor services were provided by schools to meet the needs of
    children in foster care.

-   Foster parents are credited in many cases as the \"driving force\"
    to ensure that services are obtained to meet the children\'s
    educational needs.

-   In some cases SCF social workers were excellent advocates to ensure
    educational needs were met. Cases included examples of caseworkers
    collaborating with a school district to get services to address a
    child\'s lack of social skills, persistence in an in-home case in
    getting a mother to enroll a child in HeadStart, working with foster
    parents to get child into a therapeutic school setting, requesting
    educational evaluation, and making referral and completing
    assessment for early intervention services.

-   Over two-thirds of children in applicable foster care cases reviewed
    were not enrolled in multiple schools as a result of being in foster
    care.

-   Over three-fourths of the children in applicable foster care cases
    reviewed were reported to be at grade level.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   7 of the 39 applicable cases were rated \"area needing
    improvement\".

-   In 3 of these cases there was no attention being given to meeting
    the educational needs of foster youth that are not in school and/or
    not following through with plans for a GED.

-   The remaining 4 cases had unmet educational needs due to failure of
    caseworkers to follow through when needs were identified and worker
    action (paperwork, referral, or advocacy) were needed.

-   Over half of the applicable foster care cases did not have school
    records in the case file.

-   Approximately one-third of cases reviewed had no indication that
    educational records had been provided to foster parents.

  ---------------------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- ------------
  **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:**                                          

                         Team 1    Team 2     Team 3    Total     Total
                                                        Number    Percentage

  Substantially          22        8          8         38        80.9
  Achieved:                                                       

  Partially Achieved:    4         3          1         8         17

  Not Achieved or        0         0          1         1         2.1
  Addressed:                                                      

  Not Applicable:        0         1          2         3         
  ---------------------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- ------------

**[Status of Outcome WB-3: Not in substantial conformity]{.underline}**.
Of the cases reviewed, 80.9% achieved substantial conformity, less than
the required 90%.

**Item 22. Physical Health of the Child**

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

1)  All children in SCF care receive immediate health care coverage
    through the Oregon Health Plan and have physical, mental health and
    dental coverage.

2)  Policy requires a physical exam in 30 days and requires
    documentation of related health information in narrative and case
    plan. The CRBs report that this information is sometimes incomplete.

3)  The SA indicates a lack of understanding of the complicated managed
    care system by both SCF staff and foster care providers. This
    results in varied practice across the state.

To provide medical coverage, the state has specialized staff in place at
the local branch level, provisions for exceptional costs for meeting
needs outside the managed care system and is piloting a project with ASF
to ensure non-paid relative providers receive a medical card
automatically.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   39 of 44 applicable cases reviewed were rated \"strength\".

-   Almost all of the foster care and in-home cases had health
    screenings and assessments, and physical health needs met.

-   Foster parents were determined to see that children\'s dental needs
    were met and made significant effort to find creative ways to get
    these needs met.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   5 of 44 applicable cases were rated \"area needing improvement\".

-   Most cases in which improvement is needed were cases in which
    medical or dental needs were identified but treatment not provided
    because of a lack of agency resolution to barriers to service or a
    lack of agency follow-up.

-   Stakeholders reported obtaining dental care for foster children was
    extremely difficult. Foster parents reported spending a considerable
    amount of effort trying to convince dental providers to serve their
    children.

-   Stakeholders noted screenings are not as thorough as under the past
    EPSDT program and questioned how well needs were being identified.
    (This applied to Item 23, Mental Health Needs, as well.)

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

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

Community partners including the Juvenile Rights Project (JRP) and the
Citizen Review Board (CRB) agreed with SCF staff that timely access to
mental health services for youth generally were lacking statewide. Our
JRP partners felt that the complex relationship between the county, SCF,
MHDDSD, MHOs, local providers, and other state and local agencies were
highly problematic.

In addition, SCF staff perceived the quality of those services as
\"good\" in urban areas and \"fair\" in rural areas. The \"barriers\" to
mental health services for youth most often mentioned included a need
for specialized services (e.g., culturally competent, dual diagnosis,
domestic violence, family counseling, developmental specialties, etc.),
the \"waiting list\" for youth who need mental health services, and the
state managed care system. Also, staff noted that youth placed
out‑of‑county of jurisdiction had more difficulty finding mental health
services.

Personal care or special rate assessments and care plans are provided to
meet the special needs of 60% of the children in care. The SA indicates
community stakeholders are concerned about the care of children with
emotional, mental or behavioral disorders. Stakeholders expressed
concern that in their view foster parents skills to serve such children
vary widely and foster parents receive no consistent training or
consultation when caring for children with a DSM-IV diagnosis.
Stakeholders expressed concern that children with special needs are not
always placed in specific homes on the basis of the foster parents\'
skills and abilities to provide appropriate care, structure and
supervision for them.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   38 of 43 applicable cases were rated \"strength\".

-   Most cases had mental health screenings and mental health
    assessments.

-   Many children were receiving mental health services

-   We noted from cases reviewed and from stakeholders that flexible
    funding is used to meet mental health needs because of a commitment
    to meet children\'s needs in a timely manner.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Some children for whom treatment needs were identified did not
    receive the services needed.

-   Barriers to meeting children\'s mental health needs included
    difficulty accessing services, treatment that was not consistent nor
    at an adequate level to address needs, and a lack of follow through.

-   Rural communities do not have resources for specialized need and
    complex child mental health cases and require travel to larger
    metropolitan areas.

-   Stakeholders noted a concern that foster care re-entries tend to be
    children whose complex emotional and behavioral needs cannot get
    addressed in-home because families have difficulty accessing
    appropriate services.

-   Stakeholders noted a need for mental health practitioners whose
    expertise can address the needs of foster children.

## Part 2: Seven Systemic Factors

## 1. STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  **Rating of                                                 
  Review Team                                                 
  Regarding                                                   
  Substantial                                                 
  Conformity**                                                

  Rating         Not in                        Substantial    
                 Substantial                   Conformity     
                 Conformity                                   

                 1              2              **- 3 -**      4
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

**[This systemic factor is rated \"3 and is in substantial
conformity.]{.underline}**

**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 \_\_\_\_ Area Needing Improvement

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

State Family and Child Information System (FACIS) is a comprehensive
client intake, screening, assessment, eligibility, and case management
tool. The system provides accessible information to state managers and
local staff including information on the status, demographic
characteristics, location and goals for the placement. The system
provides a variety of reports to all levels of SCF for purposes of case
management, workload, decision-making and program modification. The SA
identifies a need to train branch supervisory and management staff about
how to work with and use data.

While the accessibility and usefulness of the information has resulted
in more accurate data, completeness and accuracy continues to need
improvement. The SA indicated that maintaining accurate permanency
planning goals is a particular challenge. The SA indicates examination
and modification of the tracking report used to notify branches when
permanency hearings are due is needed.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   State has a sophisticated data system (FACIS) which can readily
    identify the status, demographic characteristics, location, and
    goals for the placement of children in foster care.

-   FACIS is noted as being particularly helpful at the case level to
    access historical information useful in screening and to access
    information from other counties for improved safety planning. FACIS
    is recognized as being useful at the supervisory level to review
    cases on-line. Both supervisors and managers found caseload status
    reports helpful as a supervisory tool to track cases in terms of
    goals and time frames.

-   FACIS data is beginning to be used to provide information to the
    community, is beginning to be used to provide more outcome-based
    data reports, and is beginning to be used as a tool for more
    outcomes-based discussions with branch managers. Branch managers
    spoke positively about the new data report cards and indicated they
    wanted more outcomes based data.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Barriers to fully utilizing the data system include serious problems
    in data integrity. Internal stakeholders noted that there is a
    significant need for improvements in data accuracy, completeness and
    consistency. Stakeholders indicated that SCF needs to develop a
    culture that values data and ensure that there is a strong
    management mandate to use the system. They also noted the lack of
    use by field staff and the need for training and a feedback loop at
    the field level.

-   The review team noted a need for clearer policy and training
    concerning what constitutes the official record, since neither the
    FACIS system nor the hard copy record are complete. In particular,
    improvement is needed in practice concerning case notes that are not
    regularly in the file or FACIS system. Caseworkers noted that the
    FACIS system for case notes was not very useful since case notes
    cannot be read sequentially and workers lose historical perspective.

-   FACIS is not being fully utilized to monitor and support
    outcomes-based practice. FACIS does not provide managers and
    supervisors with sufficient reports on field practice in are such as
    timeliness of investigations, permanency bench marks, and face to
    face contacts.

## 2. CASE REVIEW SYSTEM

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  **Rating of                                                 
  Review Team                                                 
  Regarding                                                   
  Substantial                                                 
  Conformity**                                                

  Rating         Not in                        Substantial    
                 Substantial                   Conformity     
                 Conformity                                   

                 1              **- 2 -**      3              4
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

**[This systemic factor is rated \"2\" and is not in substantial
conformity.]{.underline}** Two of the four items, case plan and
permanency hearings, were rated \"area needing improvement\".

**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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

State policy requires a case plan be completed within 60 days of
placement, requires that family members be given an opportunity to
participate in the development of the service plan and requires a
minimum of one face-to-face client interview for this purpose.

SA indicates while case plans generally are completed, some branches are
having trouble completing them in 60 days. Reviews/quality assurance
reports indicated a need for training and support to enhance recording
of essential information in the case plan document and a need for
consistent supervisory review of the written case plan. Improvements are
needed in meaningfulness, individualizing, completeness of health and
education information, and updating the case plan.

Family Decision Meetings (FDMs) are identified in the SA as a hallmark
of state practice. These occur with approximately 60% of families.

Efforts are currently underway to hold FDM Early Safety Meetings early
in the case in order to focus on early engagement of the family and
better initial placements for children.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   The use of FDMs for many cases results in the development of case
    plans which identify individual needs and specialized services. SOC
    strengths-based planning successfully engages many families in the
    case planning process.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Some cases did not have current case plans. Others had case plans
    that were descriptions of current status rather than real plans.
    Such problems were more common in cases which did not have FDMs
    and/or in which SOC practices were not utilized. This was
    particularly true for children in long-term permanent foster family
    care and for children in residential treatment. Youth in these cases
    were also less likely to be involved in the case planning process.
    (See also Item 18.)

**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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

Timely periodic reviews are held by the Citizen Review Board (or in some
cases the court) for all children in foster care. Every child in
substitute care is reviewed at least every 6 months. Depending on the
scheduling of court hearings for the case, administrative reviews are
sometimes held in court, rather than before the CRB to avoid unnecessary
duplication of effort.

In addition, SCF conducts in-house 30 day reviews to approve placement
and to ensure that other requirements such as those required by ICWA and
ASFA are in place.

The State Assessment indicated continued and improved collaborative
efforts are needed with SCF workers and supervisors and the CRB
coordinators and volunteers to enable the CRB and SCF to work more
closely as a team to ensure that child safety and permanency is
achieved.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   The 6-month periodic reviews are conducted by the Citizen Review
    Board. Stakeholders noted that reviews are held in a timely manner,
    no less frequently than every 6 months.

-   Stakeholders in one site reported good participation of parents,
    relatives, foster parents and court appointed special advocates in
    reviews.

-   Stakeholders report that the CRB reviews help keep cases moving
    toward timely permanency.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Stakeholders at two sites reported that the CRB is holding reviews
    more frequently than every six months (e.g. every 3 months) in at
    least some of the cases. Stakeholders also reported that some courts
    are holding frequent review hearings. The result is an increasing
    number of court and CRB reviews, with some caseworkers attending
    both hearings and CRBs in the same month. Some stakeholders
    indicated that there is a protocol for canceling CRBs when hearings
    are held. However, it appears that this protocol has not been
    effective in addressing this possible duplication of effort.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Some stakeholders reported some tension between the CRB and SCF.
    They emphasized a need to work together in a way that respects all
    participants.

**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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

State data per the self-assessment indicates between 9%-15% of
permanency hearings are overdue. While there are some tracking and data
integrity concerns related to these figures, it appears a number of
cases may not receive timely permanency hearings.

SCF policy requires that the division develop a permanency plan and an
alternate permanency plan for each child in SCF custody within 60 days
of placement. SCF reviews the permanency plan internally for each child
at 8 months of placement to assess case readiness for a 12-month review
or permanency hearing. The 12-month CRB review may also serve the
purpose of preparing a case for the permanency hearing; however, many of
these reviews are cancelled when the time frame to conduct the CRB
review coincides with the court review**.** Despite these efforts, some
stakeholders felt that the state does little or no pro-active work on
the permanent plan prior to the hearing.

Several issues were identified with respect to timely permanency
hearings including data input and tracking problems, need for training
for both judicial and SCF staff, and lack of knowledgeable legal
representation for the state.

The Oregon Court Improvement Project has been developing a benchbook
including pattern forms for across state jurisdictions to utilize and
has and will continue to provide training and join or initiate
collaborative efforts in this arena.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   Both internal and external stakeholders were knowledgeable about the
    ASFA requirements and indicated ASFA timelines for permanency
    hearings are being met. They indicated that court involvement is
    resulting in more movement toward permanency and in services being
    offered earlier.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Some stakeholders expressed concern about some permanency decisions
    made in hearings. The lack of legal representation for the agency,
    particularly in difficult and challenging cases, may be a
    contributing factor.

-   Stakeholders noted a lack of consistency in requesting attorneys be
    appointed for children.

-   A number of stakeholders, particularly at one site, noted a lack of
    clarity about the purpose and conduct of permanency hearings and
    provided examples demonstrating a serious need for judicial
    training.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The onsite review identified some cases in which subsequent
    permanency hearings appeared not to reexamine the appropriateness of
    the permanency goal regardless of changes in a child's
    circumstances, particularly in the case of children in long-term
    foster care. See also Item 10.

**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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

Consistent with the State ASFA implementation effective date, the State
of Oregon has in place since August 1999, rules for filing for
termination of parental rights (TPR) consistent with the federal ASFA
requirements. The Oregon legislature provided four ASFA Permanency
Implementation Specialists who identified children in care at least 15
of 22 months and staffed each of these children. 41.6% of the children
staffed have a documented compelling reason for not filing. Nearly half
of these children are in planned permanent living arrangements. 214
children became fully free and 711 children had voluntary relinquishment
or TPR in process.

The SA identifies consistent legal services statewide for termination
cases as a strength.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   Stakeholders indicated that a process is in place and utilized for
    meeting the ASFA TPR requirements.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   While TPR filings appear to be occurring, internal stakeholders
    noted a lack of familiarity of the field with the 15 of 22 tracking
    report and noted a lack of understanding of compelling reasons and
    requirements for accurate documentation of it in the FACIS system.
    Review team members also noted a lack of formal case file
    documentation of compelling reasons in cases reviewed.

**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.**

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

SA indicates overall foster parents receive notice of their opportunity
to participate but local systems have not been put in place consistently
to fully implement the policy. Branch notice is by mail, phone or in
person with no consistent way of documenting this in the case record.
Foster parents agree that they do receive notices by mail most of the
time and notice by mail seems to work for most branches. CRB indicates
that at times they receive inaccurate information regarding the involved
parties on a case, causing a failure in the notification process.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   While there is no one consistent method of notice, regular notice is
    being provided to foster parents and a significant number are
    attending reviews and hearings and being heard.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

-   There continues to be a need for training of SCF staff and foster
    parents on the value of foster parent participation to further
    increase foster parent attendance.

## 3. QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  **Rating of                                                 
  Review Team                                                 
  Regarding                                                   
  Substantial                                                 
  Conformity**                                                

  Rating         Not in                        Substantial    
                 Substantial                   Conformity     
                 Conformity                                   

                 1              2              3              **- 4 -**
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

**[This systemic factor is rated \"4\" and is in substantial
conformity]{.underline}**

**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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

The State has recently revised its certification standards, its policy
on placement expectations, and a policy that directs best case practice,
\"Ensuring Quality in Foster Homes.\" SCF has strict certification
policies for all foster care including paid and unpaid foster care and
adoptive homes, both relative and non-relative. These policies have
required some significant practice and system changes; it is taking time
for SCF and partners to accept and adjust to these changes. See also
Items 41 and 42.

The SA further raises a concern that limited foster care capacity at
times results in placements in less than optimal situations

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   State has new certification standards, which emphasize child safety
    and health. These standards are applied to all foster homes,
    relative and non-relative, paid and unpaid homes.

-   The State is using a contractor to review every home in every county
    to ensure homes are adequately able to meet the health and safety
    needs of children.

-   State has comprehensive standards for criminal background checks for
    foster and adoptive parents.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

    N/A

**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.**

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

Oregon has conducted regular comprehensive branch reviews since 1997, on
a two to three-year cycle. The reviews have consisted of interviews with
community partners and staff, and case file reviews. The reviews provide
the branches, the local communities, and SCF with a written report which
itemized strengths, identified items for corrective action, and provided
recommendations for both branch action and for division-wide action. In
response, the branches developed corrective action plans based on the
report provided to them. Subsequent reviews have documented improvement
in some areas of practice.

While these reviews document strengths and issues in case management,
the SA indicates the process should focus more on safety, permanency,
and well-being outcomes for children and families.

See also \"1. State Information System\" concerning need for improved QA
of data and use of data reports.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   The State has developed a formal quality assurance (QA) process used
    to regularly review each branch. Stakeholders described this process
    as a \"very inclusive process\", professional\" and with
    \"comprehensive findings\" leading to program improvement.

-   Stakeholders noted positively the increased emphasis on outcomes and
    statistical data in this process recently.

-   This QA process was noted as a key component to statewide
    consistency in practice and as a positive link between the program
    office and field practice.

-   Some supervisors/branches have developed successful formats such as
    regular meetings to coach staff both on good practices and state
    policy and procedures.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

-   Many stakeholders expressed great concern over the anticipated loss
    of QA positions effective July 1, 2001 and fear that this helpful
    process will be abandoned.

-   Stakeholders expressed concern over the large numbers of staff
    supervisors have in their units, which limits their ability to do QA
    and limits staff access to them.

## 

## 4. TRAINING

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  **Rating of                                                 
  Review Team                                                 
  Regarding                                                   
  Substantial                                                 
  Conformity**                                                

  Rating         Not in                        Substantial    
                 Substantial                   Conformity     
                 Conformity                                   

                 1              **- 2 -**      3              4
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

**[This systemic factor is rated \"2\" and is not in substantial
conformity.]{.underline}** Initial training was rated as needing
improvement because it is not provided timely; ongoing training is rated
\"area needing improvement\" because it is not occurring for all staff
as needed.

**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.**

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

The State provides core training, system of care strengths/needs based
training, supervisory and specialized training through the Portland
State University Child Welfare Partnership (CWP). Training is provided
not only to staff but also to community partners and representatives
from Oregon tribes. The SA highlights this partnership which provides
integrated child welfare research, training and graduate education as a
as a key strength.

SCF and CRB along with judicial partners trained on ASFA, held ASFA
planning sessions and the CWP hired 2 ASFA trainers to incorporate ASFA
into core trainings.

The State provides core training to new staff. Policy requires staff
take the first section within 90 days and the last 2 sections within 9
months. Improving the timeliness of training has been identified as a
major priority by the SCF administration.

Some staff have expressed dissatisfaction with core training. Some
branches provide additional branch specific new worker training and
believe it is a worthwhile investment.

Minimum staff qualifications were changed in 2001 to require a BSW or
degree in another related field.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   Stakeholders noted that Oregon has a core training program, which
    provides consistent initial training for all new workers statewide.
    Stakeholders indicated this training meets basic needs.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Stakeholders in one site noted as a strength that CPS workers in
    that location were completing the CPS training prior to being
    assigned to CPS work.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Workers indicated that Consultant Educators and Trainers (CETs) were
    helpful as mentors and to connect training to local practice.

-   PSU partnership makes great effort to have training available.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Many stakeholders expressed significant concern that most workers do
    not receive training prior to carrying caseloads, in part due to
    workload demands. Stakeholders strongly recommended SCF set clear
    requirements that staff be trained before carrying cases.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Stakeholders expressed concern about the current lack of training
    for supervisors, but commended SCF for its plans to reinstitute the
    supervising for excellence program in August 2001.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Workers indicated they would like the initial core training to
    include additional hands-on skill based training such as practice
    testifying and practice interviewing.

**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.**

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

See Item 33.

Staff are not routinely getting a set number of hours of ongoing
training. 52% of staff received 20 hours of development, training, and
education during the year. Barriers identified included high workload
and the difficulty traveling to Salem for training.

QA reviews and Juvenile Rights Project (JRP) reviews indicate some
branches and staff believe the CWP training does not meet their needs.
For 2001 the CWP is working to make the training meet more branch and
state needs. Training heavily emphasizes safety. CWP with JRP is working
to increase emphasis on the well-being and attachment needs of children.

Currently there is not an advanced level of training for staff around
strengths-needs based training. Training for newly implementing SOC
branches gives staff and management information and training needed to
adapt to this way of casework practice but advanced training is needed
for fully implementing branches.

Graduate education through the Child Welfare Partnership has grown from
6 slots in 1994 to 70 slots in 2001.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   Stakeholders noted as strengths extensive cross-disciplinary ASFA
    training, effective system of care initial training, the new
    training on educational advocacy, and the newly developed training
    for home certifiers.

-   The also spoke positively about the opportunity for cross-training
    which allows workers to attend the core training outside their
    specialty and to connect what they do to the full range of child
    welfare practice.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Many staff are not participating in ongoing training.

-   A number of stakeholders mentioned the need for more legal training
    of all parties. More legal training for caseworkers was considered
    particularly critical given the extensive amount of legal work
    caseworkers are required to do. They commented that workers have
    difficulty testifying in court and are not consistently able to use
    the court process effectively to achieve the best outcomes for
    children.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Additional training needs identified include more ongoing
    information system training, joint worker/foster parent training,
    training in assessing risk, and more advanced in-service training
    for experienced workers.

**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.**

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

Foster parent training is available in a variety of formats including
classes, support groups, mentoring, media and distance technology. State
policy requires foster parents complete orientation training within the
first 30 days and in subsequent years to complete 10 hours or complete
an appropriate training plan to meet the needs of the child in their
care. Data is not collected on the extent of compliance with this
policy. The SA suggests that the State examine what can be accepted as
training credits and consider some changes to the content and types of
training provided.

Staff in child caring organizations are required to receive training in
core competency areas and the organizations are required to certify they
have trained their staff in core competencies.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   Foster parents complete core training prior to providing care or
    within 30 days if they are an emergency placement. Foster parents
    felt the core training met their needs.

-   Stakeholders at one site noted as a strength the collaboration with
    the local community college to provide foster parents training as
    part of the community college program. Training is listed in the
    college catalog and college credit is provided.

-   Stakeholders noted that training content was consistent with the
    types of children for whom they were caring.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

-   Stakeholders suggested more formal training plans with some balance
    of formal content and support group activities.

-   Stakeholders noted the need for childcare to participate in training
    and for computer based training they could complete at home.

## 

## 5. SERVICE ARRAY

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  **Rating of                                                 
  Review Team                                                 
  Regarding                                                   
  Substantial                                                 
  Conformity**                                                

  Rating         Not in                        Substantial    
                 Substantial                   Conformity     
                 Conformity                                   

                 1              2              **- 3 -**      4
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

**[This systemic factor is rated \"3\" and is in substantial
conformity]{.underline}**

**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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

The state uses inventive combinations of SCF services, System of Care,
IV-E waiver and safety net services to provide an individualized array
of services.

Throughout the SA there are references to a possible need for more
treatment resources for children with extensive needs and for parents.
The SA mentions the need for more drug and alcohol treatment, improved
or additional prevention services, more placement resources, and
indicates domestic violence support and batters treatment are critically
needed in some areas.

The SA indicates that the ability to successfully engage parents in an
effective behavioral change process within ASFA timeframes and sensitive
to children\'s needs for permanency continue to be challenging.

The State is committed to placing children in family-based care
situations. Oregon places about 5% of children in residential care while
the national rate is about 8%. However, since placement in therapeutic
foster care is limited by contract, community partners have raised a
concern that some children are placed in family foster care when
therapeutic foster or residential treatment might be indicated.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   A wide array of services is available for families and children in
    Oregon. Safety nets provide preventive services to families screened
    out of the SCF system. Individualized formal and informal services
    are available for families served by SCF. Adoptive parents noted an
    improvement in post-adoption support services.

-   Stakeholders provided examples of good collaboration with community
    partners such as HeadStart and Healthy Start to meet service needs
    of families.

-   Stakeholders noted safety nets as a strength in serving families
    before earlier problems escalate.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Stakeholders noted that services to teens are seriously lacking.
    They identified a need for appropriate in-home services to teens
    that are acting out but not part of the delinquency system. They
    also noted a need for foster care placements for teens and a need
    for more residential treatment. They noted that access to
    residential treatment required long waiting lists and the
    residential system was "clogged" in part due to a lack of
    post-treatment resources.

-   Stakeholders noted the lack of a comprehensive consistent
    independent living program. They indicated that while some
    contractors are excellent, current operation of IL as a grant
    program isolates it from the SCF system. They also noted that IL
    services are not available in all areas of the state.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A general lack of foster homes and therapeutic foster homes was
    noted as a critical need in two sites. This shortage resulted in an
    overuse of temporary shelter care at one site and inability to place
    children in an appropriately matched home in the other site.
    Stakeholders noted that SCF over utilizes some foster homes filling
    them to the maximum licensing limit even if some of the children are
    very difficult and a full number of children/mix of children
    overloads the family.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Stakeholders also noted a need for medical and dental services, and
    mental health services. (See Items 22 and 23). Concern was expressed
    about the difficulty accessing services.

-   Stakeholders noted a need for these services to be designed to
    better meet the needs of SCF clients. They also noted a need for
    mental health services to better service young children, and to
    better address the unique needs of children in foster care.

-   They also noted a need for better bilingual and bicultural services.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Stakeholders noted needs for enhanced drug and alcohol services,
    less waiting lists, and more residential programs where parents can
    receive treatment while their children are with them.

-   They also noted a lack of services for youth sex offenders in at
    least one site.

-   Stakeholders at one site noted a need for preventive services.
    Stakeholders also noted the demands on the safety net are increasing
    and that more families are being referred to the safety net after
    some initial service from SCF. They noted other preventive resources
    (not safety nets) need to be available for families with complex
    needs and families who do not chose to engage in voluntary safety
    net services.

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

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

See Item 35. The State considers the interplay of centralized program
management with regional and local services, the interplay of
governmental services and those provided by the private section and the
interplay of general and targeted recruitment activities for both foster
care and adoption placements as a strength in delivering an array of
services throughout the state.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   Stakeholders noted challenges to service provision in rural areas
    but noted that services are available statewide. This is credited to
    state creativity and flexibility. Stakeholders noted that in rural
    areas the title IV-E waiver allows SCF to design services to meet a
    need for which there is no community resource.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

-   Rural areas indicated clients had to go to a major metropolitan area
    for some skilled services such as psychological evaluations,
    specialized mental health services, and intensive treatment
    resources.

-   The most critical unmet need identified in rural areas was
    transportation to get to the available community services.

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

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

See Item 35. Service planning requires that the worker and the family
identify the issues facing the family, determine the objectives to be
achieved and agree upon the actions to be taken. This process may
include a FDM or other meeting and is a process that supports family
participation in the development of their plan and services.

The strengths-needs based System of Care (SOC) is in place in 80% of
field offices. The worker works with families to assess their strengths
and needs and then to create very specific services which will best meet
the needs. A very important element to this reform is the access to
flexible branch funds which can be used to purchase goods and individual
tailored services that meet the specific needs of families

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   Flexible funds and System of Care funds are used for individualized
    and creative services.

-   System of Care strength/needs approach combined with Family Decision
    Meetings and flexible funds results in the provision of
    individualized services.

-   Services are creatively designed and both formal and informal
    supports are used to meet individual needs.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Stakeholders at one site noted that while SCF is engaged in the SOC
    philosophy, they need contracted service providers to move to this
    same creative flexible individualized approach.

-   Stakeholders emphasized the need for continued emphasis on
    creativity, and noted the tendency for SCF over time to
    "institutionalize" flexible funds and use them for traditional
    services.

-   SOC approach needs to be applied not only to reunification cases but
    also to other types of cases.

## 6. AGENCY RESPONSIVENESS TO THE COMMUNITY

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  **Rating of                                                 
  Review Team                                                 
  Regarding                                                   
  Substantial                                                 
  Conformity**                                                

  Rating         Not in                        Substantial    
                 Substantial                   Conformity     
                 Conformity                                   

                 1              2              3              **- 4 -**
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

**[This systemic factor is rated \"4\" and is in substantial
conformity]{.underline}**

**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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

The State consults with many stakeholder groups including the Courts,
Citizen Review Boards, Juvenile Rights Project, Oregon Commission on
Children and Families, Court Appointed Special Advocates, and agency
advisory groups. Regular meetings of stakeholder groups and public
meetings on the budget are held. A twenty-one member legislatively
mandated SCF Advisory Committee advises SCF on the development and
administration of the policies programs and practices.

The State has had tribal title IV-E agreements since 1991, provides
extensive consultation and technical assistance and has developed a
comprehensive model agreement. Currently, 3 tribes have agreements and
the State is working with additional tribes to develop agreements. SCF
meets quarterly with tribes and works government to government with
tribes on issues of importance to tribes. SCF strives for full ICWA
compliance, has an ICWA Manager, has reactivated its ICWA advisory
council and is working on an updated handbook.

The SA indicates community stakeholders are involved at many levels from
the allocation of funding to the department wide reorganization.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   Stakeholders indicated that SCF central administration is extremely
    responsive and noted that SCF strives for responsiveness at all
    levels. SCF is trying to provide information to community
    partners/stakeholders and ask for their ideas. Stakeholders noted
    that SCF no longer thinks it can "do it alone" and that SCF is
    getting better at asking for help. Stakeholders report that this was
    true at all levels-not only the State Office in Salem but also at
    the branch level and at the individual case level where workers ask
    more frequently for input before decisions are made.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   SCF is working to improve relationships and services available to
    tribes. Tribal stakeholders indicated they were pleased overall with
    state responsiveness and follow-up to their concerns. They cited the
    Statewide ICWA Manager, quarterly meetings with tribes, local office
    liaisons, and the annual "Gathering of Nations" conference as
    examples of positive agency responsiveness. They also noted some
    improvement in SCF ability to recognize the uniqueness of each
    tribe.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Some stakeholders, particularly in Multnomah County, indicated that
    continued improvement is needed in worker/foster parent partnering
    (see Item 35) and, in some cases, worker/CASA communication.

-   Stakeholders indicated there are still a few branches where
    community/SCF relationships continue to be poor and should be
    improved.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Stakeholders noted tribal staff sometimes had to make extra efforts
    at communication and were not always well informed at the case
    level. They indicated communication problems increased when the case
    was handled by a branch geographically distant from the tribe.

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

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

SCF has a participatory CFSP planning process for the development of the
5-year CFSP and Annual Progress and Services Report. The OCCF, the CRB
and the tribes in Oregon participate in developing the plan and progress
reports. The OCCF has an intergovernmental agreement and receives title
IV-B Subpart II funding. The CRB has a IV-E agreement for reimbursement
of administrative review expenditures, while three tribes in Oregon have
IV-E agreements for tribal foster care programs.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

See Item 38.

**Areas Needing Improvement:**

N/A

**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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

SCF has been engaged in a variety of efforts to coordinate its services
with the services and benefits of other public and private agencies
serving the same general populations of children and families. SCF has
participated in the DHS Service Integration Initiative for the pasts
several years and has partnered with Mental Health, Adult and Family
Services, Medicaid, Oregon Youth Authority, Drug and Alcohol Programs,
Health Division and with other state and local agencies.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   Stakeholders cited numerous examples of positive ongoing
    collaboration and multi-disciplinary partnerships both at the
    systems level and the case level.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Despite this collaboration in at least one community it was felt
    that the community continues to expect SCF to resolve all
    child/family issues, and some community partners are not taking
    responsibility for providing community resources to serve families.

##  

## 

## 7. FOSTER AND ADOPTIVE PARENT LICENSING, RECRUITMENT, AND RETENTION

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  **Rating of                                                 
  Review Team                                                 
  Regarding                                                   
  Substantial                                                 
  Conformity**                                                

  Rating         Not in                        Substantial    
                 Substantial                   Conformity     
                 Conformity                                   

                 1              2              3              **- 4 -**
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

**[This systemic factor is rated \"4\" and is in substantial
conformity]{.underline}**

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

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

See also Item 30. SCF certifies homes for family foster care, group
family foster care, emergency family foster care, relative care, and
adoptive families. All of these are covered by the same set of
certification standards. The state licenses residential treatment,
residential shelter care, and treatment foster care. SCF has had
standards in accord with national standards for many years. In March
2001, SCF issued updated certification standards for foster care.
Longstanding licensing standards for child caring agencies and
residential treatment programs are applied prior to the issuance of a
license and are reviewed every two years at renewal.

The SA cites the strict certification/licensing standards and criminal
record check requirements for all provider homes as a strength and as
evidence of Oregon\'s strong emphasis on safety.

See also Section VI Quality Assurance.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   The state recently implemented new certification standards. Some
    stakeholders expressed concern that these standards limit the number
    of children in the care of a provider; however, others noted this as
    positive change. Overall, community partners view these standards as
    a positive effort to ensure safety for children.

-   Stakeholders reported that the agency is completing timely
    recertification of providers on an annual basis.

-   Several positive licensing practices were noted. Recent improvements
    in quality of licensing staff has resulted in more active
    recruitment and support of foster parents and a better understanding
    of the importance of retention. Use of certification committees in
    some areas of the state is improving and promoting positive
    relationships between licensers and foster parents, and is a
    promising practice more offices are adopting.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Since the licensing standards have recently changed, continued
    monitoring is needed to identify and address any barriers to
    implementation

**Item 42. The standards are applied to all licensed or approved foster
family homes or childcare institutions receiving title IV-E or IV-B
funds.**

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

SCF standards apply not only to homes receiving title IV-E and title
IV-B funds but to all placements in which SCF has custody, including
foster care, relative care, and adoptive placements. SCF does allow
provisional licenses for 30 days but policy does not allow claiming of
federal funds during this time. (OAR 413-100-0020 and 0030).

The SA indicates some branches are experiencing difficulty completing
all background checks and initial training during the 30 day period. The
SA indicates the SCF is monitoring this closely.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   The state applies its new standards to both relative and
    non-relative homes. Licensing staff gives priority to relative
    certifications to expedite prompt placement of children with
    relatives.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

-   Continued attention needs to be given to workload impacts from the
    new requirements. There has been a major increase in workload due to
    the increase in relative home studies. Staff in one county indicated
    they are spending up to thirty percent of their time on relative
    certifications.

**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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

Child caring agencies are required to obtain and act upon criminal
background information on program staff. Personnel files are examined
during licensing and re-licensing to ensure checks are completed and
properly acted upon. State requires criminal background checks for all
foster care placements not only title IV-E/IVB placements. There has
been an increasing interest by the courts, community, and tribal members
in the ASFA regulations regarding criminal history background. In
essence, the concern is that criminal history should not be a reason for
automatic denial of certification. The issue is most notable in the
relative and tribal care of children. The Oregon Legislature is
currently considering legislation that would ease some of the language
in current law to allow for more exceptions to foster care providers
with prior criminal activities on their records.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

The state is obtaining criminal background checks as required.

**Areas Needing Improvement:**

N/A

**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.**

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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

The SA indicates that a significant strength in Oregon is its aggressive
diligent recruitment program at both the branch and state level for both
general and targeted recruitment of foster and adoptive homes. Oregon
has developed a successful targeted minority recruitment program
although there remains a shortage of African American and also Native
American foster and adoptive homes needed.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   State has made recruitment a priority and increased the number of
    foster care home certifiers for the last biennium.

-   The State is now looking at new strategies. Some stakeholders
    positively noted plans for neighborhood based foster care.

-   Stakeholders at one site identified a successful practice of
    recruiting through churches, providing immediate response to
    interested families, and getting them into training quickly.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Stakeholders expressed concern about the discontinuation of funding
    for additional foster home recruitment specialists (a decision made
    because there was no demonstrated increase in the number of foster
    homes).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Stakeholders noted a continued need for efforts to recruit more
    foster homes particularly homes reflecting the racial and ethnic
    diversity of children in foster care.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Some stakeholders noted the need to focus on retention strategies,
    meeting the need for mentoring and peer support, respite care, and
    ensuring foster parents feel valued and an integral part of the
    team.

**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

**BASIS:**

**[State Assessment]{.underline}**

Oregon is recognized as a national leader in making and finalizing
out-of state placements. However, Oregon continues to have difficulty
finalizing placements of children placed by Oregon into other states.
Oregon is participating in a federal multi-state demonstration project
to address this concern.

**[Onsite]{.underline}**

**Strengths:**

-   SCF utilizes strategies to maximize access to cross-jurisdictional
    resources including participation in regional exchanges, and
    extensive relative searches to identify out-of-state placements for
    children.

    **Areas Needing Improvement:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Reviewers noted a need to ensure continued access to needed services
    when children move from one county to another county or State.

# 

#  Summary of Findings Chart Appendix A

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.

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| [**                   | **[Child and Family   | **[Systemic Factors   |
| Safety**]{.underline} | Well                  | (                     |
|                       | -Being]{.underline}** | cont.)]{.underline}** |
| \_                    |                       |                       |
| \_[N]{.underline}\_\_ | \_                    | [\                    |
| Outcome S1            | \_[N]{.underline}\_\_ | _\_Y\_\_]{.underline} |
|                       | Outcome WB1           | Quality Assurance     |
| >                     |                       | System \_\_\_\_\_     |
| \_\_[x\_]{.underline} | >                     | Item 30               |
| > Item 1              | \_\_[x\_]{.underline} |                       |
| >                     | > Item 17             | > \_\_\_\_\_ Item 31  |
| > \_\_\_\_\_ Item 2   | >                     |                       |
|                       | > \_\_\_\_\_ Item 18  | \_                    |
| \_                    | >                     | \_[N]{.underline}\_\_ |
| \_[N]{.underline}\_\_ | >                     | Training              |
| Outcome S2            | \_\_[x\_]{.underline} |                       |
|                       | > Item 19             | \_\_[x\_]{.underline} |
| > \_\_\_\_\_ Item 3   | >                     | Item 32               |
| >                     | >                     |                       |
| >                     | \_\_[x\_]{.underline} | >                     |
| \_\_[x\_]{.underline} | > Item 20             | \_\_[x\_]{.underline} |
| > Item 4              |                       | > Item 33             |
|                       | \_\_[N]{.             | >                     |
|                       | underline}\_\_Outcome | > \_\_\_\_\_ Item 34  |
|                       | WB2                   |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | >                     |                       |
|                       | \_\_[x\_]{.underline} |                       |
|                       | > Item 21             |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **[Perm               | \_\_[N]{.             | [\                    |
| anency]{.underline}** | underline}\_\_Outcome | _\_Y\_\_]{.underline} |
|                       | WB3 \_\_\_\_\_ Item   | Service Array         |
| \_                    | 22                    |                       |
| \_[N]{.underline}\_\_ | \_\_[x\_]{.underline} | >                     |
| Outcome P1            | Item 23               | \_\_[x\_]{.underline} |
|                       |                       | > Item 35             |
| >                     | **[Systemic           | >                     |
| \_\_[x\_]{.underline} | F                     | > \_\_\_\_\_ Item 36  |
| > Item 5              | actors]{.underline}** | >                     |
| >                     |                       | > \_\_\_\_\_ Item 37  |
| > \_\_\_\_\_ Item 6   | [\                    |                       |
| >                     | _\_Y\_\_]{.underline} | [\                    |
| >                     | Statewide Information | _\_Y\_\_]{.underline} |
| \_\_[x\_]{.underline} | System \_\_\_\_\_     | Agency Responsiveness |
| > Item 7              | Item 24               | to the                |
| >                     |                       |                       |
| >                     |                       | > Community           |
| \_\_[x\_]{.underline} |                       | >                     |
| > Item 8              |                       | > \_\_\_\_\_ Item 38  |
| >                     |                       | >                     |
| >                     |                       | > \_\_\_\_\_ Item 39  |
| \_\_[x\_]{.underline} |                       | >                     |
| > Item 9              |                       | > \_\_\_\_\_ Item 40  |
| >                     |                       |                       |
| >                     |                       |                       |
| \_\_[x\_]{.underline} |                       |                       |
| > Item 10             |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| [\                    | \_                    | [\                    |
| _\_Y\_\_]{.underline} | \_[N]{.underline}\_\_ | _\_Y\_\_]{.underline} |
| Outcome P2            | Case Review System    | Foster and Adoptive   |
|                       |                       | Parent                |
| > \_\_\_\_\_ Item 11  | >                     |                       |
|                       | \_\_[x\_]{.underline} | Licensing,            |
| \_\_\_\_\_ Item 12    | > Item 25             | Recruitment, and      |
|                       | >                     |                       |
| > \_\_\_\_\_ Item 13  | > \_\_\_\_\_ Item 26  | Retention             |
| >                     | >                     |                       |
| > \_\_\_\_\_ Item 14  | >                     | > \_\_\_\_\_ Item 41  |
| >                     | \_\_[x\_]{.underline} | >                     |
| > \_\_\_\_\_ Item 15  | > Item 27             | > \_\_\_\_\_ Item 42  |
| >                     | >                     | >                     |
| > \_\_\_\_\_ Item 16  | > \_\_\_\_\_ Item 28  | > \_\_\_\_\_ Item 43  |
|                       | >                     | >                     |
|                       | > \_\_\_\_\_ Item 29  | > \_\_\_\_\_ Item 44  |
|                       |                       | >                     |
|                       |                       | > \_\_\_\_\_ Item 45  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

# Appendix B

# Oregon Review - Penalty Calculation Estimate

  ------------------------------------------------- ----------------------
  **Pool of Funds:\***                              

  Title IV-E Foster Care Administrative Costs       \$15,151,699

                                                    10.00 %

                                                    1,515,170

                                                    

  Title IV-B Subpart 1                              3,471,124

  Title IV-B Subpart 1                              2,679,320

                                                    

  **Total Pool**                                    **7,665,614**
  ------------------------------------------------- ----------------------

\* Based on:

-   Title IV-E FY 2001, 2 Quarters actual and 2 Quarters estimated

-   Title IV-B FY 2001 Allocation (excludes ITO\'s)

Final calculation will include Foster Care Administrative costs prior
quarter adjustments related to the penalty year.

**Estimated penalty per area of non-conformity: \$76,656**

**Total estimated Oregon penalty for eight areas of non-conformity:
\$613,248**

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is suspending the
withholding of funds associated with this penalty during the period of
the approved PIP. If ACF determines that the State is successful in
rectifying any of the areas that are in non-conformity through
successful completion of the PIP, we will rescind the withholding of
Federal funds associated with those areas at that time.

# Appendix C

# Acronyms

  ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------
  ACF -        Administration for Children and Families

  AFCARS -     Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System

  ASFA -       Adoption and Safe Families Act

  CA/N -       Child Abuse and Neglect

  CFS -        Child and Family Services

  CPS -        Child Protective Services

  CRB -        Citizen Review Board

  CWP -        Child Welfare Partnership

  FACIS -      Family and Child Information System

  FDM -        Family Decision Meeting

  ICWA -       Indian Child Welfare Act

  MIS -        Management Information System

  NCANDS -     National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System

  PIP -        Program Improvement Plan

  SA -         State Assessment

  SACWIS -     Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System

  SCF -        State Office for Services to Children and Families

  SOC -        System of Care

  TPR -        Termination of Parental Rights

  QA -         Quality Assurance
  ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------

# Appendix D

# 

# Oregon Child and Family Services Review Team

**Federal Staff:**

Carol Overbeck -- Review Team Leader

Kathy Admire - CW Program Specialist, DHHS/ACF Region X

Katherine Aguilar - CW Program Specialist, DHHS/ACF Region IX

John Henderson - CW Program Specialist, DHHS/ACF Region X

Tina Johns - CW Program Specialist, DHHS/ACF Region IX

Jerry Milner - Policy Specialist, DHHS/ACF (DC)

Linda Mitchell - CW Program Specialist, DHHS/ACF Region I

Susan Sanders - CW Program Specialist, DHHS/ACF Region X

Elaine Squadrito - DHHS/ACF (DC)

Lois Ward - CW Program Specialist, DHHS/ACF Region X

Rosalyn Wilson - CW Program Specialist, DHHS/ACF Region VII

**Peer Reviewers:**

Shirley Alexander - Child Protection Program Specialist, Idaho Family
and Children\'s Services

Ann App - CWS Supervisor, Washington DSHS/DCFS

Tim Fox - Statewide Federal Review Coordinator, Alaska DFYS

Sue Haffie - Retired, (Washington DSHS)

Marie Jamieson - Director, Washington Families for Kids Partnership

Ellie Jones - Consultant, California DSS

Eileen Lally - Program Manager, U of AK - Family Services Training
Academy

Myrrl McBride - Deputy Director, New Mexico CYF/Protective Services

Shirley Moore - Retired, (Washington DSHS)

Ruthie Morris - Retired, (Washington DSHS)

Mike Sumski - Associate Director of Quality Assurance, Illinois FACS

Theresa Tanoury - Director, Alaska Division of Family and Youth Services

Merlin Weyer - Assistant Administrator, South Dakota DSS/CPS

Winnie Wiatrak - Retired, (Washington DSHS)

Ray Winterowd - Division Director, Casey Family Program

**Oregon Staff and Community:**

Cheri Emahiser -- Review Team Leader

Sandra Adams - Assistant Field Administrator - SCF

Peter Asai - Operations Manager, SCF

Diane Aspengren - CPS Supervisor, SCF

Sarah Claiborne - Intake Supervisor, SCF

Julia Foley - CET-ICWA Specialist, SCF

Dan Herman - Operations Manager, SCF

Maurita Johnson - Permanency Supervisor, SCF

Cyndi Kallstrom - CPS Supervisor, SCF

Jenny Landis-Steward - QA/Branch Reviews Program Manager, SCF

**Oregon Staff and Community (Cont.):**

Kathy Ledesma - Adoption Manager, SCF

Margie Lowe - Assistant Administrator for Management Operations, SCF

Karin Martin - Casework Supervisor, SCF

Shary Mason - CRB Deputy Director, Oregon Citizen Review Board

Sherri Michel-Singer - Branch Manager, SCF

Joanne Riley - ICWA Manager, SCF

Gloria Sandavol - Certification/Home Studies, SCF

Lynn Schroeder - Special Needs Adoption, Boys and Girls Aid Society

Steve Shanklin - Social Services Supervisor, SCF

Todd Siex - Branch Manager, SCF

Sara Stankey - Permanency Supervisor, SCF

Chip Sudbeck - Trillium Family Services

Kathy Swanson - CET for Protective Services, SCF

Beth Vaagen - SOC Manager, SCF

Jay Wurscher - A&D Services Coordinator, SCF