Formative Evaluation of Family Finding 

FINAL REPORT 

APPENDICES 

August, 2016 
Appendix A: Data Sources 

Appendix B: Fidelity of Implementation 

Appendix C: Method for Calculating Component Fidelity 

Appendix D: Discharge Reasons 

Appendix E: Associations between Programs and Outcomes after Accounting for Time/Case 

Status and Child/Case Characteristics 

Appendix F: Bivariate Fidelity Analyses 

Appendix G: Multivariate Fidelity Analyses 

Appendix H: Variable Definitions 

Appendix I: Permanency Readiness Measure 

Appendix J: Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths Assessment
Appendix A 

Data Sources ECHO

CANSPRMWWK DatabaseAdministrative Data

Populations for whom each data source is available

FF Tier 1 X X

FF Tier 2 X X

FF Tier 3 X X X X

CSR X X X X

Fidelity

Fidelity items X (FF Tier 

2 and 3 

only)

Child/case characteristics

Case goal 

Extended family extensively explored before 

referral/extensive recruitment efforts made before 

referral

X (FF 

only)

X

X

Race X

Age

Medical/developmental or behavioral impairments

Gender

X

X

X

Number of removals X

Time in foster care X

Parental rights terminated

Placement setting

Number of prior placements

Number of prior therapeutic placements

Reason for entry into foster care

Prepared for the adoption and recruitment process

Receiving in-home services

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Permanency and placement outcomes

Discharge outcome

Stepdown in placement

Moves to relative care

X

X

X

Commitments to legal and relational permanency X (FF 

only)

Child-related outcomes

Number of discovered connections

Child knowledge of family

Child permanency readiness

Well-being (CANS domain scores)

Trauma symptoms

Physical health

X (FF 

only)

X

X

X

X

X

Appendix B 

Fidelity of Implementation 

TABLE B1. Fidelity with which each fidelity item was delivered, among closed FF cases, by tier and by case opening date

TIER 2 TIER 3

Overall Early Late Overall Early Late

Discovery and Engagement Activities

Initial meeting with youth held (%)

Completed Stories from the Heart (%)

Completed mobility mapping (%)1

File mining completed (%)

Had 2-way contact with at least 5 family members after file mining and before

40 connections identified (%)

BP meeting (%)2

86.7a

(n=30)

67.9

(n=28)

83.3

(n=24)

90.0

(n=30)

28.0a

(n=25)

80.7

(n=31)

76.9

(n=13)

53.9

(n=13)

69.2

(n=13)

92.3

(n=13)

50.0b

(n=12)

57.1b

(n=14)

 94.1

(n=17)

 80.0

(n=15)

100.0

(n=11)

 88.2

(n=17)

 7.7b

(n=13)

100.0b

(n=17)

97.8a

(n=134)

64.7

(n=133)

93.8

(n=128)

96.3

(n=135)

61.2a

(n=129)

69.7

(n=132)

100.0

(n=72)

 71.8

(n=71)

 97.2

(n=71)

 98.6

(n=72)

 69.0c

(n=71)

 74.7

(n=71)

95.2

(n=62)

56.5

(n=62)

89.5

(n=57)

93.7

(n=63)

51.7c

(n=58)

63.9

(n=61)

Assessments

Initial child assessment conducted (%)

Well-being baseline interview with youth held (%)3

Follow-up well-being survey completed with youth (%)3, 4

CANS “risk” assessment completed (%)

Complete CANS assessment conducted (%)3

CANS caregiver needs/strengths section administered (%)3

Completed initial Permanency Readiness Measure (PRM) (%)3

Completed quarterly PRMs after the initial PRM (%)3, 5

100.0

(n=30)

 54.6a

(n=33)

 0.0

(n=18)

 45.5a

(n=33)

100.0

(n=13)

 40.0

(n=15)

 0.0

(n=6)

 40.0

(n=15)

100.0

(n=17)

 66.7

(n=18)

 0.0

(n=12)

 50.0

(n=18)

100.0

(n=135)

 86.8a

(n=136)

 11.9

(n=118)

 97.0

(n=134)

 94.9

(n=136)

 39.0

(n=136)

 94.9a

(n=136)

 66.4

100.0

(n=72)

 87.5

(n=72)

 19.1c

(n=63)

100.0c

(n=72)

 97.2

(n=72)

 45.8

(n=72)

100.0c

(n=72)

 52.3c

100.0

(n=63)

 85.9

(n=64)

 3.6c

(n=55)

 93.6c

(n=62)

 92.2

(n=64)

 31.3

(n=64)

 89.1c

(n=64)

 83.3c
TIER 2 TIER 3

Overall Early Late Overall Early Late

(n=119) (n=65) (n=54)

Child and Family Preparation

First child preparation activity occurred (%)6 71.3 65.3 78.1

Monthly child preparation activities occurred (%)7, 8

(n=136)

23.4

(n=72)

13.3c

(n=64)

32.7c

First family or family/child preparation for permanency activity occurred (%)9

(n=94)

64.5

(n=45)

57.1

(n=49)

75.7

Monthly family/child preparation occurred after DM meeting (%)10, 11

(n=93)

16.0

(n=56)

21.4

(n=37)

 9.1

(n=75) (n=42) (n=33)

BP Meeting

Family prepared for BP meeting (%) 58.3 72.7 46.2 70.0 75.4 63.9

Family Finding Specialist met with and prepared social worker before BP meeting (%)

(n=24)

64.3

(n=11)

92.3b

(n=13)

 40.0b

(n=130)

 74.8

(n=69)

 85.7c

(n=61)

 62.3c

(n=28) (n=13) (n=15) (n=131) (n=70) (n=61)

BP meeting held (%) 67.9 84.6 53.3 74.1 84.3c 62.3c

Social worker attended BP meeting (%)12

(n=28)

52.6a

(n=13)

72.7

(n=15)

 25.0

(n=131)

 80.4a

(n=70)

 83.1

(n=61)

 76.3

Child’s history, strengths, and needs reviewed at BP meeting (%)12

(n=19)

73.7a

(n=11)

72.7

(n=8)

 75.0

(n=97)

100.0a

(n=59)

100.0

(n=38)

100.0

Connect-o-gram completed at BP meeting (%)12

(n=19)

63.2

(n=11)

63.6

(n=8)

 62.5

(n=96)

 77.1

(n=58)

 77.6

(n=38)

 76.3

Greatest unmet need statement created at BP meeting (%)12

(n=19)

73.7

(n=11)

72.7

(n=8)

 75.0

(n=96)

 90.6

(n=58)

 86.2

(n=38)

 97.4

(n=19) (n=11) (n=8) (n=96) (n=58) (n=38)

Average number of people invited to BP meeting 10.5 13.8 4.6 8.2 8.0 8.3

12 Average number of people attending BP meeting

(n=22)

 6.1

(n=14)

 7.2

(n=8)

 4.5

(n=104)

 4.9

(n=61)

 4.5

(n=43)

 5.4

12 Average percent of invitees attending BP meeting

(n=19)

80.5

(n=11)

58.2

(n=8)

111.3

(n=97)

 63.4

(n=59)

 63.1

(n=38)

 63.9

(n=19) (n=11) (n=8) (n=97) (n=59) (n=38)

DM Meeting

Family prepared for DM meeting (%) 53.9 76.9b 30.8b 69.2 76.5 61.3

Family Finding Specialist met with and prepared social worker before DM meeting (%)

(n=26)

61.5

(n=13)

84.6b

(n=13)

38.5b

(n=130)

71.3

(n=68)

79.4c

(n=62)

 62.3c

(n=26) (n=13) (n=13) (n=129) (n=68) (n=61)
TIER 2 TIER 3

Overall Early Late Overall Early Late

DM meeting held (%) 65.4 84.6 46.2 71.5 82.4c 59.7c

Social worker attended DM meeting(%)9

(n=26)

70.6

(n=13)

63.6

(n=13)

83.3

(n=130)

82.8

(n=68)

85.7

(n=62)

 78.4

Mobility map/connect-o-gram reviewed at DM meeting (%)9

(n=17)

64.7a

(n=11)

63.6

(n=6)

66.7

(n=93)

86.1a

(n=56)

82.1

(n=37)

 91.9

Child’s unmet needs reviewed at DM meeting (%)9

(n=17)

70.6a

(n=11)

72.7

(n=6)

66.7

(n=93)

93.6a

(n=56)

89.3

(n=37)

100.0

1 or more adults committed to be a permanency resource at the DM meeting (%)9, 13

(n=17)

75.0

(n=11)

80.0

(n=6)

66.7

(n=93)

52.7

(n=56)

41.1c

(n=37)

 70.3c

5 or more adults committed to provide emotional support for the child at the DM meeting (%)9

(n=16)

70.6

(n=10)

72.7

(n=6)

66.7

(n=93)

65.2

(n=56)

61.8

(n=37)

 70.3

Family leader identified at DM meeting (%)9

(n=17)

70.6

(n=11)

81.8

(n=6)

50.0

(n=92)

77.4

(n=55)

75.0

(n=37)

 81.1

Average number of people invited to DM meeting

(n=17)

 7.9

(n=11)

9.3b

(n=6)

 5.5b

(n=93)

 8.7

(n=56)

 8.3

(n=37)

 9.4

9 Average number of people attending DM meeting

(n=21)

 5.4

(n=13)

6.8

(n=8)

 2.8

(n=97)

 5.1

(n=58)

 4.8

(n=39)

 5.5

9 Average percent of invitees attending DM meeting

(n=17)

67.1

(n=11)

65.3

(n=6)

70.4

(n=92)

65.9

(n=55)

65.6

(n=37)

 66.4

(n=17) (n=11) (n=6) (n=92) (n=55) (n=37)

Post-DM Meeting Activities

Family connections report given to family leader (%)9 64.7 72.7 50.0 69.0 60.4c 82.4c

9 Referred family/child to resources/training before case closure (%)1,

(n=17) (n=11) (n=6) (n=87)

 70.6

(n=53)

 77.8

(n=34)

 62.5

Completed Comprehensive Assessment for Guardianship (%)1

(n=34)

 0.0

(n=18)

 0.0

(n=16)

 0.0

(%)1, 14 Assisted family with application for licensing

(n=8)

 50.0

(n=3)

 50.0

(n=5)

N/A

Discussed incorporating plans created during the DM meeting into the DSS case plan (%)9

(n=4)

 80.0

(n=4)

 73.1

(n=0)

 89.2

Plans created during DM meeting incorporated into DSS case plan (%)9

(n=89)

 67.4

(n=52)

 61.5

(n=37)

 75.7

(%) Mad 1, 15 e any post-case closure contact

(n=89)

100.0

(n=52)

100.0

(n=37)

100.0

Family was referred to services post-case closure (%)15

(n=5)

 16.7

(n=3)

 14.3

(n=2)

 20.0
Overall

TIER 2

Early Late Overall

TIER 3

Early Late

(n=12) (n=7) (n=5)

Team Member Relationships

Initial meeting with child’s social worker held (%)

Collaborative meeting held (%)

Average percent of collaborative team members informed and in agreement with FF

Transitioned case to Adoption Specialist (%)1

Final report delivered to child’s social worker (%)

Family Finding Specialist had weekly contact with the child’s social worker (%)

Family Finding Specialist had weekly contact with the child’s Adoption Specialist (%)1

Family Finding worker attended at least 1 professional team meeting per month (%)

Child’s social worker was an active participant in the Family Finding services (1-5)17

(%)16

100.0

(n=30)

 96.8

(n=31)

 67.4a

(n=30)

 86.4

(n=22)

100.0

(n=3)

 65.4

(n=26)

 4.0

(n=30)

100.0

(n=13)

 93.3

(n=15)

 82.1

(n=14)

 70.0

(n=10)

100.0

(n=3)

 69.2

(n=13)

 4.1

(n=15)

100.0

(n=17)

100.0

(n=16)

 54.5

(n=16)

100.0

(n=12)

N/A

(n=0)

 61.5

(n=13)

 3.9

(n=15)

100.0

(n=135)

 99.3

(n=136)

 82.9a

(n=133)

 64.3

(n=14)

 94.6

(n=111)

 83.6

(n=122)

 50.0

(n=6)

 69.1

(n=123)

 3.5

(n=124)

100.0

(n=72)

 98.6

(n=72)

 88.2c

(n=70)

 71.4

(n=7)

 96.6

(n=59)

 81.3

(n=64)

 33.3

(n=3)

 66.2

(n=65)

 3.5

(n=64)

100.0

(n=63)

100.0

(n=64)

 77.0c

(n=63)

 57.1

(n=7)

 92.3

(n=52)

 86.2

(n=58)

 66.7

(n=3)

 72.4

(n=58)

 3.6

(n=60)

Figures presented are the percent of cases that had an activity completed, unless otherwise noted. Cases opened before August 1, 2014 are considered “early” 

cases; cases opened on or after August 1, 2014 are considered “late” cases. All tests of statistical significance in this table were chi-square tests, except for (1) 

Fisher’s exact tests were used in cases when cell sizes were less than 5 and (2) t-tests were used for continuous variables. Superscripts of the same letter show 

which programs were different from each other, per row, at the p<0.05 level. 1 Among cases for which this activity was applicable.

2 Among cases that had completed file mining.

3 A child was considered to have this instrument/assessment completed if at least half of the questions were answered. 4 Among cases that had the well-being baseline interview completed. 5 Among cases that had the initial PRM completed, and it had been at least one quarter since the first PRM was completed OR it had been less than a quarter but a follow-up 

PRM was already done.

6 A child preparation activity was considered to have occurred if a child ever had any child or child/family preparation activity. 7 Among cases that had the first child preparation activity completed, and it had been at least one month since the first child preparation activity OR it had been less than a 

month but a follow-up child preparation activity was already done. 8 We define having the activity completed monthly as long as the actual number of activities was equal to or greater than the number of months between the first activity and 

the end of the FF case.

9 Among cases that had a DM meeting completed.
TIER 2 TIER 3

Overall Early Late Overall Early Late 10Or family and child preparation activities within the same 30 days. Among cases that had a DM meeting completed, and it had been at least one month since the DM meeting 

OR it had been less than a month but the relevant activity already occurred. 11 We define having the activity completed monthly as long as the actual number of activities was equal to or greater than the number of months between the DM meeting and 

the end of the FF case.

12 Only valid if a BP meeting occurred.

13 Comparisons cannot be made between Tier 2 and Tier 3 cases because this fidelity item was documented differently based on tier. 14Only valid among cases that are to be licensed.

15Only valid among cases that have been closed for at least 90 days and achieved permanency.

16Only valid among cases that had a collaborative team meeting and there were team members listed. 17 Rated on a scale of 1-5. 1 represents a very inactive social worker and 5 indicates a very active social worker.
Table B2. Average percent of component items delivered, per component, among closed FF cases 

Tier 2 Tier 3

% %

Discovery and engagement activities 60 73

Assessments 53 73

Child and family preparation activities N/A 37

BP meeting 51 68

DM meeting 49 60

Post-DM meeting activities 42 50

Team member relationships 87 90

See Appendix C for how these component scores were calculated. 
1 TABLE B3. Percent of all cases that had each item delivered within the prescribed timeframe, by tier and by case opening date

TIER 2 TIER 3

Overall Early Late Overall Early Late

% % % % % %

Discovery and Engagement Activities

Initial meeting with youth held within 2 weeks2 39.4a 30.0 43.5 19.0a 8.9c 24.3c

2 Completed Stories from the Heart within 50 days

(n=33)

 52.6a

(n=10)

 28.6

(n=23)

 66.7

(n=263)

26.8a

(n=90)

17.9c

(n=173)

32.1c

Completed mobility mapping within 50 days2

(n=19)

 96.2a

(n=7)

 88.9

(n=12)

100.0

(n=179)

62.6a

(n=67)

61.2

(n=112)

63.5

2 Completed file mining within 50 days

(n=26)

100.0

(n=9)

100.0

(n=17)

100.0

(n=230)

92.9

(n=85)

88.1

(n=145)

95.4

(n=18) (n=6) (n=12) (n=198) (n=67) (n=131)

Assessments 2 Initial child assessment conducted within 3 business days 43.6 30.8 50.0 34.9 17.8c 43.6c

Well-being baseline interview with youth held within 2 weeks2

(n=39)

50.0a

(n=13)

50.0

(n=26)

50.0

(n=269)

21.8a

(n=90)

 7.9c

(n=179)

28.9c

CANS “risk” assessment completed within 2 weeks2

(n=18) (n=6) (n=12) (n=225)

19.6

(n=76)

 7.8c

(n=149)

25.9c

2 Complete CANS assessment conducted within 30 days

(n=260)

50.8

(n=90)

44.3

(n=170)

53.7

3 CANS caregiver needs/strengths section completed within 30 days of DM meeting

(n=263)

46.7

(n=88)

33.3c

(n=175)

63.0c

2 Completed initial Permanency Readiness Measure (PRM) within 50 days 47.6 50.0 46.7

(n=60)

66.8

(n=33)

58.4c

(n=27)

71.1c

(n=21) (n=6) (n=15) (n=262) (n=89) (n=173)

Child and Family Preparation

First child preparation activity occurred within 50 days2 32.1 10.9c 40.9c

3 First family or family/child preparation activity occurred within 30 days of DM meeting

(n=218)

34.6

(n=64)

36.8

(n=154)

32.5

(n=78) (n=38) (n=40)

BP Meeting 2 BP meeting held within 75 days 42.1a 63.6 12.5 10.2a 5.3 14.1

(n=19) (n=11) (n=8) (n=167) (n=75) (n=92)

DM Meeting

BP and DM meetings held at least 2 days apart4 58.8 63.6 50.0 56.1 58.3 54.1

(n=17) (n=11) (n=6) (n=157) (n=72) (n=85)
TIER 2 TIER 3

Overall Early Late Overall Early Late

% % % % % %

DM meeting held within 120 days2 94.1a 100.0 83.3 17.8a 11.1c 23.5c

(n=17) (n=11) (n=6) (n=157) (n=72) (n=85)

Post-DM Meeting Activities

Referred family/child to resources before case closure and within 30 days of DM meeting3 14.3 14.3 14.3

(n=42) (n=21) (n=21)

Team Member Relationships 2 Initial meeting with child’s social worker held within 3 business days 44.7 30.8 52.0 37.9 18.9c 47.5c

Collaborative meeting held within 2 weeks2

(n=38)

56.8a

(n=13)

25.0b

(n=25)

 72.0b

(n=269)

39.2a

(n=90)

27.1c

(n=179)

45.8c

5 Final report delivered to child’s social worker within 14 days of case closure

(n=37)

94.4

(n=12)

85.7

(n=25)

100.0

(n=240)

82.4

(n=85)

78.9

(n=155)

87.2

(n=18) (n=7) (n=11) (n=91) (n=52) (n=39)

All tests of statistical significance in this table were chi-square tests or Fisher’s exact tests (the latter was used in cases when cell sizes were less than 5).

Superscripts of the same letter show which programs were different from each other, per row, at the p<0.05 level. 1 This analysis was conducted among all closed and open FF cases that indicated that the fidelity item was delivered at some point during the case. 2 Among cases that ever completed the activity, had a date for completion, and had a case opening date. 

3 Among cases that ever completed the activity, had a date for completion, had a DM meeting, and had a date for the DM meeting. 4 Among cases that had a BP meeting, had a DM meeting, and had a date for both meetings.

5 Among cases that ever completed the activity, had a date for completion, are closed, and have a date of case closure.
Appendix C 

Method for Calculating Component Fidelity 

To create summary fidelity measures, we combined various fidelity items into fidelity components. The 

following items comprised each component (Tier 3 cases were expected to fulfill all fidelity items listed 

below. Tier 2 cases were only expected to fulfill items marked with an asterisk): 

 Discovery and engagement activities 

o Initial meeting with youth held* 

o Completed Stories from the Heart* 

o File mining completed* 

o Had two-way communication with at least 5 family connections after file mining and 

prior to holding the BP meeting* 

o At least 40 new connections discovered by case closure* 

 Assessments 

o Initial child assessment conducted* 

o CANS “risk” assessment completed

o Complete CANS assessment conducted 

o Complete initial Permanency Readiness Measure (PRM)* 

o Quarterly PRMs completed 

o Well-being baseline interview with youth held* 

o Complete follow-up Well-Being Survey with youth* 

o CANS caregiver needs/strengths section done 

 Child and family preparation 

o Whether first child preparation activity occurred

o Whether monthly child preparation occurred 

o Whether first family placement preparation or family/child placement preparation 

activity occurred 

o Whether monthly family/child placement preparation activities (or both family 

preparation and child preparation activities within same 30 days) occurred after DM 

meeting 

 Blended Perspectives Meeting 

o Family was prepared for BP meeting * 

o FF met with social worker before BP meeting * 

o BP meeting held* 

o Social worker in attendance at BP meeting* 

o Child’s history strengths/needs discussed at BP meeting* 

o Connect-o-gram at BP meeting* 

o Greatest unmet need statement created at BP meeting* 

 Decision Making Meeting 
o Family was adequately prepared for DM meeting * 

o FF met with social worker before DM meeting * 

o DM meeting held* 

o Social worker in attendance at DM meeting* 

o Mobility mapping/connect-o-gram reviewed at DM meeting* 

o Greatest unmet needs reviewed at DM meeting* 

o At least 1 plan for legal permanence developed with clear timeline at DM meeting* 

o At least 5 or more family connections commit to plans for emotional support with clear 

timelines at DM meeting* 

o Establish the family leader at DM meeting* 

 Post-Decision Making Meeting Activities 

o Connections report given to family leader* 

o Had discussions with the DSS worker about incorporating plans created during the DM 

meeting into the DSS case service plan 

o Plans created during the DM meeting incorporated into the child’s DSS case service plan

 Team Member Relationships 

o Initial meeting with child’s social worker held* 

o Collaborative team meeting held* 

o Maintained weekly contact with social worker* 

o FF attended at least 1 professional team meeting per month during case* 

o Delivered final report to social worker* 

All variables that allow “not applicable” as a response option were not included when calculating the 

summary measure.1 This ensured all cases were held to the same standard regardless of case 

characteristics. 

For each fidelity item within each component, a case was marked as having the activity completed (1), 

not having the activity completed (0), or missing. Within each component, we summed the number of 

items marked as 1 and divided that number by the total number of items in the component. The 

resulting percentage indicates the percent of items in that component that the case had completed. 

For all components except for team member relationships, we only calculated a percentage if there was 

a valid response for all items in the component (i.e., no missing responses). For team member 

relationships, we calculated a percentage as long as 75% of the items in the component were nonmissing because of the high level of missing data for Tier 2 cases for items in this component. 

 

1

 This included: completed mobility mapping, referred to resources after DM meeting and before case closure, 

completed Comprehensive Assessment for Guardianship, assisted with licensure application, transitioned to 

adoption specialist, weekly contact with adoption specialist, whether any contact was made with family after case 

closure, and whether family was referred to supportive services after case closure. 
Appendix D 

Discharge Reasons 

Table D1. Percent of closed FF/CSR cases experiencing each child welfare discharge outcome 

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 CSR

(n=50) (n=30) (n=135) (n=34)

% % % %

203,C Reunification 10 72 02

02,C 211,3 Adoption 101 4C

Guardianship with relative 4 7 6 6

Guardianship with other court approved 0 0 2 0

caretaker

Custody with non-removal parent or relative 4 0 1 3

Custody with other court approved caretaker 2 0 2 3

241,2,3 Emancipation 6C 3C 10C

Transfer to another agency 0 0 0 0

Runaway 0 0 1 0

Unknown 0 0 0 0

Authority revoked for other reasons 0 0 1 0

441,3 Still in foster care 74C 60 67C

All tests of statistical significance in this table were chi-square tests or Fisher’s exact tests (the latter was used in 

cases when cell sizes were less than 5). Superscripts show which programs were different from each other, per 

row, at the p<0.05 level (1=Tier 1, 2=Tier 2, 3=Tier 3, C=CSR).For example, a superscript of “1” in the Tier 3 column 

denotes that Tier 1 and Tier 3 values for that variable were statistically significantly different.
Appendix E 

Associations between Programs and Outcomes after Accounting for Time/Case Status and 

Child/Case Characteristics 

Table E1. Associations between programs and achievement of legal permanency 

Model 1 Model 2

(n=476) (n=461)

Tier 1 1.54 1.32

(0.68) (0.94)

Tier 2 3.12*** 2.68*

(1.01) (1.27)

Tier 3 (omitted) (omitted)

CSR 0.87 1.29

(0.34) (0.56)

Accounts for time/case status? Yes Yes

Accounts for child/case characteristics? No Yes

Figures presented are sub-hazard ratios from a competing risks survival analysis model. 

Robust standard errors are in parentheses.

Model 2 controlled for all characteristics presented in Table 2 (child/case characteristics) 

except family history extensively explored (because the variable is not comparable between 

FF and CSR cases), and prepared for the adoption process (since it is only available for CSR).

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001

Table E2. Associations between programs and ever experiencing a stepdown 

Model 1 Model 2

(n=451) (n=448)

Tier 1 1.37 1.72

(0.40) (0.53)

Tier 2 1.52 2.58***

(0.36) (0.67)

Tier 3 (omitted) (omitted)

CSR 1.04 1.25

(0.21) (0.34)

Accounts for time/case status? Yes Yes

Accounts for child/case characteristics? No Yes

Figures presented are sub-hazard ratios from a competing risks survival analysis model. 

Robust standard errors are in parentheses.

Model 2 controlled for all characteristics presented in Table 2 (child/case characteristics) 

except family history extensively explored (because the variable is not comparable between 

FF and CSR cases), and prepared for the adoption process (since it is only available for CSR).

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001
Table E3. Associations between programs and having a stepdown as a final placement 

Model 1 Model 2

(n=144) (n=143)

Tier 1 2.87 2.04

(2.52) (2.26)

Tier 2 1.72 1.30

(1.18) (1.15)

Tier 3 (omitted) (omitted)

CSR 0.94 0.81

(0.45) (0.50)

Accounts for time? Yes Yes

Accounts for child/case characteristics? No Yes

Figures presented are odds ratios from a logistic regression model. Robust standard errors 

are in parentheses.

Both models controlled for the amount of time between FF/CSR opening and child welfare 

closure date (or the end of the study period for open child welfare cases). Analyses were 

conducted only on cases that ever experienced a stepdown.

Model 2 controlled for all characteristics presented in Table 2 (child/case characteristics) 

except family history extensively explored (because the variable is not comparable between 

FF and CSR cases), prepared for the adoption process (since it is only available for CSR), and 

reason for entry into foster care (due to perfect prediction issues).

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001

Table E4. Associations between programs and ever experiencing a move from non-relative to relative 

care 

Model 1 Model 2

(n=439) (n=433)

Tier 1 2.14 2.81*

(0.83) (1.27)

Tier 2 3.53*** 4.59***

(1.06) (1.66)

Tier 3 (omitted) (omitted)

CSR 0.59 0.85

(0.23) (0.40)

Accounts for time/case status? Yes Yes

Accounts for child/case characteristics? No Yes

Figures presented are sub-hazard ratios from a competing risks survival analysis model. 

Robust standard errors are in parentheses.

Model 2 controlled for all characteristics presented in Table 2 (child/case characteristics) 

except family history extensively explored (because the variable is not comparable between 

FF and CSR cases), and prepared for the adoption process (since it is only available for CSR).

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001
Table E5. Associations between programs and experiencing a move to relative care as a final 

placement 

Model 1 Model 2

(n=65) (n=65)

Tier 1 0.50 0.16

(0.47) (0.37)

Tier 2 4.54 4.45

(4.27) (4.90)

Tier 3 (omitted) (omitted)

CSR 3.94 145.86

(3.46) (607.10)

Accounts for time? Yes Yes

Accounts for child/case characteristics? No Yes

Figures presented are odds ratios from a logistic regression model. Robust standard errors 

are in parentheses.

Both models controlled for the amount of time between FF/CSR opening and child welfare 

closure date (or the end of the study period for open child welfare cases). Analyses were

conducted only on cases that were in non-relative care at FF/CSR case opening and ever 

experienced a move from non-relative to relative care.

Model 2 controlled for all characteristics presented in Table 2 (child/case characteristics) 

except family history extensively explored (because the variable is not comparable between 

FF and CSR cases), prepared for the adoption process (since it is only available for CSR), and 

reason for entry into foster care (due to perfect prediction issues).

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001

Table E6. Associations between programs and obtaining a commitment to legal permanency from at 

least one adult 

Model 1 Model 2

(n=163) (n=156)

Tier 2 4.65** 5.56*

(2.28) (4.18)

Tier 3 (omitted) (omitted)

Accounts for time? Yes Yes

Accounts for child/case characteristics? No Yes

Figures presented are odds ratios from a logistic regression model. Robust standard errors 

are in parentheses.

Both models controlled for the length of time between FF opening and FF closure.

Both models were only analyzed among closed FF cases. Tier 1 was omitted because no Tier 1 

cases obtained, nor were expected to obtain, a commitment to legal permanency.

Model 2 controlled for all characteristics presented in Table 2 (child/case characteristics) 

except family history extensively explored (because the variable is not comparable between 

FF and CSR cases), and prepared for the adoption process (since it is only available for CSR 

cases).

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001
Table E7. Associations between programs and obtaining a commitment to legal permanency from one 

relative 

Model 1 Model 2

(n=163) (n=156)

Tier 2 2.99* 3.98*

(1.39) (2.75)

Tier 3 (omitted) (omitted)

Accounts for time? Yes Yes

Accounts for child/case characteristics? No Yes

Figures presented are odds ratios from a logistic regression model. Robust standard errors are 

in parentheses.

Both models controlled for the length of time between FF opening and FF closure.

Both models were only analyzed among closed FF cases. Tier 1 was omitted because no Tier 1 

cases obtained, nor were expected to obtain, a commitment to legal permanency.

Model 2 controlled for all characteristics presented in Table 2 (child/case characteristics) 

except family history extensively explored (because the variable is not comparable between FF 

and CSR cases), and prepared for the adoption process (since it is only available for CSR cases).

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001

Table E8. Associations between programs and obtaining a commitment to relational permanency 

Model 1 Model 2

(n=211) (n=199)

Tier 1 0.02** 0.01***

(0.03) (0.01)

Tier 2 4.45** 2.20

(2.50) (1.80)

Tier 3 (omitted) (omitted)

Accounts for time? Yes Yes

Accounts for child/case characteristics? No Yes

Figures presented are odds ratios from a logistic regression model. Robust standard errors are 

in parentheses.

Both models controlled for the length of time between FF opening and FF closure.

Both models were only analyzed among closed FF cases. 

Model 2 controlled for all characteristics presented in Table 2 (child/case characteristics) 

except family history extensively explored (because the variable is not comparable between FF 

and CSR cases), and prepared for the adoption process (since it is only available for CSR).

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001
Table E9. Associations between programs and number of discovered connections 

Model 1 Model 2

(n=211) (n=199)

Tier 1 -4.59 3.25

(6.38) (7.03)

Tier 2 -5.66 8.61

(6.50) (7.00)

Tier 3 (omitted) (omitted)

Accounts for time? Yes Yes

Accounts for child/case characteristics? No Yes

Figures presented are coefficients from an OLS regression model. Robust standard errors are in 

parentheses.

Both models controlled for the length of time between FF opening and FF closure.

Both models were only analyzed among closed FF cases. 

Model 2 controlled for all characteristics presented in Table 2 (child/case characteristics) 

except family history extensively explored (because the variable is not comparable between FF 

and CSR cases), and prepared for the adoption process (since it is only available for CSR).

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001
Appendix F 

Bivariate Fidelity Analyses 

Table F1. Percent of Closed Tier 3 FF Cases Achieving Positive Outcomes, by Number of Fidelity 

Component Items Completed 

Number of Fidelity Component Items 

Completed

Achieved legal permanencyCommitment to legal permanencyCommitment to relational permanencyPositive or no change in permanency readinessEver stepdownStepdown as final placement1

Discovery and engagement activities

0-2 20.0 44.0 56.0 54.6* 43.5 77.8

3 25.8 51.6 74.2 87.5* 37.9 72.7

4 10.7 53.6 85.7 85.7* 44.4 81.8

5 22.2 68.9 82.2 90.5* 46.5 77.8

Assessments

0-5 17.8 30.2* 62.8* 90.9 35.6 64.3

6 24.0 62.0* 74.0* 85.0 41.7 77.8

7-8 15.8 76.3* 89.5* 82.4 54.6 83.3

Child and Family Preparation

0 25.0 33.3* 50.0* 71.4* 40.0 80.0

1 9.7 41.9* 74.2* 68.2* 42.9 66.7

2 25.0 81.3* 83.3* 93.0* 45.7 89.5

3-4 11.1 50.0* 100.0* 91.7* 44.4 62.5

Blended Perspectives Meeting

0 41.9* 39.3* 32.1* 75.0 31.0 88.9

1-5 13.3* 40.0* 60.0* 85.7 46.7 83.3

6 18.5* 81.5* 92.6* 91.3 42.3 70.0

7 8.9* 57.1* 92.9* 83.3 46.2 78.3

Decision Making Meeting

0 41.2* 37.5* 34.4* 66.7 34.4 90.9

1-7 5.3* 39.5* 76.3* 85.0 40.5 76.9

8 13.5* 70.3* 100.0* 87.9 44.4 68.8

9 23.5* 100.0* 100.0* 93.3 64.3 87.5

Post-Decision Making Meeting activities

0 27.5 28.6* 49.0* 64.7 30.6* 78.6

1-2 5.0 75.0* 85.0* 88.9 30.0* 80.0

3 18.4 71.4* 95.9* 88.1 61.4* 76.9

Team Member Relationships

0-3 42.1* 70.6 76.5 100.0 33.3 80.0

4-5 16.7* 53.9 76.5 81.7 43.8 77.5

All tests of statistical significance in this table were chi-square tests, except Fisher’s exact tests were used in 

cases when cell sizes were less than 5. Asterisks denote that there was a statistically significant relationship (at 

the p<0.05 level) between number of fidelity items completed and outcomes. 

1

Among cases that ever had a stepdown.
Appendix G 

Multivariate Fidelity Analyses 

All analyses in this section were conducted on Tier 3 cases that have had their FF case closed. 

For each of the models presented in this section, we first multiplied the component measures by 100 so 

that the interpretation of sub-hazard ratios, odds ratios, and coefficients can be made on the scale of a 

one percentage point change. As noted in the main report, we treated the component measures as 

continuous even though there were limited values for each measure. This was done because we lacked

sample size to conduct a more fine-grained analysis. This approach assumes the relationship between 

outcomes and each additional fidelity item completed within a component is linear (i.e., the relationship 

between fidelity and outcomes is the same if you go from completing 1 fidelity item to 2 fidelity items as 

it would be if you went from completing 5 fidelity items to 6 fidelity items). It is possible that the 

relationships are not linear. 

The reader should also be aware that for the BP meeting, DM meeting, and post-DM meeting activities 

components, the distribution of the component scores showed that many cases (close to, or greater 

than half) either had all or none of the fidelity items within that component completed. This means that 

the relationships documented for these components were driven heavily by a move from no fidelity 

items completed to all fidelity items completed. 

As a result, these results can only be interpreted at broad levels (i.e., greater fidelity is associated with 

better/worse outcomes). It would be inappropriate to use these results to estimate a change in 

expected outcomes given the completion of one additional fidelity item. 

Table G1. Associations between fidelity components and achievement of legal permanency 

Model 1 Model 2

(n=111) (n=98)

Discovery and engagement activities 1.00 1.14**

(0.02) (0.05)

Assessments 1.01 1.14**

(0.02) (0.05)

Child and family prep 1.00 1.09

(0.01) (0.05)

BP meeting 0.95* 0.33***

(0.03) (0.09)

DM meeting 1.02 2.65***

(0.04) (0.72)

Post-DM meeting activities 1.02 0.97

(0.02) (0.03)

Team member relationships 1.00 0.98

(0.01) (0.07)

Accounts for time/case status? Yes Yes

Accounts for child/case characteristics? No Yes
Figures presented are sub-hazard ratios from a competing risks survival analysis model. Robust 

standard errors are in parentheses. 

Model 2 controlled for all characteristics presented in Table 2 (child/case characteristics) except 

prepared for the adoption process (since it is only available for CSR cases), and reason for entry 

into foster care (due to the inability of the model to converge with the variable included).

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001

Table G2. Associations between fidelity components and obtaining a commitment to legal 

permanency 

Model 1 Model 2

(n=111) (n=98)

Discovery and engagement activities 1.00 1.02

(0.01) (0.03)

Assessments 1.07** 1.45 **

(0.03) (0.17)

Child and family prep 1.01 0.99

(0.01) (0.02)

BP meeting 0.92** 0.75**

(0.03) (0.08)

DM meeting 1.10** 1.42**

(0.04) (0.19)

Post-DM meeting activities 1.00 0.93

(0.01) (0.05)

Team member relationships 0.96* 0.89**

(0.02) (0.04)

Accounts for time? Yes Yes

Accounts for child/case characteristics? No Yes

Figures presented are odds ratios from a logistic regression model. Robust standard errors are in 

parentheses.

Both models controlled for the length of time between FF opening and FF closure.

Model 2 controlled for all characteristics presented in Table 2 (child/case characteristics) except 

prepared for the adoption process (since it is only available for CSR cases), and reason for entry 

into foster care (due to a failure of the model to converge).

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001

Table G3. Associations between fidelity components and obtaining a commitment to relational 

permanency 

Model 1 Model 2

(n=111) (n=98)

Discovery and engagement activities 1.00 1.01

(0.02) (0.03)

Assessments 1.04 1.03

(0.03) (0.03)

Child and family prep 1.01 1.02

(0.02) (0.02)

BP meeting 1.00 1.00

(0.02) (0.03)

DM meeting 1.03 1.06
(0.02) (0.05)

Post-DM meeting activities 1.02 0.99

(0.01) (0.03)

Team member relationships 0.95* 0.94

(0.02) (0.03)

Accounts for time? Yes Yes

Accounts for child/case characteristics? No Yes

Figures presented are odds ratios from a logistic regression model. Robust standard errors are in 

parentheses.

Both models controlled for the length of time between FF opening and FF closure.

Model 2 controlled for all characteristics presented in Table 2 (child/case characteristics) except 

prepared for the adoption process (since it is only available for CSR cases), and reason for entry 

into foster care (due to perfect prediction issues).

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001

Table G4. Associations between fidelity components and ever experiencing a stepdown 

Model 1 Model 2

(n=104) (n=94)

Discovery and engagement activities 1.00 1.00

(0.01) (0.01)

Assessments 0.99 1.03

(0.01) (0.03)

Child and family prep 0.99 1.01

(0.01) (0.01)

BP meeting 1.01 0.99

(0.01) (0.01)

DM meeting 0.98 0.99

(0.01) (0.02)

Post-DM meeting activities 1.03** 1.01

(0.01) (0.02)

Team member relationships 1.01 1.00

(0.01) (0.02)

Accounts for time/case status? Yes Yes

Accounts for child/case characteristics? No Yes

Figures presented are sub-hazard ratios from a competing risks survival analysis model. Robust 

standard errors are in parentheses. 

Model 2 controlled for all characteristics presented in Table 2 (child/case characteristics) except 

prepared for the adoption process (since it is only available for CSR cases).

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001

Table G5. Associations between fidelity components and improvements in permanency readiness

Model 1 Model 2

(n=72) (n=62)

Discovery and engagement activities 0.003* 0.003*

(0.001) (0.001)

Assessments -0.001 -0.0004

(0.003) (0.003)

Child and family prep 0.001 0.002

(0.001) (0.001)
BP meeting -0.002 -0.001

(0.001) (0.002)

DM meeting 0.005* 0.005*

(0.002) (0.002)

Post-DM meeting activities -0.002 -0.003

(0.002) (0.002)

Team member relationships 0.003 0.002

(0.002) (0.003)

Accounts for time? Yes Yes

Accounts for child/case characteristics? No Yes

Figures presented are coefficients from an OLS regression model. Robust standard errors are in 

parentheses. 

Both models controlled for length of time between PRM surveys.

Model 2 controlled for all characteristics presented in Table 2 (child/case characteristics) except 

prepared for the adoption process (since it is only available for CSR cases), and reason for entry 

into foster care (due to perfect prediction issues).

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001
Appendix H 

Variable Definitions 

The variables defined in this section are those that warrant additional explanation beyond what was 

provided in the main body of the report. 

Medical/Developmental or Behavioral Impairments 

Defined as a social worker believes the child has developmental disabilities, is deaf or hard of hearing, is 

blind or visually impaired, is physically disabled, is emotionally disturbed, has a learning disability, has a 

medical condition, has a substance abuse problem, is considered an undisciplined child, or is a 

delinquent child. A child was also marked as having a medical/developmental or behavioral impairment 

if they have been formally diagnosed as having a mental, visual/hearing, physical, emotional, or other 

disability. 

Note that only data on formal diagnoses were available for children from the previous evaluation, 

therefore it is inappropriate to compare the current study cases to the old study cases. The statistically 

significant differences between groups in Table 2 only apply to Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 and CSR cases. 

However, when one compares all five groups using a variable that only accounts for the formal 

diagnoses, the same patterns emerged (previous study cases had a higher prevalence of disabilities than 

Tier 1 and Tier 2 cases). 

Ever Experienced a Stepdown 

This variable was based on the variable Living_Arrangement_Type_Code from the North Carolina 

administrative data. It was coded dichotomously. If a child made any move from a higher level 

placement to a lower level placement during the study period, the child was coded as having stepped 

down his or her placement (for instance, a move from a Level 7 Small congregate-care setting to a Level 

5 Non-relative’s home was considered a stepdown). The placements were categorized as follows, based 

on the value of the placement setting field in the administrative data. (Moves to several placement 

types were disregarded in the creation of this variable, including placements where Living_ 

Arrangement_Type_Code= 59 (Childrens Camp), 76 (Runaway), 98 (Respite), and 99 (Other).) 

1. Parents’ home: Living_Arrangement_Type_Code=50 

2. Parents’ home – temporary: Living_Arrangement_Type_Code=75 (Trial home visit) 

3. Relative’s home: Living_ Arrangement_Type_Code=66 (Adoptive Home (Relative)),52 (Home 

of Relative),71 (Family Foster Home, Relative)

4. Relative’s home – specialized: Living_ Arrangement_Type_Code=73 (Specialized Family 

Foster Home, Relative)

5. Non-relative’s home: Living_ Arrangement_Type_Code=65 (Adoptive Home (Non-relative)), 

67 (Adoptive Home (Foster Home)), 51 (Home of Legal Guardian), or 56 (Family Foster Care 

Home)
6. Non-relative’s home – emergency, specialized or therapeutic: Living_ 

Arrangement_Type_Code=60 (Specialized Family Foster Care Home (DSS)), 53 (Therapeutic 

Home (MH/DD/SAS), or 70 (Emergency Shelter) 

7. Small congregate-care setting: Living_ Arrangement_Type_Code=55 (Residential School), 68 

(Maternity Home), 57 (Small Group Home (Residential)), 58 (Small Group Home (Treatment

8. Independent living: Living_ Arrangement_Type_Code=64 (Independent Living Arrangement)

9. Large congregate-care setting: Living_ Arrangement_Type_Code=61 (Large Group Facility 

(Residential)), 62 (Large Group Facility (Treatment)), 63 (Hospital), 54 (Dept of Juvenile 

Justice & Del Prevention), 69 (Jail, Lock-up, Detention Facility)

Experienced a Move from Non-relative to Relative Care 

This variable was based on the variable Living_Arrangement_Type_Code from the North Carolina 

administrative data. It was coded dichotomously. If a child made any move from non-relative care to 

relative care during the study period, the child was coded as 1. Analysis of this variable was only 

conducted on children that were in non-relative care at FF/CSR opening. The placements were 

categorized as follows, based on the value of the placement setting field in the administrative data. 

(Moves to several placement types were disregarded in the creation of this variable, including 

placements where Living_ Arrangement_Type_Code= 59 (Childrens Camp), 76 (Runaway), 98 (Respite), 

and 99 (Other).) 

 Relative care: 

o Parents’ home: Living_Arrangement_Type_Code=50 

o Relative’s home: Living_ Arrangement_Type_Code=66 (Adoptive Home (Relative)),52 

(Home of Relative),71 (Family Foster Home, Relative)

o Relative’s home – specialized: Living_ Arrangement_Type_Code=73 (Specialized Family 

Foster Home, Relative)

o Parents’ home – temporary: Living_Arrangement_Type_Code=75 (Trial home visit) 

 Non-relative care or unknown: 

o Non-relative’s home: Living_ Arrangement_Type_Code=65 (Adoptive Home (Nonrelative)), 67 (Adoptive Home (Foster Home)), 51 (Home of Legal Guardian), or 56 

(Family Foster Care Home)

o Non-relative’s home – emergency, specialized or therapeutic: Living_ 

Arrangement_Type_Code=60 (Specialized Family Foster Care Home (DSS)), 53 

(Therapeutic Home (MH/DD/SAS), or 70 (Emergency Shelter) 

o Small congregate-care setting: Living_ Arrangement_Type_Code=55 (Residential 

School), 68 (Maternity Home), 57 (Small Group Home (Residential)), 58 (Small Group 

Home (Treatment

o Independent living: Living_ Arrangement_Type_Code=64 (Independent Living 

Arrangement)

o Large congregate-care setting: Living_ Arrangement_Type_Code=61 (Large Group 

Facility (Residential)), 62 (Large Group Facility (Treatment)), 63 (Hospital), 54 (Dept of 

Juvenile Justice & Del Prevention), 69 (Jail, Lock-up, Detention Facility)
This variable could over count the moves from non-relative care to relative care because the nonrelative care status includes the placements where relative status is unknown (such as “home of legal 

guardian”).

Knowledge of Family History

This variable was based off answers to family history related questions in the Permanency Readiness 

Measure (see Appendix I for a copy of the instrument). The variable was created by summing the 

responses to the following questions: 

o Youth discusses birth history

o Youth identifies elements of his or her family culture, history & traditions and those of 

the different families the youth has lived with 

o Youth identifies own traits, abilities & interests & how these relate to birth family

o Youth gives an explanation of how he/she came into care with some accuracy

o Youth explains why he/she is unable to live with birth parents

o Youth discusses foster care history

o Youth gives an account of history of losses experienced through foster care

For each question, the response options were not observed (0), partially observed (0.50), fully observed 

(1), and not applicable. Not applicable responses were counted as 0. After summing the responses, we 

then divided the sum by the number of non-N/A and non-missing responses. This resulted in a number 

between 0 and 1 that represents the percentage of total possible points, with higher values indicating 

more knowledge of family history. 

Change in knowledge of family history was calculated by subtracting the child’s first family history score 

from the child’s last (or most recent) score. Change in knowledge was only measured if the two PRMs 

were taken at least 90 days apart.

Overall Permanency Readiness

This variable was based off answers to family history related questions in the Permanency Readiness 

Measure (see Appendix I for a copy of the instrument). The variable was created by summing the

responses to all 20 of the questions on the PRM.

For each question, the response options were not observed (0), partially observed (0.50), fully observed 

(1), and not applicable. Not applicable responses were counted as 0. After summing the responses, we 

then divided the sum by the number of non-N/A and non-missing responses. This resulted in a number 

between 0 and 1 that represents the percentage of total possible points, with higher values indicating 

more permanency readiness. 

Change in permanency readiness was calculated by subtracting the child’s first permanency readiness 

score from the child’s last (or most recent) score. Change in permanency readiness was only measured if 

the two PRMs were taken at least 90 days apart.
Appendix I 

Permanency Readiness Measure 

Not 

Observed

Partially 

Observed

Fully Not 

Observed Applicable

Youth can answer "Who am I?" Sum Score _______

Youth discusses birth history 0 .50 1 N/A

Youth identifies elements of his or her family 

culture, history & traditions and those of the 

different families the youth has lived with

0 .50 1 N/A

Youth identifies own traits, abilities & interests & 

how these relate to birth family 0 .50 1 N/A

Youth talks about his or her feelings 0 .50 1 N/A

Youth can answer "What happened to me?" Youth 

demonstrates trust Sum Score _______

Youth gives an explanation of how he/she came 

into care with some accuracy 0 .50 1 N/A

Youth explains why he/she is unable to live with 

birth parents 0 .50 1 N/A

Youth discusses foster care history 0 .50 1 N/A

Youth gives an account of history of losses 

experienced through foster care 0 .50 1 N/A

Youth can answer "Where am I going?" Youth displays 

attachment behaviors Sum Score _______

Youth discusses feelings about the past and 

present people and caregivers in his or her life 0 .50 1 N/A

Youth expresses love & loyalty for parents 0 .50 1 N/A

Youth discusses differences in love for parents 

and their capacities for parenting 0 .50 1 N/A

Youth can explore "How will I get there?" Sum Score _______

Youth shows appropriate affection to caregivers 0 .50 1 N/A

Youth has age appropriate friends 0 .50 1 N/A

Youth picks up on cues on how to behave 0 .50 1 N/A

Youth asks permission from caregiver to engage in 

activities 0 .50 1 N/A

Youth displays discriminate affection 0 .50 1 N/A
Not 

Observed

Partially 

Observed

Fully 

Observed

Not 

Applicable

Youth can show appropriate remorse when caught 

doing something wrong 0 .50 1 N/A

Youth explores "When will I know I belong?" Youth can 

express safety, security and belongingness with new 

family

Sum Score _______

Youth identifies

her

family who is committed to him or 0 .50 1 N/A

Youth verbalizes self as part of new family 0 .50 1 N/A

Youth verbalizes

connections

future with these family 0 .50 1 N/A
Appendix J 

Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths Assessment

©The Praed Foundation. The CANS is a free tool and available online at: http://praedfoundation.org/tools/the-child-andadolescent-needs-and-strengths-cans/.