Source: https://youthlaw.org/publication/official-oversight-of-the-washington-state-foster-care-system-nears-completion/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:50:02+00:00

Document:
This summer marked the final official report of the panel of experts assigned to oversee reform of Washington State’s foster care system. In June 2013, the Braam Oversight Panel released its fourth and final monitoring report based on the Revised Braam Settlement and Exit Agreement, a revised version of a settlement agreement reached in 2004 between the State and foster children. The report details the performance of Washington State’s Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) on 21 outcomes in the reporting period from July 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. The outcomes measure the experiences of children in foster care; for example, one outcome looks at how many children are forced to change schools because of a change in foster care placement. They also look at how DSHS fulfills its obligations, such as how often caseworkers visit foster children, and how well foster parents are trained. Of the 21 outcomes, DSHS had achieved full compliance for five outcomes before this reporting period. DSHS achieved full compliance for seven outcomes during this reporting period, and failed to achieve full compliance for another seven outcomes. Two outcomes were not reported in the final Braam Oversight Panel report because the data, which is reviewed annually, was not due for this report.
To achieve full compliance for a particular outcome, DSHS had to show that its statewide performance met the standard set by the Braam Oversight Panel and that each region performed no lower than 10 percentage points behind the state as a whole. This protected foster children in all regions of the state by ensuring that the state could not reach full compliance if one region was performing particularly poorly, even if the state average met the standard. For five of the 21 outcomes in the Report, DSHS achieved full compliance for 18 consecutive months prior to the reporting period, so those outcomes were not monitored. Data was not due for two outcomes listed in the Final Report, so those were not reported. Of the remaining 14 outcomes, DSHS achieved full compliance for seven, and failed to achieve full compliance for another seven.
Outcome 3 Children in out-of-home care for 45 days or longer will have completed and documented Child Health and Education Track (CHET) screens within 30 days of entering foster care.
Outcome 6 The percentage of children who experience two or fewer placements during their current out-of-home episode of care will not decline. This outcome measure is based on the percentage of youth entering care during the two previous fiscal years with two or fewer placements (with time-in-care specifications based on entry year).
Outcome 12 The Department will maintain an adequate ratio of licensed foster care beds to children in licensed foster homes.
Outcome 13 The percentage of children who are not victims of a founded report of child abuse or neglect by a foster parent or facility staff member will meet or exceed the federal Child and Family Services Review (round 2) standard.
Outcome 4 Children in out-of-home care will be screened for mental health and substance abuse needs every 12 months.
Outcome 5 All referrals alleging child abuse and neglect of children in out-of-home care will receive thorough investigation by the Division of Licensing Resources (DLR) pursuant to CA [Children’s Administration] policy and timeline and with required documentation.
Outcome 7 Children in out-of-home care will be placed with their siblings who are also in out-of-home care whenever possible.
Outcome 15 Caseworkers will take the required steps to meet the educational needs of children in out-of-home care.
Outcome 16 Children identified as sexually aggressive (SAY) pursuant to the statutory definition will be placed with caregivers who have received specialized training and have a plan developed to address safety and supervision issues.
Outcome 17 Children identified as physically assaultive or aggressive (PAAY) pursuant to the statutory definition will be placed with caregivers who have received specialized training and have a plan developed to address safety and supervision issues.
Outcome 9 Licensed caregivers will report receiving adequate training for their roles and responsibilities.
While DSHS’s performance in the above areas is commendable, it failed to meet full compliance on the following seven outcome measures, indicating a need for improvement in particular areas.
Outcome 1 Children in out-of-home care will receive a private and individual face-to-face health and safety visit from their assigned caseworker, or acceptable substitute worker, at least once every calendar month.
Outcome 2 Caseworkers will have caseloads at or below 18.0 cases per caseworker.
Outcome 8 Children placed apart from siblings will have two or more monthly visits or contacts (not including staffing meetings or court events), with their siblings unless the case meets an exception agreed to by the parties.
Outcome 11 Licensed caregivers will receive appropriate and timely information about the needs of children placed with them.
Outcome 18 Medically fragile children will be connected to ongoing and appropriate medical care and placed with caregivers who have specialized skills or receive consultation and ongoing training regarding their caretaking responsibilities for the medical condition.
Outcome 20 The percentage of children who run from out-of-home care placements will be reduced.
Although DSHS has fallen short of full compliance measures for these outcomes, Children’s Administration of DSHS has proposed various strategies to improve performance in each area.
DSHS’s performance in providing of information about foster children to their caregivers is dismal. For Outcome 11, DSHS fell below the full compliance measure of 90% by 66%.47 Only 24% of caregivers statewide received timely and appropriate information about the children placed with them. Regions 1, 2, and 3 only achieved 26%, 20%, and 25% compliance, respectively.48 This was DSHS’s most egregious failure as reported for July through December 2012. Prior to the January-June 2012 reporting period, compliance was close to the full compliance measure benchmark.49 But for that period and the July-December 2012 period, a new data source was used to measure DSHS’s performance.50 Earlier data was based on a survey of foster parents and caregivers conducted by Washington State University.51 More recent data is based on a targeted case review, as required by the Revised Settlement Agreement.52 This change in data source likely impacted the measurement of DSHS’s performance.
The Final Monitoring Report of the Braam Oversight Panel reveals that Washington’s DSHS has improved significantly in many areas since the Braam lawsuit was settled and the State embarked on its reform efforts under the settlement agreement. However, there is still room for growth. Children in out-of-home placements must be visited more frequently by caseworkers, and should have more sibling visits. Caseloads managed by individual caseworkers should be reduced. Caregivers must be given information regarding children’s needs in a timely manner, especially if the child is medically fragile, for the safety of the child. Finally, DSHS must work to improve its treatment of runaway youth by implementing strategies that will reduce the number of runaways and the amount of time children in placements are missing.
Anisha Asher was a 2013 summer law clerk at NCYL, working with Senior Attorney Bill Grimm researching psychotropic medication policies concerning foster care youth. Anisha is in her second year at University of Michigan Law School.
Braam ex rel. Braam v. State of Washington, 81 P.3d 851, 855 (2003).
See Braam v. State of Washington Final Settlement (2004) at 1, braamkids.org/SettlementAgreement.pdf.
Braam Oversight Panel, Introduction to Braam Revised Settlement and Exit Agreement Monitoring Report—July-December 2012 (2013) at i.
Braam v. State of Washington Revised Settlement and Exit Agreement 1 (2011), www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ca/Braamagreement103111.pdf.
Braam Oversight Panel, Introduction to Braam Revised Settlement and Exit Agreement Monitoring Report—July-December 2012 i (2013).
See Braam v. State of Washington Revised Settlement and Exit Agreement 5 (2011), www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ca/Braamagreement103111.pdf.
See Braam v. State of Washington Revised Settlement and Exit Agreement 4 (2011), www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ca/Braamagreement103111.pdf.
See Braam v. State of Washington Final Settlement 4 (2004), braamkids.org/SettlementAgreement.pdf.
Braam Oversight Panel, Introduction to Braam Revised Settlement and Exit Agreement Monitoring Report—July-December 2012 ii (2013).
See Braam v. State of Washington Revised Settlement and Exit Agreement 3 (2011), www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ca/Braamagreement103111.pdf.
Braam Oversight Panel, Braam Revised Settlement and Exit Agreement Monitoring Report—July-December 2012 v (2013).
See Braam v. State of Washington Revised Settlement and Exit Agreement 9 (2011), www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ca/Braamagreement103111.pdf.
Braam Oversight Panel, Braam Revised Settlement and Exit Agreement Monitoring Report—July-December 2012 28 (2013).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.