Le Sueur County Minnesota Child and Family Service Review

Program Improvement Plan

I. General Information

County/Tribal Agency: Address: 88 Av. Le Center MN Le Sueur County Human Services Telephone Number: 507-357-8280

Primary Person Responsible for : E-mail Address: [email protected] Lowell S. Freeman Telephone Number: 507-357-8280

DHS Quality Assurance Contact: E-mail Address: [email protected] Debra Anthony Telephone Number: 651-431-4702

To be completed by DHS: Date of Agency/DHS PIP Meeting: 03/13/15 Date PIP Approved: Due Dates for PIP Updates: Date PIP Progress Reviews Received/Occurred: January 15th, 2016  April 15th, 2016  July, 15th, 2016  October 15th, 2016  PIP Completion Date:

1 II. MnCFSR PIP Recommendations (as identified in the Exit Conference)

PIP RECOMMENDATIONS SAFETY: 1. Improve timeliness of face-to-face contact in response to all child maltreatment reports. Based on agency broad performance data. (DHS Data Dashboard, SSIS General Reports)

2. Safely reduce the re-entry of children into foster care. Based on broad performance.

3. Improve the consistency of practices related to visiting all of the children in the family.

PERMANENCY: 4. Improve timeliness of Adoption for children who meet ASFA requirements who are in care for 12 months or more; based on case review findings and broad performance federal measures.

5. Achieve permanency for those children in care for 24 months or longer.

6. Improve parent/child visitation practices that support preservation of children’s relationships with parent while in care. Based on case review findings.

WELL BEING: 7. Improve consistency in concerted efforts to engage and assess needs of non-custodial parents.

SYSTEMIC: 8. Establish a Continuous Quality Improvement process.

2 Safety Goal #1: Improve timeliness of face-to face contact in response to all child maltreatment reports. Based on agency broad performance data. (DHS Data Dashboard, SSIS General Reports) Barriers identified in the review: None noted in case review Agency identified barriers: Baseline (Performance at the time of the review): 2015 Case Review Data (if applicable to PIP development) Annual/Quarterly Performance Data (if applicable to PIP development)

Timeliness of Contact in Maltreatment Assessments & Investigations (Source: CW Data Dashboard) Baseline PIP Updates Q3, ‘13 Q3, ‘14 Q1, ‘15 Q2, ‘15 Q3, ‘15 Q4, ‘15

100% 66.7% 100% 100% SCE (9/9) (2/3) (2/2) (3/3) NSCE- 100% NA NA NA Inv (1/1) NSCE- 100% 94.4% 100% 91.7%

FA (10/10) (17/18) (29/29) (33/36) Performance Goal/Method of Measurement: 95% of children will have face-to-face (F2F) contact within statutory timelines, using “Time to Initial Contact with Victim/Other” report option under “Child Maltreatment” in SSIS “General Reports” as the method of measurement. Cross Reference with the MN CW Data Dashboard to ensure numbers are consistent with what measures the state is using on their reports to Federal Government.

Action Steps Date Updates (include persons responsible) Completed a. Look into each quarter of 2014 and 2015 to 1: determine explanation for the performance in 2: reporting of Face to Face initial interviews with 3: child victims. 4: b. Consult with DHS regarding where the 1:

3 information is obtained from to analyze and 2: monitor on a regular basis. 3: 4: c. Training: Review with staff the need for timely 09/22/2015 1: Met with Child Services Unit to review PIP plan on review once an intake is screened in and to September 22nd, 2015. Discussed need to get the Child make sure that the intakes are screened by the Observation Interview done within specified time screen team. frames. 2: 3: 4: d. All CP staff will attend the new child protection 1: screening update training VPC on Wednesday 2: 10/07/2015 and/or the all-day Screening and 3: track assignment training in November at either Chaska or Rochester. 4: e. Supervisor and CP Team Lead will review 1: timeliness to Client Contact for SCE, NSCE-Inv 2: and NSE-FA cases on a weekly basis to assure 3: that Face to Face contacts with child victims are completed timely and are being entered 4: correctly in SSIS.

4 Safety Goal #2: Safely reduce the re-entry of children into foster care. (Based on broad performance) Barriers identified in the review: None noted in the case review Agency identified barriers: Baseline (Performance at the time of the review): 2015 Case Review Data (if applicable to PIP development) Annual/Quarterly Performance Data (if applicable to PIP development) None noted in the case review C1.4: 40% (2/5) Percent of children who re-enter foster care within 12 months of a prior discharge. (DHS Child Welfare Data Dashboard)

County Performance on Federal Data Indicator:

Baseline PIP Updates

CY ‘13 CY ‘14 Q1 ‘15 Q2 ‘15 Q3 ‘15 Q4 ‘15

7.1% 40% 20% 22% 15% (1/14) (2/5) (1/5) (2/9) (2/13)

Performance Goal/Method of Measurement: Performance Goal/Method of Measurement: National Standard 9.9% - decrease the rate of re-entry by 25%. Met 25% Reduce Goal in Q3 – Note monitor for two consecutive quarters for sustained improvement. Nice work.

Action Steps Date Updates (include persons responsible) Completed a. Using Charting and Analysis the agency will run 1: the “Permanency of Reunification – Re-Entry 2: (Federal Measure C1.4)” to identify the youth 3: who were identified as re-entering in the PUR. 4: b. Once the group of youth (5) have been 1: identified, develop strategies to address the 2: specific causes of re-entry pertinent to the 3: overall themes and enter those strategies in the

5 quarter summary. 4: One possible suggestion might be to routinely hold a FGDM meeting with families and identified informal supports prior to discharge from placement with the goal of assuring the needs of the child and the family can be maintained after discharge. c. Review the DHS re-entry brief will all staff. 09/22/2015 1: Reviewed on September 22nd, 2015 with Child Services Unit @ PIP Response Planning Meeting. d. Use of preventive services: 1: 1) Crisis Mobil Increasing hours to 8am-8pm in 2016; 2) Agency has 1) Increase the use/referral of the available a worker on this goal area 25% of time (in addition to licensing worker's efforts); 3) Reminders at every unit meeting. 4) CST crisis mobile team and assure that started on 10/12/15; 5) Ongoing and a goal of CP Team Lead information is available to the starting 11/02/2015. weekend/evening Mental Health On-Call 2: Workers. 3: 2) Recruitment, retention, training, and support of local foster care providers to assist with 4: both crisis and regular respite. 3) Increase the use of respite services to prevent crisis events. 4) Hire and train a Community Support Technician to help children remain with their families rather than being placed outside the home 5) Recruit and retain additional providers of in- home individual and family therapy.

6 Safety Goal #3: Improve the consistency of practices related to visiting all of the children in the family. Barriers identified in the review: Gaps in worker visits with siblings. Agency identified barriers: This particular issue came up for cases where a child was placed outside the home and F2F visits were getting done with the child in placement, but not necessarily with all children in the home. Discussion centered around the need to at least see all kids one time to assess their needs and if needs were also identified provide case management goals around those needs for the child(ren) (who is/are not out of home placed) in addition to the visits with and needs of the child in OHP and the parents, and the foster parents Baseline (Performance at the time of the review): 78% (7 of 9) cases were rated as a strength

Performance Goal/Method of Measurement: Performance Goal/Method of Measurement: SSIS General Reports has a “Contacts with Clients” feature Case Review, Supervision Document that details every person that was present for a Face to Face contact. This document is already being reviewed with every worker on a monthly basis to ensure that the workers are at least getting monthly visits with all the children in the family in addition to those specific to their case load.

Action Steps Date Updates (include persons responsible) Completed a. Add question to CP supervision tool to 1: document, remind & reinforce that all kids in 2: the home need to have visits to assess the 3: safety of the child in the home in addition to each child’s needs, develop plans around 4: meeting identified needs where possible (especially when one or more, but not all kids are OHP). b. SSIS allows a “Strength and Needs” SDM tool to 1: be completed for child welfare cases. Agency 2: will encourage workers to use these tools to 3: identify needs and address any need areas for those children who are not necessarily the focus 4: of an open case when/if we are able to meet 7 those needs. c. Review with each social worker the need to 09/22/2015 1: This topic was discussed with the group in the Agency's make sure that each and every child in a home first PIP review and response planning meeting on has the benefit of ongoing safety assessment, September 22, 2015. needs identification and efforts to assist to meet those needs.

8 Permanency Goal #4: Improve timeliness of Adoption for children who meet ASFA requirements who are in care for 12 months or more; based on case review findings and broad performance federal measures. Barriers identified in the review: Delays occurred in changing the initial permanency goal when efforts to reunification were no longer occurring and shifted to adoption. Specialized adoption document paperwork completion. Agency identified barriers: Baseline (Performance at the time of the review): 2015 Case Review Data (if applicable to PIP development) Annual/Quarterly Performance Data (if applicable to PIP development) Permanency Outcome 1: 57%(4/7) of cases rated as Substantially achieved County Performance on Federal Data Indicator:  Nat’l 2014 2015 Standard (Baseline) (Update) 0% 100% C2.1 36.6% (0/3) (1/1) C2.2 27.3% 24.8* 17.4 0 0% C2.3 22.7% (0/1) (0/4) 0 66.7% C2.4 10.9% (0/1) (2/3) 0 33% C2.5 53.7% (0/2) (1/3) Performance Goal/Method of Measurement: Performance Goal/Method of Measurement: SSIS Analysis and Charting – Federal Indicators C2.1- C2.5. Our county is small enough we are able to count the 2015 number of TPR’s that occur quarterly/annually without the Data entries current on 10/06/2015. Will recalculate for 2015 in January aid of SSIS. We will report the number of cases that end in 2016. TPR over the total number of CHIPS cases for each quarter. For example: 17 children on CHIPS with 3 children who have had an outcome of TPR in Q1 would be reported as (3/17) 17.6%. If our efforts to reduce the number of children available for adoption then this number should decrease over time.

Action Steps Date Updates 9 (include persons responsible) Completed a. Brainstorm within region collaboration on 1: adoption specialist needs, specialized 2: recruitment. Director will introduce this 3: discussion with the regional Directors and MACSA and Supervisor will take this topic to the 4: area supervisor’s monthly meeting to see if other counties would be willing to consider a shared adoption specialist position. b. FGDM will be scheduled early in cases where 1: there is a removal and the PPP is not done to 2: consider family options for a relative search, 3: looking for alternative placement if reunification is not possible. 4: c. Consider Parallel Protection Process (PPP): 1:  Bring Goodhue County Judge and social 2: worker over to discuss Parallel Protection 3: Process (PPP), how to get it set up and going, and how much does it cost? 4:  Assess Parallel Protection Process: Meeting with CJI team (Parents, Child if appropriate, Judge, County Attorney, Public Defenders, Court Administration, and DHS) to determine if the parties are willing to attempt Parallel Protection Process. d. Prevent Adoption Scenarios: by aggressive in- 1: home support services prior to getting to Out of 2: Home Placement (OHP) and possible 3: Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) or Transfer of Permanent Legal Physical Custody (TPLPC). 4:

10 Permanency Goal #5: Achieve permanency for those children in care for 24 months or longer. Barriers identified in the review: Court extensions occurred due to unresolved conflict caused additional delays in permanency.

Agency identified barriers: Baseline (Performance at the time of the review): Case Review Data (if applicable to PIP development) Annual/Quarterly Performance Data (if applicable to PIP development)

Baseline PIP Updates

2013 2014 Q1, 2015 Q2, 2015 Q3, 2015 Q4, 2015

0% 0% N/A N/A N/A

(0/2) (0/1) (0/0) (0/0) (0/0)

Performance Goal/Method of Measurement: Met 25% Reduce Goal in Q3 – Monitor the goal for two consecutive quarters.

Action Steps Date Updates (include persons responsible) Completed a. Using Charting and Analysis the agency will run 10/26/2015 1: Report was run for 2013 and 2014. Two youth were the “Permanency of Reunification – Re-Entry identified for 2013 and one identified for 2014. The one (Federal Measure C3.1)” to identify the youth from 2014 was the same as one of the youth in 2013. identified as being in Foster Care greater than The other youth passed away, or he would have been on 24 months. the report again in 2014. b. Review all identified cases for themes and 10/26/2015 1: The youth that come up on this report for Le Sueur identify any possible strategies to achieve County have been placed outside the home due to permanency. developmental disability. They are placed with the intent of maintaining strong parental support/connection but the parent(s) are no longer able to provide the daily activities of daily living.

11 Well Being Goal #6: Improve parent/child visitation practices that support preservation of children’s relationships with parent while in care. Based on case review findings. Barriers identified in the review: both cases that were identified as ANI demonstrated parenting time being withheld due to court order to participate in chemical testing (provide UA prior to visit) or participation in an ordered service (i.e. anger management class). Agency identified barriers: Clients refuse to meet or need to reschedule. Clients refuse to participate in chemical testing. Clients do not return phone calls, text messages, emails, letters, and other attempts at communication to coordinate services. Baseline (Performance at the time of the review):  2015 Case Review Data (if applicable to PIP development) In cases reviewed, 71% (5/7) of the cases rated as substantially achieved.

Performance Goal/Method of Measurement:

Action Steps Date Updates (include persons responsible) Completed a. Explore ways to safely have contact with 1. parents to preserve relationships with children 2. while in placement. Need to address this issue 3. in Children’s Justice Initiative (CJI) meetings. 4. b. Obtain training on how to identify when a Completed 1. Le Sueur County Sherrif's Office lead investigators person is under the influence of chemicals for 10/02/2015 conducted a training for the Child Services staff on all Child Service Staff so they can objectively Friday October 2nd, 2015. identify when child visits may be a higher risk 2. Explain under what circumstances a parent would be to the child(ren) where rescheduling may be denied visits with children. How is this different than necessary. the current practice of withholding visits when parents are under the influence? Can you define when/what would fit for higher risk and necessitate a visit to be withheld? c. Hire and train a Community Support Technician Completed 1. Le Sueur County hired a CST to work with families to (CST) to help children reunify with parent(s) 10/12/2015 support reunification, and preserve relationships with earlier through frequent regular parenting time families while a child is placed outside the home. visits. Currently Agency has two contracted

12 parenting time visitation supervisors.

13 Well Being Goal #7: Improve consistency in concerted efforts to engage and assess needs of non-custodial parents. Barriers identified in the review: Lack of engagement with fathers/non-resident parents. Agency identified barriers: Baseline (Performance at the time of the review): ☒2015 Case Review Data (if applicable to PIP development) ☐Annual/Quarterly Performance Data (if applicable to PIP development) Item #9: 71% (5/8) cases rated as a Strength Item #12B: 62.5% (5/8) cases rated as a Strength Item #13: 75%(6/8) cases rated as a Strength Item #15: 75% (6/8) cases rated as a Strength Performance Goal/Method of Measurement:

Action Steps Date Updates (include persons responsible) Completed a. Training with Kevin McTighe 1: Kevin presents a training that reviews the 2: statutory requirements for involving the 3: non-custodial parent, case plans, and teaches the case workers the important 4: steps a non-custodial parent needs to take to become a positive in their child’s life and become a permanency option if necessary. b. Make development of a family tree that 1: clearly identifies all fathers relevant to each 2: case an early case requirement. This will 3: assist in identification of relatives for respite, informal supports, and other resources that 4: may help the family stay together. c. 1: 2: 3:

14 4: d. 1: 2: 3: 4:

15 SYSTEMIC FACTOR Goal #8: Establish a Continuous Quality Improvement process for ongoing monitoring of Child Welfare practices. Current process/practice(s): Describe any current processes Barriers:

Action Steps Date Updates (include persons responsible) Completed Establish and maintain a process that yields valid data: a. The agency has hired a Child Protection Team November 1: A Child Protection Team Lead worker position was Lead worker as part of our new allocation. We 2nd, 2015 created, advertised, interviewed and hired. Lead worker plan to use 50% of the worker’s time in will start duties on 11/02/05. administrative duties including continuous 2: quality assurance case file review on a monthly 3: basis. 4: b. 1: 2: 3: 4:

Develop/implement a process for analyzing and learning from the data: c. 1: 2: 3: 4: d. 1: 2: 3: 4: Use the data to effectively implement practice and system change: e. 1:

16 2: 3: 4:

17 FEDERAL DATA INDICATORS C1.1 Of all children discharged from foster care to reunification in the year shown, and who had been in foster care for eight days or longer, what percent were reunified in less than 12 months from the time of the latest removal from home? C1.2 Median length of stay in foster care to reunification (months) C1.3 Of all children entering foster care for the first time in the six-month period just prior to the year shown, and who remained in foster care for eight days or longer, what percentage were reunified in less than 12 months? C1.4 Of all children discharged from care to reunification in the 12-month period prior to the year shown, what percentage re-entered foster care in less than 12 months from the date of discharge? C2.1 Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in the year shown, what percent were discharged in less than 24 months from the date of latest removal from home? C2.2 Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in the year shown, what was the median length of stay in foster care (in months) from the date of latest removed from home to the date of adoption? C2.3 Of all children in foster care on the first day of the year shown who were in foster care for 17 continuous months or longer (and who, by the last day of the year shown, were not discharged from foster care with a discharge reason of live with relative, reunify or guardianship), what percent were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption by the last day of the year shown? C2.4 Of all children in foster care on the first day of the year shown who were in foster care for 17 continuous months or longer, and were not legally free for adoption prior to that day, what percent become legally free for adoption during the first 6 months of the year shown? C2.5 Of all children who became legally free for adoption in the 12-month period prior to the year shown, what percent were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12 months of becoming legally free? C3.1 Of all children in foster care for 24 months or longer on the first day of the year shown, what percent were discharged to a permanency home prior to their 18th birthday and by the end of the year (including adoption, guardianship, reunification or transfer of custody to a relative)? C3.2 Of all children who were discharged from foster care in the year shown, and who were legally free for adoption at the time of discharge, what percent was discharged to a permanent home prior to their 18th birthday (including adoption, guardianship, reunification or transfer of custody to a relative)? C3.3 Of all children who, during the year shown, either (1) were discharged from foster care prior to age 18 with a discharge reason of emancipation, or (2) reached their 18th birthday while in foster care, what percent were in foster care for three years or longer? C4.1 Of all children served in foster care during the year shown who were in foster care for at least eight days but less than 12 months, what percent had two or fewer placement settings? C4.2 Of all children served in foster care during the year shown who were in foster care for at least 12 months but less than 24 months, what percent had two or fewer placement settings? C4.3 Of all children served in foster care during the year shown who were in foster care for at least 24 months, what percent had two or fewer placement settings?

18