[ Main Page of Report | Contents of Report ]
In 1994, as part of the Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Services, Westat interviewed state- and county-level administrators from 25 states about the status of reunification in their states and then profiled reunification programs in those states for possible inclusion in the Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Services.(1)
In the 1990s, the number of children in the child welfare system placed in out-of-home care continued to increase. Officials at the state and federal levels were concerned that, despite state efforts and enactment of the 1980 Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (AACWA), the numbers of children entering the child welfare system continued to rise, and children still lingered in the foster care system for an extended period of time. Additionally, cases of child deaths highlighted by the media fueled critics who believed that preserving and reunifying families was not necessarily an effective way to establish permanen, safe, and stable homes for many children in foster care.
In response, states began enacting legislation and requirements in the 1990s that emphasized child safety and expedited permanency. The provisions included holding permanency hearings sooner for children in state care, practicing concurrent planning, and implementing a more expedited track to filing termination of parental rights (TPRs) for abandoned children or unresponsive parents.
Beginning in spring of 2000, Westat and Chapin Hall Center for Children met with public and private child welfare staff at the state and county levels to discuss issues surrounding permanency for children and reunification policy and practice. Of particular interest was information about the states' policy and practices, how states are adapting to the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) requirements, and what changes in policy and practice have taken place in states and localities since ASFA implementation. This report presents an overview of the information on permanency and reunification in child welfare, based on our discussions with state administrators.
Adoption and Safe Families Act
ASFA, Public Law 105-89, was enacted in November 1997. ASFA amended the 1980 Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act by refocusing efforts to promote safety and permanence for children in the foster care system. Of primary importance was addressing cases where children still lingered in the foster care system for an extended period of time or had returned to foster care after a previous placement because of an unsafe family situation.
ASFA includes criteria to define when efforts to preserve and reunify a family are not required and outlines the court's discretion to make decisions on a child's permanency based on safety considerations. ASFA also limits the amount of time a child can be in the foster care system prior to being placed in a permanent home. Moreover, ASFA requires permanency hearings be held for children no later than 12 months after they enter foster care (6 months earlier than the prior law). The Act also requires, in most cases, that TPR be initiated for any child who has been in state custody for 15 out of the most recent 22 months. ASFA provides financial incentives to states to increase the number of adoptions.
Once enacted, ASFA requirements were effective immediately. The passing of state legislation to comply with ASFA took place in states across the country in 1998 and 1999. By early 1999, all 50 states and the District of Columbia had passed legislation in response to ASFA.(2) The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) conducted numerous briefings and training sessions for states and localities on the implementation of ASFA, and DHHS issued final regulations on the Act on January 25, 2000.
ASFA prompted policy and practice changes in state and local child welfare systems across the country. It is important to examine how states perceive permanency post-ASFA and the role reunification plays in the continuum of options to find safety and permanency for children.
[Go to Contents]
The first section of this report summarizes information and trends on permanency and reunification in 25 states. Westat and Chapin Hall Center for Children staff spoke to state administrators in 25 states to update information on permanency and reunification policy and practices. Topics discussed included: state system structure, permanency options in the state, state viewpoints on permanency and reunification, service provider structure, changes in the state prompted by ASFA, current child welfare initiatives, and future options for permanency and reunification for families. For a list of all the states included in the report and additional information on individual states, see Appendix A.
State administrators were asked to describe their child welfare system structure to provide context for further state information on permanency and reunification. Data provided by the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) Annual Foster Care Database and Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) Yearbook provide an illustration of the number of children in out-of-home care in their states. Estimates indicate that those states contacted for information represented a good cross-section of states across the country regarding the number of children out-of-home.
| Number of Children in Out-of-Home Placement(a) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Less than 5,000 children in care | 5,000-9,999 children in care | 10,000 - 14,999 children in care | 15,000 - 20,000 children in care | Over 20,000 children in care | |
| Number of States Contacted | 4 | 10 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| a. Data from the AFCARS Annual Foster Care Database, FY 1998 and from the 1999 CWLA Child Abuse and Neglect Stat Book. | |||||
Individual state data on the number of children in out-of-home placement are presented in Appendix A.
Administrators were also asked about the structure of the child welfare system. The 25 states were divided between state-administered systems and those that are state supervised but county administered. Of the 25 states, 15 had state-administered child welfare systems, while 10 had county- administered systems.
Within the two general types of administrative structures, there were a variety of sub-structures within states, ranging from systems with strong state management over service delivery to systems where states give autonomy in service delivery to the local level. Many states reported an increasing amount of autonomy being passed to the county and local levels. However, even with the trend of devolution, states tend to maintain control of child welfare through policy and funding and assure compliance with state and federal regulations and requirements.
Administrators discussed service delivery arrangements in their states. The responses indicate a trend toward the use of private contractors to deliver direct services to clients. In no state are all reunification services provided by the public agency. The majority of state administrators (56%) reported using both public and private providers to deliver reunification services to families in their state.
There are many different types of public and private service delivery arrangements. In public-private shared arrangements, it is common for states to maintain investigation and case management services for children in state custody, while private contractors provide direct treatment services to children and families. While some public agencies may share in providing direct services to clients, others may contract with private agencies to deliver all direct treatment services to clients. In a couple of states, administrators reported that private contracts were primarily used for high-cost foster care services such as therapeutic, residential, or group home services for children but not for other foster care services.
Nine administrators (36%) reported that child welfare services were primarily privatized or planned to be so within a short time. In other words, the state or local division of the public agency provided oversight on cases, but services to clients were contracted to private agencies. Two administrators responded that all services were provided solely by the public agency, although both of those administrators discussed exceptions in individual counties where private providers are also used. Overall, it is clear that most all of the states are using private agencies to provide some portion of services to clients.
When discussing permanency with state administrators, a variety of issues arose surrounding acclimating to new federal and state timelines for child permanency. Overall, administrators seemed very attentive to the legal timelines and the requirements for expedited permanency. They discussed the timing of permanency in their states, including schedules for dispositional hearings, and the complex process of working through issues and finding tools to expedite permanency. Administrators talked about the effects of ASFA on state law, and several administrators made a point of mentioning that they adhered to ASFA definitions for permanency. But we also found that some states had moved to shortened timelines prior to ASFA. One state administrator commented that her state was in the process of working through issues to get beyond the present belief permeating child welfare that permanency for a child equals adoption. Administrators also remarked on issues of least restrictive, permanent environments for children, and about the importance of meeting a child's physical and emotional needs for lifelong attachment and a permanent home.
Administrators mentioned efforts to expedite permanency, including concurrent planning, guardianship, and adoption. Concurrent planning is the process of planning two strategies for permanency for a child from the start of a case - a primary plan which usually involves a goal of reunification and working with and providing services to the family to achieve this goal and, at the same time, planning and working toward an alternative permanency goal for the child (e.g., permanent relative placement, guardianship, or adoption) in case the primary plan is not achieved within the timeline set. Establishing and simplifying guardianship policy was discussed as a way to find permanent homes for children. Guardianship is a legal means for an adult to assume parental responsibility and authority for a child without severing parental rights of the birth parents. One administrator said the guardianship policy in her state was originally designed for adults needing guardians but that the state was planning to simplify the process by eliminating reporting and fee requirements that made the process cumbersome to families. Administrators also mentioned that adoption is getting more attention, and many states are making a substantial effort to bolster adoption efforts, particularly since new timelines have been in effect.
States were asked about the types of permanency options available for children and the priority they established for those options. Every state responded that reunification with the child's birth parents or with the custodian from which the child was taken was the first permanency option.
| Prioritizing Permanency Options | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|
| Ranked reunification first among permanency options(a) | 23 | 0 |
| Ranked adoption second among permanency options(a) | 15 | 8 |
| Reported a relative placement option | 22 | 2(b) |
| Ranked relative placement second, giving preference over adoption(a) | 7 | 16 |
| Reported a guardianship option (subsidized or unsubsidized) | 13 | 10 |
| Reported a long-term or permanent foster care option | 20 | 3 |
| a. N=23; Colorado and Georgia did not give
order preference. b. Missouri and Wisconsin do not currently have formal relative placement options; however Missouri has multiple initiatives in the state to encourage relative placement. |
||
The majority of states (65%) ranked "adoption" as the second permanency option, and "relative placement" (including legal custody, guardianship, or some other type of arrangement) usually ranked third (7 of 23 states ranked relative placement above adoption in importance). States' preferences for adoption over relative placement seemed to reflect their concern that relative placements may not be permanent for the child and the need to find legal permanency for a child so that he or she can exit the foster care system. Some states specifically stated a preference for relative adoption or a guardianship (if available in the state) because this secured permanency for the child and discharge from the foster care system. Twenty-two states (92%) had some type of relative placement option for children, and 13 states (56%) had a guardianship option.
States mentioned a variety of ways they are using relatives to create permanency for children, including kin placements, guardianship, and adoption. In an attempt to address the need to find an increasing number of permanent homes for children, states are turning often to relatives.
Sixty-eight percent of the states (13) reported an increase in the use of temporary and/or permanent relative placements over the past few years.(3)
Six states reported maintaining steady rates or no change in the rate of relative placements, but some of those States also said it has always been common to have children placed with relatives. No states reported a decrease in the use of relative placements. Many state administrators who reported an increase in relative placements also reported more upfront work in locating relatives for placement, due to the time limits of federal and state legislation.
Administrators showed a preference toward permanent relative placements. Once a child is placed with a relative, according to ASFA regulations, the state may choose whether to exempt the child from ASFA timelines. However, many states have implemented the stringent position to require legal permanency for a child with a relative, in an effort to find permanency for children and move them out of the foster care system. Without legal placement, the child remains in state custody. This burdens the state's system financially and also leaves the status of the child unresolved; without legal custody to a third party or TPR, a parent may choose to take the relative to court at a later time to regain custody of the child. A few administrators stated a preference for relative placements that involved adoption or a guardianship placement because, in their states, these were considered legally permanent where the child exits the foster care system and has a better chance of uninterrupted permanency. However, legal custody or placement with a relative can be difficult to accomplish since some kin may not be willing to go through the burdensome legal process of adoption or legal custody or may be unable to care for the child without financial support.
About one-half of the states (13) responded that they had some type of guardianship option for children (with relatives and non-relatives), although only three specifically mentioned that guardianships were subsidized. However, states seem to understand the concerns of relative caretakers and know that support is important in order to place a child permanently. Eighteen states (72%) reported some type of new initiative underway in their state to assist relative placement.(4) Particularly popular were plans for guardianship assistance (n=14) and also various initiatives for kin care assistance (n=5). Moreover, two states also reported support initiatives specifically for grandparent caretakers. With states struggling to find innovative and diverse ways to obtain safe and permanent placements for children, it is clear that states are focused on encouraging and supporting relatives as caregivers when children must be placed outside the home.
ASFA and corresponding state legislation have placed a significant emphasis on expediting permanency for children in foster care placement. This emphasis has prompted discussions about the role of reunification in the permanency continuum across states. Reunification can be difficult to achieve within a limited timeline. With this in mind, we discussed with administrators if there had been changes in the definition or traditional concept of reunification - to return a child to the birth parents or to the original custodian from whom the child was taken. In particular, has there been a change in the role of birth parents (custodial and non-custodial) and kin in reunification. States were asked if their definitions of reunification had been expanded beyond the traditional definition to a broader definition that included extended relatives. In other words, have states broadened their concept of reunification to include kin?
Most states maintained the traditional definition of reunification - to return the child to his or her birthparents or household of origin.(5) However, five states reported that placement of a child with either a birth parent or a family relative was considered "reunification," or what some called "family reunification" in the state. A strong common point among these states was a large increase in placing children with relatives, particularly over the past few years, and their success in creating permanent living arrangements with relatives. An administrator from one of the five states pointed out that often the children have closer relationships with relatives than with their birth parents, based on the family situation. This inclusion of relatives as "reunification" seems to indicate the importance placed on maintaining the child within his/her extended family structure and the success of these permanent arrangements.
Most administrators we spoke with described significant changes in their states as a result of ASFA, although a few administrators mentioned that their state had enacted similar legislation prior to ASFA and reported few changes after enactment of the federal law. Administrators described legislative changes to bring their policy, procedures, and reporting structure into compliance with ASFA and working at the county and local levels to implement new provisions. A number of people also told us that their states had passed legislation instituting timelines and had established policy and practices to facilitate faster permanency, such as concurrent planning, prior to the passage of ASFA.
Administrators reported a new impetus for permanency and meeting the new timelines. Many discussed moving backlog cases out of the foster care system by changing the goals to adoption and proceeding with TPR. As a result, there was a good deal of discussion about the expansion of adoption and how that has prompted the need for adoption expertise, increasing adoptive services and the size of adoption units, and budget changes to address adoption needs. Administrators reported changes ongoing in their states to focus on obtaining an increased number of adoptive parents (to meet the needs of TPR cases), efforts to use foster families as adoptive homes, broadening the geographic area for adoptive home consideration, and promoting adoption through state web sites.
Recognizing the need to make permanency decisions sooner, some administrators reported programmatic and administrative changes utilized to expedite permanency. A number of administrators spoke about changes to engage relatives in cases sooner, particularly in the case-planning process, and also reported a significant increase in the use of guardianship and kinship care arrangements as permanent and temporary placements for children.
Administrators mentioned the use of concurrent planning as a tool for permanency planning. Often, a child is placed with relatives in anticipation of custody or adoption at a later date, or the child is placed with foster parents who are prepared to take a child into their home on a permanent basis (often referred to as Fost-Adopt homes). Agency staff prefer these types of arrangements because it limits the number of placements the child must undergo prior to permanency. Some administrators noted that their states had begun concurrent planning on cases prior to ASFA, but that there has been a greater acceptance of the practice since ASFA implementation. Administrators also reported expanding the responsibilities of foster parents to have them work with birth parents for reunification purposes. In this role, foster parents can act as mentors to birth parents. However, this relationship can act also as an impetus for birth parents to give up rights to their child, believing that the foster parents would provide a better life for their child.
Administrators also said that ASFA has compelled their agencies to coordinate and collaborate with other agencies to expedite permanency for children, specifically discussing their work with service providers and the courts. One administrator believed that ASFA, by expediting permanency for children drifting in the system, placed an increased caseload burden on the courts. Another administrator said that the court had gotten quicker at expediting cases through the system.
There were a few brief comments about changes in services as well. Most comments on services seemed to focus on adapting family-driven services to meet expedited permanency requirements. One administrator mentioned that ASFA's push for permanency had compelled more intensive services to families in the state; another referred to training of staff to do a good family assessment early so that they could adequately address needs and services for families and expedite permanency. However, one administrator did say that in her opinion, ASFA had compelled her state to change from services being family-driven to child-driven.
State administrators were asked if there were any new initiatives being implemented in the state to promote permanency for an update on new policy in the states. Twenty-two administrators reported some type of new initiative in their states, ranging from those dealing with services to prevent child placement to those implemented to assist in mediating termination of parental rights. Initiatives most often reported by administrators were concentrated in the areas of adoption, guardianship, and kinship care. Appendix B provides a glossary of terms to assist in understanding initiatives listed in the table below.
Nine administrators reported initiatives dealing with the recruitment of adoptive parents or post-adoptive services. Also, nine administrators mentioned some type of guardianship project starting or ongoing in their state. Guardianship initiatives ranged from simplifying the guardianship process to offering subsidized guardianship. Included among the nine were two states with Title IV-E Waivers for guardianship.
| State Initiative | Number of States Reporting |
|---|---|
| Adoption | 9 |
| Guardianship | 9 |
| Kinship or relative caregiver support | 7 |
| Concurrent planning | 4 |
| Foster care recruitment | 3 |
| Family group decisionmaking | 2 |
| Family to Family Initiative | 2 |
| Managed care | 2 |
| TPR mediation | 2 |
| Birth parent support for reunification | 1 |
| Performance-based foster care reimbursement | 1 |
| Permanency planning coordinator | 1 |
| Permanent placement program for children | 1 |
| Preventive services | 1 |
| Foster care caseload reduction | 1 |
| Substance abuse provider partnerships | 1 |
| Visitation | 1 |
In addition to the high number of adoption and guardianship initiatives, kinship care initiatives were also highly reported. Seven state administrators reported some type of kinship support measure instituted to support relative caregivers, including specific measures to support grandparent caretakers. Other initiatives mentioned included concurrent planning (N=4), foster care recruitment (N=3), TPR mediation (N=2), family group decisionmaking (N=2), and managed care initiatives (N=2).
State administrators were also asked about special or innovative reunification efforts ongoing in their state. Many administrators discussed ongoing reunification efforts, some instituted as part of their statewide reunification services to families, other efforts were specialized programs offered for reunification clients with particular problems (i.e., substance abuse or children in therapeutic foster care). After review of the efforts described by administrators, further discussions were conducted with program administrators for 12 reunification programs in states across the country. Appendix C provides brief descriptions of the 12 reunification programs we reviewed for further research.
After further review of the 12 programs, four programs that appeared to be innovative and unique in the nature of services provided to clients were chosen for further study. Reports on these reunification programs are provided in Appendix D.
[Go to Contents]
Looking at state structure and the delivery of services in the 25 states, we see that the majority of child welfare services are administered at the state-level, although many states reported an increasing amount of autonomy being passed to the county and local levels. In addition, our review of information on delivery of services illustrates a trend toward the use of privately contracted service providers. Although most state administrators told us that both the public agency and private contractors share service delivery to clients, in many cases, the public agency is focused on investigative and case planning and management, while private contractors are providing direct treatment services to children and families.
State policies enacted in the late 1990s and the enactment of ASFA have made for significant changes in child welfare policy with a strong emphasis on promoting safety, shortening timelines and expediting permanency, and looking to alternatives for reunification.
Our discussions with state administrators demonstrate that ASFA is being taken seriously. Implementation of the law is taking place. Legislative changes to bring state policy and statutes into compliance have been instituted, and administrators are working at the state, county, and local levels to implement new policy and practice. All states have adopted ASFA requirements through legislation.
Instituting and adapting to shortened timelines was a dominant topic of our discussions with administrators. States seem to be focused on ways to abide by the timelines for permanency. As a result, states and their foster care staff recognize the need to make permanency decisions sooner and are looking for any and all tools at their disposal to help deal with the rush for permanency. Those mentioned most often by state administrators included concurrent planning, guardianship, and kinship support.
States say that reunification is the first permanency option they consider for every child entering care. However, the implementation of the new timelines has given adoption a great deal of attention. Adoption is commanding a great deal of time and money in states, as illustrated by the number of states that mentioned new adoption initiatives. States are putting much effort into locating new adoptive homes for children, particularly for children who have been in the foster care system for a significant period of time (i.e., backlog cases).
Relatives also are receiving an enormous amount of attention. States recognize that relatives are an important resource for permanency for children. States are making an effort to locate relatives as soon as a child comes into care and make them part of the permanency process - providing foster care, participating in case decisionmaking, and even providing adoptive homes for children.
Child permanency is dependent on collaboration between agencies. Some states appear to be renewing their efforts to collaborate with other agencies, recognizing the benefits of cooperation and collaboration with other agencies, the courts, and policy makers to expedite permanency within the new timelines. However, the burden for cooperation continues to lie with the child welfare agencies, which forces them to take the lead. This can be a very difficult task for overburdened agencies, particularly when dealing with overburdened court systems and lack of appropriate community resources.
States seem to be trying to balance the need to expedite permanency with the need to reunify families. State administrators report that reunification is still the primary goal for families in the child welfare system. However, as much as states want to preserve families through reunification, they also admit that letting a child linger in the foster care system is not an adequate response to the needs of the child. State administrators report that they believe the expedited timelines instituted by federal and state law were necessary. Some administrators reported relief by staff as timelines provided rationale for terminating a parent's right and seeking a permanency option other than reunification for children who have been in the system for an extended period and whose parents were not able to resolve issues that brought the child into care. But at the same time, administrators spoke about the concern that permanency would become equivalent to adoption, and reunification would become the exception rather than the norm for families.
While administrators and child welfare staff grapple with the issues of reunification and expedited permanency, state policy makers continue to look for tools to adequately address finding permanency for children in foster care. By looking at initiatives across states, relative and non-relative homes are being sought to provide permanency for children. Children who have spent years in the foster care system are now part of the "back log" for which permanent placements must be found. Some of these children are in their teens and do not want to be adopted. They will remain in state custody with a goal of emancipation or independent living. However, the rest of the children will require a legally permanent relative placement or an adoptive home. As a result, states are spending a great deal of time and funding to implement initiatives to find adoptive homes and encourage and support relatives who can provide homes for children. State policy seems to emphasize adoption, which indicates that states may find adoption more feasible than locating relative placements. The fact that states receive a monetary incentive for final adoptions is a factor in the equation to further consider.
Despite the apparent push toward adoption, foster care administrators are still optimistic about reunification as a priority and, overall, do not see an about-turn on the issue of reunification. They declared a need for proper resources for education of staff and training tools to achieve progress in reunifying families under shortened timelines. However, despite these needs, most believed that reunification will remain the first priority among permanency options for families and will maintain priority status through the development of methods to speed the progress of reunification with families (i.e., assessment and engaging family). Appendix D provides an in-depth look at four reunification programs. These programs demonstrate innovative reunification efforts taking place in communities around the country, and offer examples of collaborative efforts among agencies and intensive reunification services that are helping families.
[Go to Contents]
Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago. Adoption, Foster Care, and Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) Annual Database.
Children's Defense Fund. Issue Basics, Adoption and Safe Families Act. Retrieved on January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cdfactioncouncil.org/ASFA.htm.
Child Welfare League of America. Child Abuse and Neglect: A Look at the States. CWLA Press, Washington, D.C. 1999.
Westat, James Bell Associates, Inc., and The Chapin Hall Center for Children. A Review of Family Preservation and Family Reunification Programs. The National Evaluation of Family Services. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Washington, D.C., 1995.
[Go to Contents]
| State | Organizational Structure | Foster Care Population | Permanency Options (in order of preference) | Reunification Defined | Provider Type | Changes After ASFA and Recent Permanency Initiatives | Reunification Programs Recommended for Review |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | State-administered system. There are separate state-level units for foster care, independent living program, therapeutic foster care, family preservation and reunification. | Estimated number of children in foster care: 5,200 | 1) Returning home to parent 2) Relative custody 3) Adoption 4) Long term foster care |
Reunification is defined as return child to a parent, but could also be considered return to a relative. | Reunification services are provided by both private and public providers. | Changes: ASFA has served as an impetus to address foster care issues and focus efforts on getting children home or in a permanent placement sooner.
Initiatives: |
Expedited substance abuse services. |
| Arizona | State-administered system. The State is divided into 6 districts that cover all 15 counties in the State. | Estimated number of children in foster care: 5,600 | 1) Return to parent 2) Adoption 3) Adoption by relative 4) Guardianship (subsidized or non-subsidized) 5) Permanent guardianship 6) Long-term foster care 7) Independent living |
Reunification is considered as return to parent or original guardian from whom the child was taken. | Some direct reunification services are provided through the public providers but about 70% of services are provided by private providers. | Changes: Upon removal there is a petition filed and court hearing for
all parties; Parents are held more accountable with shortened timeframes.
Initiatives: |
None. |
| California | State-supervised, County-administered child welfare system. | Estimated number of children in foster care: 112,800 | 1) Reunification 2) Adoption 3) Guardianship* *relative guardianship is preferred to non-relative adoption. Non-relative guardianship is least preferred. Preferential consideration is given to relatives for both placement and permanency. |
Reunification is defined as reunifying the child with parents from whose
care the child was removed.
California does include relatives in all aspects of case planning. |
Reunification services are provided by both public and private providers. | Changes: Only minor modifications were required to meet ASFA safety requirements and reunification provisions. The State incorporated all ASFA requirements into AB2773; Concurrent planning was in practice prior to ASFA.
Initiatives: |
California does not have statewide specific reunification programs;
reunification is generally covered by a unit serving child welfare services.
Programs: 1) Santa Clara County's use of the Family Group Decision-Making model in reunification maintenance programs. 2) Santa Clara and San Mateo counties' wraparound initiative in reunification services. |
| Colorado | State-supervised, county-administered child welfare system, through 63 counties statewide. | Estimated number of children in foster care: 8,000 | Not in any preference order: Reunification with family; In Kind (kinship care); Adoption; Independent living services. |
Reunification is defined as return from place of removal. | Reunification services are provided by both public and private providers, although services are considered privatized. | Changes: The State is promoting the retention of foster parents and obtaining adoptive homes. ASFA pushed the State to rework the contract with Mental Health due to the capitated rate for Medicaid Working to expand their expertise in adoption with an increase in adoptive services. Initiatives: None provided. |
None. |
| Connecticut | State-administered child welfare system.
The State is made up of 5 regional offices and 9 sub-offices. |
Estimated number of children in foster care: 6,700 | 1) Reunification 2) Adoption 3) Relative placement 4) Permanent foster care 5) Independent living Connecticut also has subsidized guardianship. |
Reunification is defined as return to parent from whom the child was taken. | Reunification services are provided by both public and private service providers. | Changes: The State adopted ASFA legal mandates and reporting structure required by federal government.
Initiatives: Subsidized guardianship. |
None. |
| Florida | State-administered system that is slowly switching to a community-based, privatized system. Some counties are privatized, others are just starting to move toward privatization. | Estimated number of children in foster care: 26,300 | 1) Reunification 2) Adoption 3) Custody to relative 4) Custody to foster parent 5) Independent living 6) Long-term foster care |
Reunification is defined as returning the child to any family member (i.e., parent, aunt, grandmother, etc). | Reunification services are provided by both public and private services providers, but some counties are using only private providers. | Changes: ASFA has made an enormous change towards emphasizing safety.
Initiatives: |
1) Pensacola, FL, program servicing first-time children in foster care.
2) Jacksonville, FL, program that serves adolescent children. |
| Georgia | State-supervised, county-administered system.
159 counties and 14 field coordinators who directly supervise the county directors. |
Estimated number of children in foster care: 9,900 | Options not ranked.
While reunification is still a priority, stronger emphasis is being put on adoption to prevent children from lingering in care. |
Reunification is defined as return to the family members that the child was living with or person who was the child's prior custodian. | Reunification services are primarily provided by private providers. Public agency workers act as case managers who make the referrals to services. | Changes: Under ASFA, the state has moved a lot of children with goals of reunification to adoption. Using concurrent planning, using foster families for adoptive families, expanding use of foster parents to work with birth parents. Developed staff training on doing a good family assessment early. Training in family conferencing.
Initiatives: |
1) Mothers making a Change: a substance abuse treatment program for foster
care families. 2) Healthy Grandparents. |
| Iowa | State-administered system.
The State is made up of 5 regions and numerous areas. |
Estimated number of children in foster care: 4,200 | 1) Keeping children in home 2) Reunification 3) Adoption 4) Subsidized guardianship 5) Kinship placement or family custody |
Reunification is defined as being with the child's biological parents or household of origin. | Services are almost always provided through private providers. The public agency oversees and manages but very seldom provides direct services. | Changes: Most requirements per ASFA were made through similar state revisions
prior to ASFA. The state updated its case monitoring system so workers receive reminders on the timeframe of cases. State made arrangements to widen the geographical area on adoption and set up an adoption web site. Initiatives: New mediation-work initiative that helps parties work out differences during TPR. Small grant initiative to provide support for grandparents as caregivers. |
Woodbury County's use of Casey Family-to-Family elements in their foster care services. |
| Kentucky | State-supervised, locally administered system.
Day-to-day oversight of contracts are done by local staff. |
Estimated number of children in foster care: 3,500 | 1) Return home 2) Adoption 3) Placement with relative 4) Planned permanent living arrangement (long term foster care) The State places an emphasis on kinship care and placing children with relatives. |
No definition given. | Reunification services are provided by private providers. | Changes: ASFA has affected all aspects of child services. As a result they have gone from a family-driven system to a child-driven system. Regional managers are judged by contract outcomes based on the 7 ASFA outcomes. Initiatives: Working with Edna McConnell Clark Foundation to develop safety nets with community services. Preparing to work with Casey on Family-to-Family. |
1) Bluegrass Comprehensive Care Mental Health Resources. 2) Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children. |
| Massachusetts | State-administered system.
The State has a central office and is divided into 6 regional offices and 29 area offices. |
Estimated number of children in foster care: 13,000 | 1) Return home 2) Adoption 3) Subsidized guardianship 4) Kinship placement |
The state defines as a child returned to the parents or to the persons from whom the child was removed. | Reunification services are provided by both public and private providers. | Changes: ASFA has pushed them to require agencies to decide on permanency sooner and engage relatives sooner. The state passed the Massachusetts Adoption Bill, incorporating the permanency hearing, parent notification, and other aspects of ASFA.
Initiatives: |
Family Reunification Network in the Boston Region. |
| Michigan | State-administered system. | Estimated number of children in foster care: 15,700 | 1) Return home 2) Adoption* 3) Guardianship** 4) Long-term foster care*** *the current state climate supports putting more resources into adoption than reunification and other options. **Michigan does a limited number of guardianships. ***LTFC is used as an option for some older teens. |
Reunification is defined as return to parent, and also includes relative placements. | Nearly all reunification services are provided by private providers. | Changes: Michigan statutes addressing ASFA-type changes preceded ASFA.
Initiatives: Title IV-E Waiver implemented last October. Implemented family group decision making pilot in 7 counties. |
None |
| Minnesota | County-administered, state-supervised system | Estimated number of children in foster care: 8,600 | 1) Return home 2) Adoption 3) Relative given legal custody 4) Long-term foster care Transfer of legal custody to a relative is the same as legal guardianship, which does not include TPR. |
Return to the home in which the child was removed.
Returning child to non-custodial parent may also be considered reunification, but placing a child with another relative would be placement with relative, not reunification. |
Services are primarily delivered by contracted private agencies.
Public agency provides investigation, case planning, and attend court hearings. |
The state has broken down its budget differently due to adoption promotion and support. Change in budget has provided impetus for permanency project that might otherwise not have been funded. | Olmstead County social services reunification programs. |
| Missouri | State-administered system.
The State has 115 field offices in 114 counties and the City of St. Louis. |
Estimated number of children in foster care: 12,500 | 1) Return home 2) Adoption 3) Independent living 4) Long term foster care |
Reunification is defined as return child home to parent or family of origin. | Reunification services are provided by both public and private providers. | Changes: The biggest change has been the timeliness of TPR and adoption through the courts. There has been an enhancement of the use of guardianship and kinship care and a heavy emphasis in the use of these placement options. The State passed the 1998 Juvenile Court Dispositional Hearing to a Permanency Hearing which adopted ASFA criteria for case review processes.
Initiatives: Subsidized guardianship. Grandparents as guardians. |
Family Reunion Services Programs in St. Louis and Kansas City. |
| New Hampshire | State-administered system managing 12 districts.
Districts are staffed with state workers. Reunification services are delivered at the district level. |
Estimated number of children in foster care: 1,600 | 1) Reunification 2) Adoption 3) Guardianship with relative 4) Guardianship with non-relative, long-term foster care. |
Reunification is defined as return to parent(s). | Reunification services are provided by both public and private providers. | Changes: State has identified backlog cases which need TPR and that number has increased. In response, state has enlarged its adoption unit and staff to meet the needs of TPR cases.
Initiatives: |
None. |
| New Jersey | State-administered system.
Each of the state's 21 counties has a district office from which direct services are provided. |
Estimated number of children in foster care: 9,200 | 1) Return to birth parent 2) Family placement 3) Adoption 4) Legal guardianship 5) Independent living and long-term foster care The option of long term foster care is currently being reconsidered as an option. |
Reunification is defined as "family reunification" and includes all family, not just birth parents. | Reunification services are primarily provided by private providers, but the system is publicly run. | Changes: ASFA sensitized the state for the need to increase collaboration between child welfare, the courts, and other agencies to be organized and work together toward expediting permanency.
Initiatives: Family Group Conferencing is being implemented by the State. Birthparent Support Program providing support to parents in the foster care system. Contracting out services to increase visitation in foster care. |
1) Birth Parent Support Program. 2) Court Mediation Program in Essex County. |
| New York | State-supervised, county-administered child welfare system.
The state has 58 local districts from which services are delivered. |
Estimated number of children in foster care: 53,600 | 1) Reunification 2) Adoption 3) Independent living 4) Adult custodial care |
Reunification is defined as return to the person who has legal rights as a child's parent or guardian. | Reunification services are provided by both public and private providers. | Changes: The State places more emphasis on child safety and faster permanency. The state is also more willing to consider the use of concurrent planning, although it is not presently used for cases.
Initiatives: |
1) Anadoga County's Dunbar Center.
2) Family Resolution Program - Genessee County, NY. 3) Monroe County DSS. |
| North Carolina | State-supervised, county- administered system.
There are 100 counties and each has a county department of social service office and county board responsible for administrating child welfare services. |
Estimated number of children in foster care: 11,300 | 1) Reunification 2) Adoption 3) Guardianship with a relative 4) Guardianship with non-relative 5) Custody with a relative 6) Emancipation |
Reunification is defined as the return of the child to the parent from whom the child was removed. | Reunification services are provided by both public and private providers. | Changes: None provided.
Initiatives: Families for Kids - Second Generation. |
1) Families for Kids Program in Buncombe County.
2) Families for Kids Program in Cleveland County. |
| Ohio | Ohio is a state-supervised, county-administered system.
The state has 88 counties and each county child welfare system runs independently. |
Estimated number of children in foster care: 18,800 | 1) Reunification 2) Legal guardianship/ placement with a relative 3) Adoption 4) Other planned permanent living arrangement |
Reunification is defined as return home to the parent or person the child was living with before going into custody. | Reunification services are provided by public and private providers, depending on the county. | Changes: State is working with counties to define ASFA provisions such as compelling reasons. State law was changed to meet ASFA mandates. There is more emphasis on permanency decisions.
Initiatives: |
1) Lucas County Community Advocacy and Parenting Programs.
2) Trumble County Reunification Services. |
| Oregon | State-administered system.
Each county has an agency branch office to service children and families. Oregon's Services to Children and Families Agency handles CPS, foster care and adoption cases only; a separate state agency deals with family preservation. |
Estimated number of children in foster care: 7,300 | 1) Reunification 2) Adoption 3) Guardianship 4) Permanent foster or long-term foster care |
Reunification is defined as return to the family, including birth parents or grandparents. | Reunification services are provided through both public and private providers. | Changes: Significant policy changes moving toward the practice changes for reunification and permanency plans for children. Most changes took place prior to ASFA. Court burdened due to unfunded nature of ASFA.
Initiatives: Services bolstered to support post-adoption population. |
None. |
| Pennsylvania | State-supervised, county-administered system.
Pennsylvania has a very strong county system, made up of 67 counties. There are also 4 regions, each with a regional office that conducts licensing of the agencies. |
Estimated number of children in foster care: 23,000 | 1) Reunification 2) Kinship placement 3) Adoption 4) Independent living/long-term foster care |
Reunification is defined as return to the home the child came from. | Approximately 200 private service providers operate in the state. Services are provided through these private agencies. | Changes: ASFA has compelled the state to provide more intensive services and coordinate with providers of substance abuse services to families.
Initiatives: Statewide Adoption Network. |
None. |
| Tennessee | State-administered system with 12 regions, serving 95 counties. Each region has an administrator that reports to the state. | Estimated number of children in foster care: 9,100 | 1) Return to parent or caregiver 2) Placement with relative 3) Adoption 4) Emancipation or permanent foster care |
Reunification is defined as return to the person the child was removed from. | Reunification services are primarily provided by private agencies. | Changes: Focused on ensuring reunification and permanency within ASFA timeframes. Worked with CWLA to develop a 3-year plan to help reduce caseload and workload, develop training curriculum, and enhance concurrent planning policy.
Initiatives: Kinship care initiative to enable relatives to care for children without state custody. Managed Care Initiative. |
Child and family services program for therapeutic visitation. |
| Texas | State-administered system.
The state is divided into 11 regions, each having its own county structure that mirrors the state's. |
Estimated number of children in foster care: 17,100 | 1) Family reunification 2) Permanent placement with relative or close family friend 3) Adoption by non-relative 4) Alternative long-term care 5) Adult living |
Reunification is defined as returning the child home to the parents. | Reunification services are provided through both public and private providers. | Changes: None provided.
Initiatives: |
None recommended. |
| Utah | State-administered system, with 7 regions throughout the state.
The regions have some autonomy but state supervises and approves. |
Estimated number of children in foster care: 2,500 | 1) Return home 2) Kinship care 3) Adoption 4) Guardianship 5) Long-term foster care and independent living |
No information provided. | Reunification services are primarily provided through public providers, although some private providers are used. | Changes: Court system has gotten quicker in expediting cases.
Initiatives: |
None. |
| Washington | State-administered system, divided into 6 regions with an administrator in each region. | Estimated number of children in foster care: 9,000 | 1) Return home 2) Adoption 3) Permanent custody 4) Guardianship |
Reunification is defined as returning the child to persons from whom he or she was taken at the time of placement. | Reunification services are provided by private providers under contract. | Changes: Shortened the timeline for permanency decisions.
Initiatives: Reviewing plans for strengthening kinship care. Remove barriers to guardianship |
None. |
| Wisconsin | County-administered system, through the 71 counties in the state.
The only exception is that in 1998 the state assumed responsibility for child welfare in Milwaukee as a result of an ACLU lawsuit. |
Estimated number of children in foster care: 10,000 | 1) Reunification with the family 2) Adoption 3) Sustaining care (long-term foster care) |
No information provided. | Reunification services are provided through public providers (the county agency). In Milwaukee, both public and private agencies provide reunification services. | Changes: ASFA has forced services to become more intense due to time limitations. State bill passed in response to ASFA.
Initiatives: Concurrent planning. |
None recommended. |
[Go to Contents]
[Go to Contents]
Program: Wraparound Services -- Santa Clara County, California
Established: 1994
The Wraparound Services program in Santa Clara County provides intensive services to remove severely emotionally disturbed children from the county's most restrictive residential facilities and reunify them with their families. These cases represent some of the most difficult ones to serve and reunify in the child welfare system, where parents' problems with parenting are exacerbated by children's serious mental health needs. Wraparound is a family-centered, strength-based approach where an extensive array of services are "wrapped around" the family unit to support their strengths and meet all their needs with respect to personal and community safety, education, emotional and physical health, family life, recreation and legal issues. The program uses a team approach to involve the family, wraparound staff, relatives, neighbors and other community members to make decisions about the family's service plan.
| Program Contact: | Sue Farr Social Service Program Manager Santa Clara County 1725 Technology Drive San Jose, CA 95110 (408) 441-5610 |
|---|
Program: Substance Abuse Recovery Management System (SARMS) and Dependency
Court Recovery Project -- San Diego, California
Established: 1998
The Substance Abuse Recovery Management (SARMS) and Dependency Drug Court are coordinated programs to address the overwhelming need to resolve the substance abuse problems of parents in San Diego whose children are in foster care. When a custody petition is entered and the caseworker has identified substance abuse as a contributing factor to the abuse or neglect of the child, the parent(s) is referred to the 6-month SARMS treatment program where treatment is provided by several inpatient and outpatient substance abuse treatment centers. Parents' failure to comply with treatment may result in the court exercising a number of sanctions, including 3-5 days in custody and/or a monetary penalty for contempt of court. About 80-85 percent of parents successfully complete the SARMS program. The balance are referred to the 9-month Dependency Drug Court program. In the Drug Court program, parents continue to receive treatment for substance abuse, but must make frequent court appearances to report their progress to the judge.
| Program Contact: | Pat Peterson Substance Abuse and Recovery Management System (SARMS) Coordinator SARMS 2851 Meadowlark Drive San Diego, CA 92123-2792 (858) 514-8498 |
|---|
Program: Homeward Bound -- Pensacola, FL
Established: 1992
The Homeward Bound program provides reunification services to children at the time of their first out-of-home placement. These reunification services begin immediately following a child's removal from the home. Using a team approach with a caseworker and a para-professional, Homeward Bound provides a variety of services, including child counseling; concrete services of food, transportation, and housing referral; parent training; household management; visitation; foster care mentoring (for new foster parents) aftercare services; wraparound services; day care; education and training; and medical care. The children are seen weekly by the caseworkers (rather than monthly for regular reunification services), and workers establish a relationship with the children and parents so that they can contribute to the planning process. Reunification services may be provided for up to 12 months and the program also provides 6 months of after-care services to a parent or relative once the child has returned home.
| Program Contact: | Kim Rayburn Program Director Homeward Bound Children's Home Society 5375 North Ninth Ave. P.O. Box 19136 Pensacola, FL 32523 (850) 494-5985 |
|---|
Program: Bridging for Success --Georgia
Established: 1992
Bridging for Success is a statewide reunification program in Georgia that provides strength-based, family-focused, community-based, and solution-focused services to families whose children are primarily in residential treatment. The program serves children ages 12 to 17 who have been severely physically or sexually abused, most of whom have been in multiple foster care placements. The program does a thorough assessment of the family early in the treatment process and tries to involve as many relatives or close friends of the clients as possible in the service planning, treatment and case review process. The program provides individual and family counseling/therapy, concrete services, parent training, household management, visitation, after care services, wraparound services, substance abuse services (to parent or child), education and training (to parent or child), and medical care for 11 to 14 months, while the child is in residential care. After-care is provided for up to 12 months after the child returns home.
| Program Contact: | Thomas Russell Executive Director Bridging for Success 1559 Johnson Rd., N.W. Atlanta, GA 30318 (404) 792-0070 |
|---|
Program: Mothers Making A Change -- Cobb and Douglas Counties, Georgia
Established: 1992
Mothers Making a Change (MMAC) provides services to women who are at risk of losing their children due to substance abuse. The program provides a coordinated set of services, including substance abuse treatment, anger management sessions, parenting education, general education, and child care support to keep families together. The program includes a residential component, where women and their children may live together while services are provided. If a client is pregnant upon referral, the program provides services to make sure she delivers a drug-free baby and is not at risk of losing the baby upon delivery. Other clients must have and maintain rights to at least one child, or be eligible to petition for rights, in order to qualify for the program. The program has a multi-level team staff to address client needs, including a residential site coordinator, site supervisor, educational coordinator, clinical counselor, physician, nurse, and child care staff, and a Child Protective Service worker is also located at the MMAC site. Families generally receive services for 12-15 months, although they can extend for up to 2 years.
| Program Contacts: | Teresa Smith Director of Women's Services Mothers Making A Change (MMAC) 331 N. Marietta Parkway Marietta, GA 30060 (770) 499-2422
Doris Walker |
|---|
Program: Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children -- Somerset, Kentucky
Established: 1996
The reunification program operated by the Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children is based on a Homebuilders model: Caseworkers are available to families 24 hours a day, 7 days per week and each worker serves three to five families for a service duration of 2 to 4 months. The program serves families where the child has at least 30 days left in placement before returning home. Services available to families include individual and family counseling, budgeting, communication skills, mediation, crisis intervention, parenting skills, alternative forms of discipline, and concrete services, with nearly all services provided to the family in-home. The program is distinct from other reunification services in Kentucky due to its intensity of service, particularly the number of hours per week it serves the family and the flexible hours workers are available to the family (i.e., weekends, after hours, and nights).
| Program Contact: | Michael Phelps Program Director Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children 111 S. Church St. Somerset, KY 42501 (606) 677-0784 |
Program: Family Reunification, Blue Grass Comp Care -- Kentucky
Established: 1995
Family Reunification is a program where staff work with both the family and the foster family to help the child make a smooth transition to return home with the birth parent. The program provides intensive services to families, beginning at the point just prior to when a child returns home, and for up to 12 weeks after the child is home. Services are most intense at the time the child returns home, when tensions and stress can make reunification difficult. Children eligible for the program must have been in foster care for less than 15 months, the family must have had at least three extended overnight visits, and have a case goal of reunification. Workers generally carry a caseload of 4 to 5 reunification cases, and provide 5 to 20 hours of services per week, depending on the family's need. Services received by the families includes individual counseling, concrete services, connecting families with community services and resources, parenting skills, and communication skills.
| Program Contact: | Rosemary Coldiron-Ekes Office Manager and Program Director Family Preservation, Blue Grass Comprehensive Care 2311 Fortune Dr. Suite 201 Lexington, KY 40509 606-299-0794 |
|---|
Program: Family Reunification Network -- Massachusetts
Established: 1993
The Family Reunification Network (FRN) is a regional network serving children, generally over 6 years old, in specialized foster care. FRN's goal is to reunify children in high-cost, specialized, residential treatment placements with their parents. A Network clinician provides in-home services to both the child (in specialized foster family care) and to the birth parents. Eighty percent of the children in the program are also receiving mental health treatment through an outpatient clinic, so most children in foster homes are receiving support services in-home as well as outpatient mental health services. Birth parents receive services to prepare them for reunification and other services necessary to meet their needs. The clinician also works to link families to natural community supports, such ongoing therapy through a neighborhood clinic, and helping to find afterschool programs for children in their communities. FRN services are provided for 1 year. When a child enters FRN, concurrent planning is done with the case from the start. If reunification is not possible following services and the child is freed for adoption, FRN staff work aggressively to find an adoptive family for the child.
| Program Contact: | Peggy Mosley Director of Operations Communities for People, Inc. 566 Commonwealth Avenue Boston, MA 02215-09111 617-267-1013 |
|---|
Program: Family Reunion -- Missouri
Established: 1993
Family Reunion is a statewide intensive reunification program serving children ages 0-17 who are in foster care or kinship care, and have had safety issues addressed. The program is based on the Homebuilder model encompassing a philosophy of empowering and building new skills for families; small caseload sizes; and short-term, intensive services to families. Family Reunion specialists carry a caseload of three families, and spend 10-13 hours per week with each family, most often providing in-home services. Children and families are provided services for an 8 to 12 week period, although some areas provide up to 6 months of services to a family. The program provides concrete services, parent training, behavior training, household management, housekeeping or cleaning, and safety training. Other services provided to families, if available in the community, including individual and family counseling, assistance to find day care, crisis intervention and crisis funds, and transportation. The program also works to connect the family with community resources and services.
| Program Contact: | Vincent Geremia CS Program Manager Missouri Department of Social Services Division of Family Services P.O. Box 88 Jefferson City, MO 65103 573-751-3221 |
|---|
Program: Natural Parent Support Program -- New Jersey
Established: 1999
The Natural Parent Support Program (NPSP) is a statewide intensive reunification program that emphasizes a holistic approach to family issues, and provides each family with 5-7 hours of in-home services per week to reduce the stress of transitioning the child back into the home. A wide array of services are available to help teach parenting, home management, communication, parent behavior and discipline techniques, and to assist the parent in dealing with daily activities of work, home, and child care. Parents may also receive education and training, medical care, and transportation to appointments and school. NPSP also provides a full-range of service to children including individual counseling, play therapy, monitoring of school progress, psychological evaluation, and school support. Families receive services for 4 to 6 months, with an extension possible if needed. In the final family assessment, the public agency worker (DYFS) and NPSP worker coordinate to arrange referrals to appropriate community based after care services for the family.
| Program Contact: | Joseph Gorman Assistant Division Director Catholic Charities 39 North Clinton Avenue Trenton, NJ 08609 609-394-5157 |
|---|
Program: Families for Kids -- North Carolina
Established: 1996
Families for Kids is a statewide comprehensive service program that targets all children entering the child welfare system. Families for Kids, designed individually by the local social service agencies in each community, includes comprehensive services for at risk families who are at home or in foster care. The program philosophy is based on the belief that better outcomes for children can be achieved through five basic changes in the child welfare system: 1) providing comprehensive preventive services to any family who asked for them; 2) conducting a single assessment for families entering the child welfare system; 3) providing continuity and coordination of services through one social work team; 4) reducing the number of foster care placements for each child; and 5) achieving permanency for a child within one year. A system of care protocol is implemented that incorporates teams of social service staff to serve families to insure that all the agencies serving a particular family or child worked together. The program also includes a written protocol used by social service staff for assessing families' needs (a single coordinated assessment tool). An integrated case plan is developed and services are provided through a single social service team comprised of multiple agency workers, rather than several individual agencies. Services provided include individual and family counseling, concrete services, parent training, household management, visitation, foster parent mentoring, aftercare services, wraparound services, substance abuse treatment, day care, education, and medical care.
| Program Contact: | Mandy Stone Assistant Director, Buncombe County Department of Social Services P.O. Box 7408 Asheville, North Carolina 28802 (828) 250-5749 |
|---|
Program: Lucas County Ohio Community Development Department (CDD)
Established: 1998
The Community Development Department of Lucas County Ohio (CDD) provides intensive, in-home reunification services to families. The CDD, using the Casey Family-to-Family model, works to connect families with their neighborhoods and communities, and assists in identifying and developing neighborhood-based, family-centered, family-based services (through private agencies). Lucas County has eight community resource centers to facilitate services and work to link families to services in their immediate neighborhoods. CDD is made up of four units: Community Resources Liaison, Parent Education, Day Care, and Community Advocate. These units provide a range of services that are intended to maintain or reunify families including parenting classes, home management, and referrals to counseling and other community services. Families receive services as soon as the child has been removed from the home, and services can last up to 10 months. The hope is that once Children's Services closes a reunification case, that the family, when in need of assistance or support, will turn to the community resource center for additional services.
| Program Contact: | Beth Leatherman Community Development Manager Lucas County Children Services 705 Adams Street Toledo, Ohio 43624-9943 419-213-3200 |
|---|
[Go to Contents]
This appendix provides an in-depth look at four reunification programs. These programs demonstrate innovative reunification efforts taking place in communities around the country, and offer examples of collaborative efforts among agencies and intensive reunification services that are helping families. The programs include:
[Go to Contents]
1. For information on the 1994 report, see A Review of Family Preservation and Family Reunification Programs, for the National Evaluation of Family Services, Contract No HHS-100-94-0020, May 30, 1995. See http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/cyp/fpprogs.htm
2. Children's Defense Fund Action Council Issue Basics, Adoption and Safe Families Act. Retrieved on January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cdfactioncouncil.org/ASFA.htm.
3. N = 19; 7 states reported no information on this subject. Some states that reported no change in the use of temporary or permanent relative placements discussed efforts underway to increase the number of relative placements.
4. Two states in the group had Title IV-E child welfare waivers for subsidized/assisted guardianship. The others seemed to be utilizing state funds for their initiatives.
5. Three state administrators did not provide a definition during discussions.
6. Data for the State Matrix come from discussions with state administrators except for information on the foster care population in each state. Foster care data come from the Adoption and Foster Care and Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) annual database, FY 1998. Data from the 1999 Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) Yearbook, State Agency Survey (1998) was used when AFCARS data was unavailable. Most CWLA data is for the year 1996. Foster care figures are rounded to the nearest 100.
Main Page of Report | Contents of Report
Home Pages:
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
(ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)