1

• Monday, March 28, 2016

• Thursday, May 26, 2016

• Tuesday, July 26, 2016

• Thursday, Sept. 29, 2016

All times are 2 p.m. – 3 p.m. EST

Upcoming Webinar Series Dates: Leveraging the Strengthening Families Act

2

• If you experience technical difficulties during this webinar, visit www.aecf.org/webex for guidance. If you still have trouble, notify us using the chat or Q&A window, or contact WebEx technical support at 1-866-229-3239.

• If you do not see the Q&A window, make sure the Q&A icon at the top of that column is blue (see image to left; icon circled in red). If it is not blue, click the icon, and the window should appear.

• You can type questions for presenters in the Q&A window at any time during the webinar.

• The webinar is being recorded and will be available after the presentation.

Questions?

3

• Sarah Helvey, Director of Child Welfare Policy, Nebraska Appleseed

• Nyasha N. Justice, Court Improvement Program, Tennessee Supreme Court

• Jennifer Rhodes, Peer Advocate, Tennessee Court Improvement Program

• Clark Peters, Assistant Professor, University of Missouri School of Social Work, Truman School of Public Affairs

• Jenny Pokempner, Supervising Attorney, Juvenile Law Center

• Andy Shookhoff, Attorney and Former Juvenile Court Judge (TN)

• Glenda Volmert, Executive Director, Franklin County CASA

• Moderator –Dianna Walters, Program AssociateThe Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative

Today’s presenters

4

• Review legal requirements for court oversight of normalcy and youth engagement provisions of the Strengthening Families Act (SFA)

• Highlight recommendations for court oversight to support effective implementation of SFA

• Spotlight efforts to improve oversight:

– Training of court personnel in Nebraska

– Training CASAs and youth in Missouri

– Specialized administrative reviews in Tennessee

Goals of Session Two:Court Oversight

5

• It is a key mechanism for accountability

• It is a key mechanism for enforcement and taking remedial action

• Court expectations help set systemwide expectations

Importance of Court and Administrative Oversight

6

• At each review hearing, the court must document steps being taking to ensure:

– the child has regular, ongoing opportunities to participate in age- and developmentally appropriate activities, and

– the caregiver is exercising the Reasonable and Prudent Parent standard

• To satisfy this inquiry the court can consult with the child in an “age-appropriate manner about the opportunities of the child to participate in the activities.”

42 U.S.C.A. § 675a(a)(3)(B) and (a)(3)(A)

Court Oversight Requirements with Respect to Normalcy

7

• The law requires only that these findings be made for youth with an Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA) plan

• Best practice and efficiency support making these findings for all youth regardless of permanency plan because:

– the reasonable and prudent parent applies to all placement settings and youth with all permanency plans

– normalcy is important to healthy child and adolescent development and is an element of well-being

Recommendations for Scope of the Oversight Provisions for Normalcy

8

• Should the normalcy and Reasonable and Prudent Parent standard court inquiry be applied to all youth?

• What questions or information should the court ask or request to make the finding?

– Court report

– Review of the case plan

– Questions asked of the agency

– Questions asked of the youth

– Questions asked of the caregiver

Implementation Decisions

9

The court should:

• Ensure youth can participate in activities to greatest extent possible

• Ensure age-appropriate opportunities for freedom and responsibility are provided

• Involve youth in discussion about participation in activities, interests and skills development

• Address barriers to participation when the case plan teaming cannot resolve them

The court should not:

• Micromanage the caregiver’s exercise of the Reasonable and Prudent Parent standard

Nature of the Court’s Inquiry on Normalcy

10

• Beginning at age 14, youth must be provided with a list of their rights as part of the case planning process

– The list must at least include: rights with respect to “education, health, visitation and court participation,” the right to discharge documents and to “stay safe and avoid exploitation”

– The case plan must include a signed acknowledgement that the list of rights has been received and “explained to the child in age-appropriate way”

42 U.S.C.A. § 675a(b)

The Youth Engagement Provisions

11

For youth ages 14 and older, the child welfare agency must document the youth has been:

• consulted in the development of the case plan, and

• given the opportunity to involve two people in case planning who are not a foster parent or part of the casework staff, and that at least one of these individuals may be an advocate on the exercise of the Reasonable and Prudent Parent standard

42 U.S.C.A. § 675 (5) (C)(iv)

The Youth Engagement Provisions

12

• The court must “consult” youth in an “age-appropriate manner” about the proposed permanency and transition plan (existing requirement)

42 U.S.C.A. § 675 (5)(C)(iii)

• For youth with APPLA permanency plan, the court must ask the child about his or her desired permanency plan

42 U.S.C.A. § 675a(a)(2)(A)

Requirements for court oversight of the youth engagement provisions

13

• How should “consult” be defined?

– Current federal guidance does not interpret “consult” as a youth’s physical presence or direct conversation with the youth

– ACF Child Welfare Manual, Section 8.3C.2c, Question 4, https://goo.gl/lcNZ2E

• How will the list of rights be distributed?

• Should the court be involved in this process?

• What policies will be put in place to make sure youth are prepared to take advantage of the opportunity for more active case planning and court engagement?

Implementation Decisions

14

• What activities is the youth participating in?

• Is the youth getting to take part in experiences such as:

– Spending time with peers and/or mentors?

– Traveling?

– Attending family celebrations (foster and biological)?

– Working after school or interning?

– Assuming more independence and responsibility at home or placement, such as chores, later curfew and budgeting?

– Taking driver’s education and getting a driver’s license?

– Participating in cultural activities?

Example Court Inquiries — Normalcy

15

• Does a youth who is placed in congregate care understand how to seek permission from the caregiver to participate in activities?

• If the youth is not participating in age- and developmentally appropriate activities — or to the extent considered appropriate ― what are the barriers?

– Does the child face barriers because of a disability, special need, LGBT status, parenting or other identified issues?

– Does the child or caregiver need support or assistance to address these barriers?

– Does the case planning team have a plan to address the barriers?

Example Court Inquiries — Normalcy

16

• Has the youth age 14 and older participated/been consulted in developing the case plan?

– How has the youth participated?

– Does the youth understand main case plan/transition plan goals?

• Has the youth age 14 or older been given list of rights as part of the case planning process?

– Have any concerns been raised about any rights?

• Has the youth identified two people to join case planning team who are not the social worker or foster parent?

• Are there trainings, groups or services to help youth develop self-advocacy skills or enhance ability to participate in case planning or court?

Example Court Inquires — Youth Engagement

PRACTICE EXAMPLES: JUDICIAL TRAINING IN NEBRASKA

SARAH HELVEY, NEBRASKA APPLESEED

18

Goals

• Educate court stakeholders

• Help them to “get” what normalcy is

• Push practical implementation to achieve law’s intended outcomes

Content• SFA background and overview

• Status of Nebraska implementation

• Trafficking (Attorney General’s office)

• Focus on Title I, Subtitle B: Reasonable and Prudent Parent

standard, APPLA, youth participation in case planning, rights

notification and pre-discharge documents

The Training: Content and Goals

19

Content• For each provision

– Deeper dive through federal law

– Crosswalk with existing statutes, regulations and policy

and identify needed changes for full implementation

– “Policy and Practice Considerations”

and “Questions to Ask from the Bench”

The Training: Content and Goals

20

• Make sure you have enough time for questions and discussion

• Use practical tools (e.g., hypotheticals, small group discussions)

• Include panel with youth, parents, foster parents, providers, etc.

• Create and share resources (e.g., bench card, normalcy guide,

the Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative’s “What Young

People Need to Thrive” and other national fact sheets)

• Be available for follow-up and local technical assistance

Training: Lessons Learned and Recommendations for Training Strategies

21

LB 746

Reasonable and Prudent Parent standard

• SFA findings for all ages and permanency plans

• HHS must document in the court report:– Consultation with biological parents on RPPS– Any barriers to participation in RPPS activities

• If the child, GAL, caregiver or any party believes the child has not had access to RPPS, the juvenile court may make appropriate findings or orders to ensure the child has access — but deference to caregiver in making decisions within RPPS

Pending Nebraska Law on Judicial Oversight of Normalcy and Youth Engagement

22

LB 746

Notice of Rights

A hard copy of notice of rights shall be provided to youth within 72 hours of placement and at every dispositional and review/permanency hearing

Pre-discharge documents

The court must make a finding as to whether the child has received the required documents at the last court hearing before aging out

Youth involvement in case planning

The transition plan must document the efforts to involve and engage the child in the development of the transition plan. The court must ask the child about his or her involvement and make a finding

Pending Nebraska Law on Judicial Oversight of Normalcy and Youth Engagement

23

LB 746

APPLA

The court must determine the agency has met the SFA APPLA documentation requirements before approving APPLA plan for 16+

GAL

GAL report to the court must specifically address access to RPPS, explanation of rights, efforts to involve the child in case planning, efforts to prepare the child to participate in court if the child wishes, and whether the transition plan includes the services needed to assist the child to transition to a successful adulthood

Pending Nebraska Law on Judicial Oversight of Normalcy and Youth Engagement

PRACTICE EXAMPLES: CASA FOSTERING FUTURES TRAINING

CURRICULUM IN MISSOURIGLENDA VOLMERT AND CLARK PETERS

25

CASA Fostering Futures Training: Background and Lessons

Background

• Challenge of retaining young people in care

• Special challenges in representing their best interests

• Recognition of special role of CASA volunteers

Lessons helpful to all court professionals

• Youths and young adults have special developmental needs

• Building rapport with teens

• Need for point-of-contact for re-engagement/reentry

26

• Understanding youth development

• Possible selves

• Laws related to youth in foster care

• Identifying key supporters for youth

• Principles of engagement

• Older Youth Needs and Resource Assessment

• CASA action plan

Fostering Futures Curriculum Detail:Key Areas and Goals

27

• Increased number of youth attending Family Support Teams and court

• Court report includes youth’s goals and family or community connections

• Increased referrals for the Chafee program

• Advocacy for college visits

• Formation of the Permanency Summit Committee to address barriers

• Increased CASA involvement/retention

Examples of Positive Effect of Fostering Futures in Franklin County

28

• Promotes a stable relationship during periods of tenuous contact with court and agency

• Aids recruitment and retention of CASA volunteers and clients

• Offers insight into individual-level “normalcy”

• Provides an implemented curriculum that recognizes need for age-appropriate activities

• Can help guide “decisions that maintain the health, safety, and best interests of a child”

Fostering Futures Can Support Implementation of the Strengthening Families Act

PRACTICE EXAMPLES: FOSTER CARE REVIEW BOARDS (TN)

NYASHA N. JUSTICE, JENNIFER RHODES & ANDY SHOOKHOFF

30

• Administrative reviews for status hearings are authorized by the Social Security Act

• Review board members are trained volunteers appointed by the Juvenile Court

• Foster Care Review Boards

– review the safety, permanency and well-being of the child and assess progress

– submit to judge and the parties an advisory report of findings and recommendations

• When the board has significant concerns, it can refer the case for a prompt judicial hearing

The Foster Care Review Board Structure

31

• They can bring a breadth of expertise and experience that an individual may not have

– Expertise in substantive topics

– Expertise in engaging youth

• They are able to spend more time on a case than is possible in most court reviews

• The less formal setting of the foster care review board can promote youth engagement and a more collaborative, problem-solving approach to case reviews

• They allow court docket time to be reserved for cases that could benefit from judicial attention

Benefits of Foster Care Review Boards

32

• Focus on well-being

– Placement

– Health

– Education

– Visitation

– Independent living

– Transitional living

• Recruit specific professionals for well-being areas

– Develop partnerships with state agencies

Model Foster Care Review Boards in Tennessee

33

• Boards can be age-specific

– Infant and toddler

o Focus on reducing developmental gaps

– 14 to 17 years old

o Focus on independent and transitional living

o Accepting EFC

– EFC boards

o Focus on obtaining postsecondary education certificate/degree

Model Foster Care Review Boards in Tennessee

Peer Advocate Program

• Advocacy program for older youth and young adults in foster care

– Establishes and maintains rapport with youth before each board review

– Identifies barriers to safety and well-being

– Discusses pros/cons of accepting extension of foster care services

– Serves as advocate for youth

– Offers insight on youth’s preferences, needs

Peer Advocates

– Ages 20 – 29

– Were in foster care after 14

– Accepted service from Department of Children’s Services after 18

– Receive quarterly training

34

35

• Planning and training stage

– Child development

– Motivational interviewing

• Implementation stage

– Foster Care Review Board forms have specific questions regarding normalcy and extracurricular activities

– Technical assistance provided during reviews

Incorporating Normalcy into Foster Care Review Boards

36

• Greatest success is with 17 – 21 population

• Promoting normalcy positively affects acceptance of extension of foster care services

Successful Promotion of Normalcy

37

• Buy-in from the stakeholders is paramount

• Recognize training is not enough

• Foster youth voice/perspective is essential

Successfully Integrating Normalcy Inquiry Into Administrative or Court Reviews

38

Questions