Family FindingWhat Have We Learned?

1 |

AgendaOpening/Introduction to Family Finding.…Bob Friend

What Do Recent Evaluations Tell Us? ..........Karin Malm

Lessons Applied …………………………………………..Melissa Mollard

Family Finding Learning and Lessons ….…..Kevin Campbell

Panel Questions

Audience Questions- Please submit questions in the chat box to the organizer

at the bottom right of your screen.2 |

Webinar ObjectivesShare a summary of Family Finding research to

dateIdentify the lessons learned from current grant

work and the connection with family centered practices

Examine the foundational questions underlying the development of Family Finding practice and its intended impacts

Create a vibrant conversation to explore continuing questions and research

3 |

We must remember that every single day in out-of-home care is a crisis in the life of that child

4 |

The Family Finding Mission is to…

connect each child with a family, so that every child may benefit from the lifelong

connections only a family provides.

5 |

Bringing Family Finding to the Front-EndFamily Finding was originally developed to attend

to the most lonely and disconnected childrenIn response to our mission, our attention has

been drawn to the needs of children prior to their entry into care

Family Finding focus changes when the goal is to prevent removal

A rapidly moving timeline changes the mechanics of Family Finding process

We are currently exploring Front-End adaptations to the Family Finding model to address this urgent need

6 |

Flexibility of the Family Finding ApproachBy clearly establishing the essential elements present in the Family Finding intervention, Family Finding can be effectively blended with a number of other family centered strategies and interventions, including:Family Group Counseling/Family Group Decision

MakingSigns of Safety/Safety Organized PracticeTrauma-informed practicesGrief & loss work, e.g. Darla Henry’s 3-5-7

Model

7 |

Core Beliefs Inherent to Family FindingEvery child has a family, and they can be found if

we tryLoneliness can be devastating, even dangerous,

and is experienced by most children in out of home care

A meaningful connection to family helps a child develop a sense of belonging

The single factor most closely associated with positive outcomes for children is meaningful, lifelong connections to family

8 |

Goals of Family FindingSupport foster youth in developing meaningful and

enduring connections with adults and their siblings, cousins, etc.

Support youth in developing a healthy sense of identity and increased sense of belonging through connection with family and loved ones

Ensure a safe and valued space for families to participate and have a voice in the decision-making process.

Provide family members with the opportunity to meet their needs within their family system

Provide young adults emerging from care with a devoted support team that will assist them to live safely and productively within their communities

9 |

The Six Steps of the Family Finding ModelDiscoveryEngagementPlanningDecision MakingEvaluationFollow-up on Supports

10 |

Essential Components of the Family Finding ModelUrgencyAligning professional and family resources to

achieve permanency An expanded definition of permanencyEffective relative searchFamily-driven processesDevelopment of multiple plansWell-defined activities and strategies to engage

family

11 |

Definition of PermanencyBoth a process and a result that includes involvement of the youth as a participant or leader in finding a permanent connection with at least one committed adult who provides:

- A safe, stable, and secure parenting relationship- Love- Unconditional commitment- Lifelong support in the context of reunification, a legal

adoption, or guardianship, where possible Offering the legal rights and social status of full family

membership, in which the youth has the opportunity to maintain contacts with important persons including brothers and sisters cite

© California Permanency for Youth Project (CPYP), 200712 |

13

Family Finding: What Do Recent Evaluations Tell Us?

www.childtrends.org Twitter/childtrends www.facebook.com/childtrends:

Karin Malm, Child Welfare Program Area Director

August 15, 2013

14

Evaluations Recently Completed and Soonto Wrap Up• Federal Family Connection Discretionary Grants included

evaluations of 12 Family Finding programs (cross-site report now available)

• Child Trends’ evaluations– San Francisco Family Finding targeting children new to

out-of-home care (completed)– North Carolina’s Family Finding efforts in 9 counties,

targeting children 10+ years of age with few/no connections to family members (results not yet available)

15

Family Connections Family Finding Evaluations

• Grantees serving children in care for extended periods of time had more difficulty placing children with relatives and/or moving them to permanency than grantees serving children new to out-of-home care

• Among 4 grantees implementing an experimental design:– 2 found improved placement outcomes for children in

treatment group compared to children in the control group

– 2 found no significant differences in placement outcomes for children in treatment and control groups

16

Family Connections Family Finding Evaluations

• Findings regarding average length of time in care were inconclusive as to whether family finding reduced length of stay of children served

• Qualitative evidence from one grantee site indicated that family finding may divert placement into out-of-home care

• Approximately three quarters of the children served experienced increased family connections or had kin-focused permanency plans developed

17

Family Finding in San Francisco

• San Francisco County had experience providing family finding to older youth who were disconnected from their families

• Seneca Family of Agencies provided family finding to children first entering out-of-home care

• Hypothesized that providing family finding at this early stage would increase the likelihood of reunification, increase the likelihood of the child being placed with kin, and decrease time to permanency

18

San Francisco Impact Evaluation Approach

• Experimental design that randomly assigned children to receive family finding services (treatment) or services as usual (control)

• Intake occurred for a period of 25 months (Sept 2008 to Feb 2011) and administrative data was extracted 12 months following the end of intake

• Measure impact of treatment on child permanency, specifically reunification, placement with relatives, and exit from care (using administrative data)

19

San Francisco Evaluation Sample

Total Treatment Control

Enrolled in study 239 116 123

Received data on key outcome 224 111 113

Served by FF while in foster care 204 102 102

20

San Francisco Research Questions:

Are children referred to family finding more likely than children in the control group…

…to be reunified?…to be placed with relatives?…to have a permanency goal related to returning

home?…to avoid placement disruptions?

21

San Francisco Descriptive Findings

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

57%50% 48%

66%

47%

67%

52%47%

Treatment Control

*: p<.10 (*), p< .05 (**), p< .01 (***)

*

**

22

San Francisco Descriptive Findings

Discharged from foster care during study period

(n = 204)

Re-entered foster care, among those discharged

(n=156)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%83%

18%

70%

10%

Treatment Control

*: p<.10 (*), p< .05 (**), p< .01 (***)

*

23

Reunification outcomes, by experimental group membership

43% 42%

43%53%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Treatment Control

Not reunified

Reunified w/ subsequent reentry

Reunified w/ NO subsequent reentry

24

San Francisco Evaluation: Review of Findings

Compared to children not receiving family finding, children receiving family finding were:

• No more likely to exit to reunification• No more likely to be placed with relatives• More likely to re-enter care after reunification• More likely to have the last goal as reunification• More likely to exit care, but no more likely to re-

enter overall

25

San Francisco Evaluation: Implications and Conclusions • The differing directives and timelines of the Family

Finding specialists versus the caseworkers may have been a barrier in achieving impacts on reunification

• Challenges to full model implementation suggest that more research is needed to determine whether and how fidelity to the model can be attained

• Family finding is being implemented in context where multiple placement moves are to be avoided as much as possible, placement stability was viewed as an important practice goal

26

Contact Information:

Karin Malm, kmalm@childtrends.org240-223-9318

www.childtrends.org Twitter/childtrends

www.facebook.com/childtrends

Lessons AppliedMelissa Mollard, Director of Research

Seneca Family of Agencies

27 |

Lifelong Connections Initiative In 2012, Seneca and San Francisco’s Human

Service Agency were one of five grantees funded by the Children’s Bureau to implement a combined Family Finding/Family Team Meeting model of practice.

28 |

Implementation Science Framework

“Only when effective practices are fully implemented should we expect positive outcomes. Implementation matters” (Blase & Fixsen, 2005, p. 10).

Children and families do not benefit from interventions that they don’t receive.

29 |

Implementation MattersImplementation EFFECTIVE NOT

EFFECTIVE

The Intervention

EFFECTIVE Actual benefits Inconsistent; not sustainable; poor outcomes

NOT EFFECTIVE

Poor outcomes Poor outcomes; possibly harmful

30 |

Dean Fixsen et al., Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature (2005), 69.

Core Implementation

Components

Core Implementation

Components

Leadership

Organization DriversCom

pete

ncy D

river

s

Systems Intervention

Facilitative Administration

Decision Support Data System

AdaptiveTechnical

Selection

Training

Coaching

Performance Assessment

National Implementation Research Network © Fixsen & Blase, 2008

Key Implementation Drivers

31 |

Competency DriversPermanency Specialists a mix of veteran staff and new

hires- Seasoned family finders provide mentorship to newly hired staff.

Train staff in Family Finding model so that staff and supervisors can provide effective monitoring and feedback on an ongoing basis.

Train staff in SF County practice model to ensure effective communication (“speaking the same language”)

Our Permanency Specialists carry out all steps of Family Finding model and assist County social workers with the Family Team Meeting practice.- Training to County social workers in the combined model on-

going, and our staff cross-trained in the County model

32 |

Performance Assessment—Fidelity Tool DevelopmentResearchers, practitioners, supervisors, and

trainers of the model worked collaboratively to develop a fidelity monitoring tool for the combined practice- Sections that Permanency Specialists complete- Sections for family members and other natural supports

to complete- Supervisor attends to entire tool during formal

supervision and compares across Permanency Specialists to detect trends in step completion

33 |

Performance Assessment – Fidelity MonitoringDevelop a plan for monitoring implementation of

the program that includes data collection, observation of the program, analysis of the data, and planning for ways to address off-target implementation.

Use the data collected regarding fidelity of implementation in efforts to identify possible reasons for the program not performing as expected.

34 |

Performance Assessment—Outcome MeasuresPermanency measures

- Reunification- Length of time in care- Re-entry into the system

Well-being- Using a scaled down version of the Child and Adolescent

Needs and Strengths (CANS) and measuring domains at entry and discharge with both treatment and control groups

35 |

Organizational DriversOur staff have desk space and work side-by-side

with County social workersStaff have access to the CMS/CWS and enter

information directly into the databaseTrainings for County social workers are happening

during staff meetings using case consultation model.

Seneca staff attending Safety-Organized Practice trainings and looking for common language and themes across practices

Seneca has long-standing relationship with County with mutual trust and respect built over time

36 |

Fidelity Tool Snapshot

37 |

Combination Family Finding/Family Group Decision-Making Projects

Olmsted County, Rochester, MN;

Children's Home Society of Washington, Seattle, WA;

Oregon Department of Human Services, Salem, OR;

Seneca Family of Agencies, San Leandro, CA;

Spaulding for Children, Southfield, MI.38 |

Family Finding: Learning and Lessons

Kevin A. Campbell, Expert Trainer/Consultant and Author of the Family

Finding model

39 |

The Need for Family FindingTeam based models like Wraparound, Family Group Conference and Family Group Decision Making are implemented in public child welfare systems with limited or no relative and birth father participation, significantly limiting their overall effectiveness.

Family Finding Hypothesis: Strengthen the team, strengthen the plan.

40 |

Foundational Family Finding QuestionsIs there a family for children in foster care for

whom we have been told there is no one?A related question: Is there a father and can he

be identified, located and engaged?Can they be found by case carrying staff?If they are found can they be effectively engaged

and become part of planning and decision making?

41 |

AnswersWe learn from this experience that child welfare workers also are affected by the isolation experiences of children and parents. Staff become the single source of support and advocacy for youth with to little time to do the work they came to do.

There is a maternal family, there is a father, the father has relatives.

There are also non-relative adults who have a historic connection of affection to children who can be identified

Many sites when challenged could identify 40 or more of these people

42 |

“You have something very unique in family finding. This is authentic, something…natural, because you didn’t come to divide, you come to construct. You bring families together”

- Found Relative

Child Trends. Client Voices: Youth, Parent and Relative Perspectives on Family Finding, May 2013.

43 |

Importance of Client & Family VoicesThey should inform our priorities in practice

- Be genuinely interested in the child’s and family’s well-being- Aim for cultural competency- Provide space for open of communication- Support the client and family as they work through the

process

Child Trends. Client Voices: Youth, Parent and Relative Perspectives on Family Finding, May 2013.

44 |

Significant Differences in Family Finding at the Front-EndThe original six step Family Finding model

requires modification when used at the front end of the system

New questions arise, for example:- Who is the family finding for, the parent or the child?

Need to balance the priorities of concurrent planning efforts while also prioritizing the voice of the parent in the team building and decision-making process.

45 |

Progressing Beyond Timely NoticeAdditional impacts of Family Finding

46 |

A Goal of Reducing TraumaTimely notice and rapid response can provide

opportunities to reduce the trauma experienced by children in removal from parents and placement with strangers in foster care

Diligent effort in identifying relatives and providing notice can limit or prevent the loss of dignity experienced by family members when children are removed by the court and agencies and placed with strangers

15 states now have legislation or directives implementing notice requirements in compliance with federal law

47 |

Improvements in Adoption PracticeEarly notification and providing meaningful

opportunities for family and community members to participate in decision-making creates a healthier adoption experience

Relative adoption and overall adoption completion was significantly increased in Florida, Missouri and New York City Family Finding projects

Providing meeting notice and opportunities for participation in decision-making improves the quality of outcomes for families affected by the child welfare system

48 |

Indian Child WelfareEmphasizing additional identification of possible

tribal affiliation and early notice of tribes and the courts improves the outcomes and well-being for Indian children, families and tribes.

Implementing a meaningful process for extensively involving family, community and tribal members can dampen the effects of institutional racism frequently experienced by Indian families and children

49 |

Lessons Learned So FarFamily Finding projects and evaluations to date have taught us that:- Relatives , community members and tribes can be

identified, located and noticed - Engaging these relatives can reduce the secondary

trauma of preventable separation from relationships and membership in a larger family, community and tribe.

- Long-term separation of siblings, grandparents and other relationships of significance is preventable

- The child welfare system must join with relatives as a team to reduce trauma and end the loneliness experienced by children in the system

50 |

Protecting the future…Increase support for and meaningful access to

opportunities for sustained relationships for children separated from their connections by child welfare activities

Prioritize the preservation and continuity of these relationships as critical to protecting developing children across their lifespan

Increase recognition of the significant role attachment and affection play in shaping healthy brain architecture throughout development

Focus public policy on not only who will be the parent, but who will be visiting and allowing the child regular involvement in normative family, community and tribal activities

51 |

To truly improve America’s Child Welfare System we must invest not only in protecting children today from abuse and neglect, but also protect their futures by reducing mental and physical harm experienced while they wait for resolution within the system. The family teams created through Family Finding provide children and youth with a network to provide lifetime support, reduce harm and promote well-being for each child.

There is no question that creating and sustaining this lifetime support network requires time and resources. These investments are critical to truly improving the child welfare system.

52 |

Panel Question IWhat have we learned from measuring Family Finding and other innovative practices that can improve the quality of future implementation?

53 |

Panel Question IIWhile anecdotally those who train Family Finding believe that this approach has helped thousands of foster youth become better connected, and for some attain legal permanency, why have we not seen more evidence supporting these observations?

54 |

Audience questions

55 |

ResourcesSix Steps for Family Finding

http://familyfinding.org/uploaded_files/fck/files/FF%20Six%20Steps.doc

Child Trends - Client Voices: Youth, Parent and Relative Perspectives on Family Findinghttp://familyfinding.org/uploaded_files/fck/files/Child_Trends-2013_05_01_RB_ClientVoices.pdf

Child Trends - Family Finding: Does Implementation Differ When Serving Different Child Welfare Populations?http://familyfinding.org/uploaded_files/fck/files/Child%20Trends%20Oct%202011.pdf

Child Trends Family Finding San Francisco Report

http://www.childtrends.org/?publications=family-finding-for-children-and-families-new-to-out-of-home-care-a-rigorous-evaluation-of-family-finding-in-san-francisco

Family Connections Cross-Site Evaluation Report 

http://www.nrcpfc.org/grantees_public/2009/Fam%20Conn%202009%20Cross-Site%20Final%20Report%206-17-13.pdf

Additional Family Finding resources and information http://familyfinding.org/resourcesandpublications.html

56 |

Thank you for attending!

See follow up emails for:- Access to resources mentioned during this webinar- Means to provide feedback so we can make

improvements to future webinars- Where to find a posting of the recorded webinar

Please send your questions, comments and feedback to: familyfinding@senecacenter.org.

57 |