ACF-OGM SF-PPR, Attachment B, Performance Narrative

Grantee: American Humane Association/Larimer County Department of Human Services

Grantee Number: 90CF0028

Reporting Period: April 1, 2012 – September 29, 2012

B-01) Major Activities and Accomplishments

I.  Training Plans Implemented

Training plans for the first year of the No Place Like Home Project that were drafted earlier in the year (see semi-annual report dated 3.31.12) were implemented in each site. Please see Appendix A to see the Training Roadmaps for each site which include the number and types of training provided in addition to the number of site staff trained followed by descriptions the trainings provided.

II.  Project Management and Planning

Numerous calls with each site have been held to discuss planning for training and technical assistance as well as the evaluation. One quarterly cross-site call was held. The purpose of these calls is to plan for cross-site activities and to facilitate peer networking. Two peer networking visits were also held in the last 6-months, details of which are included in section B-01 “Events.”

Additional internal NPLH staff calls and evaluation-specific calls are held on a bi-weekly basis to aid in project planning and management.

B-02) Problems

Transfer of Staff from American Humane Association to the Kempe Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse & Neglect

The transfer of staff from the American Humane Association (AHA) to the Kempe Center arose due to AHA’s desire to relinquish its child welfare related grants and contracts. Prior to that transition, staff had been working remotely from home offices following the closure of the AHA offices in Denver (see semi-annual report 3.31.12). The Kempe Center absorbed all No Place Like Home affiliated staff where the work has continued, uninterrupted since July 1st, 2012. Although all staff have transitioned and the project staff remain intact, the timing of transition varied for staff and presented logistical challenges around communication, collaboration, and work planning, in particular. The University of Colorado at Denver IRB process is also quite different and the application process is more complex than AHA’s. In fact, it took some time to learn how to navigate the new Kempe-University system. Acclimating to this new system did result in delays to the start of data collection, now slated to begin in October 2012; the original start date was scheduled for September. However, now that all staff are settled at the Kempe Center, the return to an office setting has facilitated more efficient communication and supported the work in ways that home offices did not, including conference lines and meeting spaces.

Transfer of Grant to Larimer County Department of Human Services

In conjunction with AHA’s relinquishment request, Larimer County submitted the paperwork in April 2012 to become the grant lead. On October 10, 2012, AHA received a letter indicating that their continuation application for FY13 had been approved. While Larimer County and AHA have an agreement in place to continue the grant activities, the lack of official notice could soon cause significant project delays and stoppages. This is because neither entity can draw down federal dollars, the data sharing agreement cannot be executed, and subcontracts between Larimer County and the project partners cannot be put in place. In addition, because AHA requested June 30, 2012 as the effective relinquishment date, neither Larimer County nor AHA understand the correct procedures for filing the 425 Forms with the semi-annual reports. Inquiries have been made to the Office of Grants Management for clarification, but at the time of this writing, we have not received direction.

B-03) Significant Findings and Events

I.  Events

Annual Family Connections Grantees Meeting

The Principal Investigator, Project Coordinator and Special Adviser, Lisa Merkel-Holguin, of the No Place Like Home project attended the 2011 Family Connections Grantee Annual Meeting in Washington, DC on June 11-13th, along with the site leads from Region 3, Texas; Larimer County, Colorado; Rapid City, South Dakota.

FGDM Conference in Orlando

Six NPLH project staff including the Project Coordinator and Evaluation and Training Leads in addition to one Casey Family Program evaluation team member and 2-3 staff from each site attended the FGDM Conference in Orlando from June 20-24. Site leads and project staff contributed a total of 7 unique presentations to the conference agenda around FGDM in their unique jurisdictions and the NPLH project. Additionally, June 19th served as a Peer Networking day for all site and project staff in attendance where site staff were able to share experiences implementing family meetings, including successes and challenges and NPLH consultants Joan Pennell and Gale Burford attended and provided consultation based on their expertise in FGDM.

Peer Networking visit in Larimer County

Seventeen staff from Texas and South Dakota traveled to Larimer County, CO from September 27-28 to learn about and observe practice in Larimer County, which included observation of a mock family meeting and Q&A format discussion with County FGDM staff. Additionally RED Teams were observed and presentations were provided in interactive formats with various divisions in Larimer’s agency who discussed family engagement approaches including but not limited to safety-organized practice and family meetings. Visiting staff reported feeling energized by seeing what practice can look like in other jurisdictions and expressed interest in taking some learnings back to their home jurisdictions to implement and share with other staff.

Propensity Score Matching training

Three NPLH project staff including the two Co-Investigators at Casey Family Programs, attended a training from August 27-29 on Propensity Score Matching analysis, which also included a half-day of NPLH project-specific consultation. This training will aid in conducting the analyses necessary to implement the evaluation design in Larimer County, Colorado who chose not to randomize or otherwise assign families into treatment and control groups. Potential challenges and solutions were identified related to determining matching variables and sample size constraints.

B-04) Dissemination Activities

Contact: Heather Allan, Project Coordinator,

a)  Current:

i.  Quarterly Cross-Site Conference Calls

  1. Number disseminated: 1
  2. Target audience: Project partners/site-leads
  3. Number of target audience members reached: 11
  4. Goals: To facilitate peer networking and discuss project progress and planning, successes, and challenges.
  5. Results: Planning for future peer networking, including the pre-FGDM conference day as well as a Larimer County site visit have been discussed.
  6. Shared with cluster?: No
  7. Additional comments: The in-person Florida peer networking visit substituted for one of the quarterly calls.

ii.  NPLH Evaluation Training Presentations

  1. Number disseminated: 9 sessions (4 in TX, 2 in SD, 3 in CO)
  2. Target audience: All agency staff who will be a part of the evaluation at each site (caseworkers, supervisors, FGDM coordinators/facilitators and supervisors)
  3. Number of target audience members: 300
  4. Goals: To inform all staff who will have a part in the evaluation of their role, purpose and goals of the evaluation, and to administer the General Staff Survey to all participating staff.
  5. Results: All participating agency staff were trained in the evaluation and those that were not will need to be trained via webinar in order to participate. Feedback received from staff aided us in brainstorming solutions to potential issues that may arise re: data collection with the sites.
  6. Share with cluster?: No

iii.  American Humane Association FGDM/
Family Engagement Conference Presentations

  1. Number disseminated: 7 presentations (1 from TX, 1 from SD, 2 from Larimer County, 2 from AHA, 1 from Casey Family Programs)
  2. Target audience: child welfare professionals
  3. Number of target audience members reached: Approximately 200
  4. Goal: To share knowledge around FGDM practice in diverse communities and jurisdictions, including statewide systems, county administered systems, tribal jurisdictions, and rural communities.
  5. Results: Distributed and collected presentation evaluations to assess learning and satisfaction. On a 4 point scale, with 4 being “excellent”, all of these sessions received an average score of 3.5 or higher.
  6. Shared with cluster?: No

b)  Planned:

i.  “All in the Family” journal article in brief for Child Abuse & Neglect The International Journal

  1. Number disseminated: n/a
  2. Target audience: child welfare professionals and other human services professionals and academics/students
  3. Number of target audience members: ?
  4. Goal: To share information around the complexity of FGDM practice across and within jurisdictions using information gained from the three NPLH sites
  5. Assessing results: Elsevier offers a citation tracking feature whereby how many times an article or author has been cited by others can be tracked; we can use this to see how and who has cited this article.
  6. Share with cluster? Yes
  7. Additional comments: Brief is complete and ready for submission upon notification that the journal is accepting new submissions for its Brief Communications section.

ii.  Article on FGDM Fidelity to be targeted for Child Abuse & Neglect The International Journal

  1. Number disseminated: n/a
  2. Target audience: child welfare and other human services professionals and academics/students
  3. Number of target audience members: ?
  4. Goal: To showcase the project’s new fidelity tools which have advanced the subject of FGDM fidelity, building on previous tools, with adaptations in scaling and elements, aligning with the Best Practice FGDM Guidelines (2010).
  5. Assessing results: Elsevier offers a citation tracking feature whereby how many times an article or author has been cited by others can be tracked; we can use this to see how and who has cited this article.
  6. Share with cluster: Yes

iii.  Issue Brief on Youth Conferencing

  1. Number disseminated: n/a (electronic via NPLH website)
  2. Target audience: child welfare professionals and general public
  3. Number of target audience members: ?
  4. Goal: To share information about the importance of including youth in conferencing processes, particularly for older youth who may be aging out of the system
  5. Assessing results: Will track number of hits to web link
  6. Share with cluster? Yes

iv.  Rebuild No Place Like Home webpage at Kempe Center

  1. Number disseminated: n/a (electronic)
  2. Target audience: child welfare professionals and general public
  3. Number of target audience members: 400
  4. Goal: To share information about the NPLH project generally and about FGDM practice across and within jurisdictions using information gained from the three NPLH sites; to disseminate grant-funded products
  5. Assessing results: Will track number of hits to web link
  6. Share with cluster? Yes

B-05) Other Activities

a) Other activities not referenced elsewhere

b) How has information gathered at past grantee meetings been utilized?

Information from the Washington, DC annual grantees meeting in June provided resources related to messaging to families and the consent process that was valuable to our team in thinking through those processes for NPLH. Blogs and videos shared as well as presentations from current and former grantees were especially useful. In general, the ability to dialogue with current and past grantees has been beneficial in that it has provide guidance around what challenges we might encounter and how other grantees have addressed those challenges so that we are not needing to ‘reinvent the wheel’ as many, such as engaging families in the evaluation process, are rather common and to be expected to some degree.

c) Evaluation activities – please see attached “NPLH Semi-Annual Evaluation Report 9.29.12”

B-06) Activities Planned for Next Reporting Period

Data Collection

Data collection, now that IRB approval has been secured, is planned to start in October 2012. Data sharing agreements will be finalized between the lead research organization, the public child welfare agencies and Casey Family Programs, so that data can be transferred between the entities accordingly, once the federal transfer paperwork is received.

Trainings

Practice training and coaching plans are currently in the process of being developed for Year 2 between each training leads and site leads. Below is an outline of what each site is hoping to achieve through training and technical assistance in Year 2:

South Dakota: In Year 2, South Dakota would like the following trainings: Using FGDM to Reduce Disproportionality in Child Welfare, Addressing Substance Abuse and Mental Health Challenges in FGDM, Involving Children in FGDM Processes, Transforming Conflict into Partnership in the FGDM Process, The Impact of Power: Exploring Issues of Domestic Violence in FGDM, and Cultivating Forever Connections for Youth Through FGDM. In addition they are interested in receiving addition individual coaching around maintaining fidelity to the model and technical assistance around implementing FGDM earlier in the assessment/service provision process.

Texas: Dallas and Tarrant Counties will focus much of Year 2 on coaching to support practice fidelity. Coaching will include enhancing continued growth of FGDM practice through transfer of learning opportunities amongst coordinators, facilitators and others on an ongoing basis. The coaching strategy will facilitate the exploration of needs, motivations, skills and thought processes to assist the individual or small group in transferring in-class room learning to everyday practice. Information gleaned from the trainings during Year 2 related to specific challenges and barriers to practice will be included in this process as well. Strategy calls will occur prior to a coaching visit to determine the nature of the coaching delivery that the site will receive. A few additional trainings will likely occur, in particular, Solution Focused Strength-Based Supervision. This training will help supervisory staff build skills to support coaching and skill development of their staff. Dallas and Tarrant Counties have also identified the following topics as areas they would like coaching on in Year 2:Addressing Substance Abuse and Mental Health Challenges in FGDM, Cultivating Forever Connections for Youth Through FGDM, Involving Children in the FGDM Process, The Impact of Power: Exploring Issues of Domestic Violence in FGDM, Family Finding and Engagement, Engaging Fathers in the Child Welfare Process, and FGDM Supervisor Consultation.

Larimer County: Given Larimer County’s tenure implementing various forms of family meetings, the county’s need for training and coaching, at this point in the grant, is less than the other sites. Regular conversations are being held between Larimer County and Kempe staff to determine additional training and coaching needs that can be fulfilled by the grant.

Appendix A: NPLH Trainings Provided 3.31.12-9.30.12 w/ Descriptions

TEXAS REGION 3
TRAINING OR SERVICE (Coaching or TA) / Training Days / Audience (Supervisors, caseworkers; FBSS, FGDM) / Dates / Number of Participants / County (Dallas/Tarrant/Both)
Preparation Is Crucial: The Nuances to Coordinating Family Conferences / 2 / FGDM staff and supervisors / 4/3-4/4 / 25 / Both
Family Group Decision Making: At First Glance / 2 1-day sessions / FBSS Caseworkers & Supervisors / 4/17-4/18 / 70 / Tarrant
Family Group Decision Making: At First Glance / 2 1-day sessions / FBSS Caseworkers & Supervisors / 4/19-4/20 / 70 / Dallas
The Referring Worker: A Key Role in the FGDM Process / 5 1-day sessions / FGDM & FBSS Caseworkers and Supervisors, Program Administrators and Directors / 5/14-5/18 / 200 / Both
Transforming Conflict into Partnership in the FGDM Process / 2 1-day sessions / FBSS Caseworkers & Supervisors / 7/18-7/19 / 100 / Dallas
NPLH Evaluation Training / 4 .5-day sessions / FGDM & FBSS Caseworkers and Supervisors, Program Administrators and Directors / 9/11-14 / 250 / Both
SOUTH DAKOTA
TRAINING OR SERVICE (Coaching or TA) / Training Days / Audience (Caseworkers, supervisors; IFA, FGDM) / Dates / Number of Participants / Region (Rapid City/
Sioux Falls)
Introductory Overview of FGDM / 3 / IFA caseworkers and supervisors / 3/27-3/29 / 34 / Both
Preparation is Crucial: The Nuances to Coordinating Family Conferences / 2 / FGDM coordinators and supervisors / 5/1-5/2 / 12 / Both
Managing Emotions as an FGDM Coordinator/Facilitator / 1 / FGDM coordinators and supervisors / 5/3 / 12 / Both
FGDM: At First Glance / 2 .5-day sessions / Stakeholders and staff / 7/24 / 50 / Sioux Falls
The Referring Worker: A Key Role in the FGDM Process / 2 / IFA caseworkers / 7/25-7/26 / 70 / Sioux Falls
The Referring Worker: A Key Role in the FGDM Process / 2 / IFA caseworkers / 8/14-8/15 / 70 / Rapid City
Individual coaching / 4 / FGDM Supervisor and Coordinators / 5/21-5/24 / 3 / Rapid City
NPLH Evaluation Training / 2 .5-day sessions / IFA and Ongoing workers and supervisors; FGDM Coordinators and Supervisor / 9/24-25 / 30 / Rapid City
LARIMER COUNTY
TRAINING OR SERVICE (Coaching or TA) / Training Days / Audience (Caseworkers, Supervisors, FGDM facilitators) / Dates / Number of Participants
FGDM: At First Glance / 1 / Agency staff and community stakeholders / 4/25 / 22
NPLH Evaluation Training / 3 .5-day sessions / Facilitators, Intake, Family Assessment Response, and Ongoing caseworkers and supervisors / 9/11-9/12 / 60

Training Descriptions: