Citizen Review Panel
Tuesday, June5, 2012
3:15 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Meeting with Michael Isom, Bethel CSM & Travis Erickson
Teleconference re: annual report
Present: Diwakar, Kristin, Susie,
Absent: Stella, Pat, Steve, Dana
Guests: MichaelIsom, Travis Erickson
Minutes discussion with MichaelIsom, Bethel CSM & Travis Erickson
- Introductions and explanation of CRP
- Discussion
Susie: It is so much better than it was. Still needs work, but so much better than it was. Better building, better internet.
Kristin: I’d like an update from Travis.
Travis: A lot going on in Western region lately. Michael’s been on for 36 hours. The supervisor in Kotzebue, Sheila, is working on closing and finishing open cases. She’s assessing where more work is needed.
Statewide we go through these cycles of clearing backlog of initial assessments. Trying to actually catch up and stay caught up. Have 4-5 staff coming out to Bethel to help clear the backlog. Creating family plans, case plans, clearing initial assessment backlog, permanency expediter. Getting kids to permanency who have been in the system a long time. She’s looking at traffic patterns from Bethel—lots of room for efficiency. A lot of work in the last two months. Once after initial assessment and clean up phase is down, launch into improvement phase. Leadership positions are fully staffed. Only a few line worker positions are vacant. In better place than we were a few month ago.
Not local hire, Florida and California. One has MSW and year of CPS experience.
Michael: A lot of the groundwork was done by the CRP. Geography, air travel, culture…making this it’s own region was so good.
Travis: Michael has been in Bethel three years. Been to nearly all villages in the region.
Michael: Been to 40 of the villages, still 16 need to visit.
Travis: Knows what Bethel is about.
Michael: First in Bethel in 1991, now like Anchorage compared to how it was then.
Susie: The ugliest place in the world, but nice people.
Travis: We’re going next week, I’ve never been in the summer.
Michael: I have worked at YK as the clinical supervisor for the last three years. There’s always a struggle for acceptance. They want to know someone will be there for a long time and with their intentions in mind.
Susie: We were in Bethel in March. The biggest thing, workers team with community partners, everyone wants collaboration. It’s lonely and harder. The big picture thing that the CRP will look at next is getting you all your positions—an adoption position, an ILP, etc. Right now Western is too small, Christy has idea to invite other offices to join Western region.
Michael: As I’ve been deepening my understanding of Western, all the other regions are helping Western. Wasilla is still doing all the travel for Western.
Susie: Licensing is another huge one that shouldn’t be coming out of Wasilla. The basic structure is there, but the infrastructure to make it self sufficient isn’t there.
Diwakar: I wonder if Michael is around in Anchorage a little bit, so we can connect.
Michael: Pretty busy till move, maybe grab dinner or something. Or on phone. Leaves Friday at 2:00 p.m.
Travis: Spending time in Wasilla tomorrow to meet Tim and travel people.
Diwakar: If it doesn’t work, I am frequently in Bethel. We’ll connect one way or the other.
Susie: We might come in August. We want to stay on top of Bethel. Our job is to collect input from the community on what’s working and what’s needing improvement.
Michael: August is an interesting time because school starts. That’s a good time. It’d just have to be well planned.
Susie: We’re delighted that you’re on board. We really, really want this to work. Western has always been the ugly step-sister, it’s nice to see it rising, getting talented people.
Travis: I think in a year Bethel will be where Wasilla is now. A year from now we’ll be in a different place.
Michael: This is not a temporary measure. Zero interest in doing this again. This is not a band-aid. Not rush, just keep moving forward.
Susie: How is morale out there?
Michael: Horrible. Communication is blotchy, not all on the same page as far as where we’re going. Need a plan.
Minutes for CRP Teleconference
Present: Diwakar, Kristin, Susie, Dana, Steve
Absent: Stella, Pat
Guests: Christy Lawton
- Update from Christy
Susie: We just wanted to start opening the communication lines.
Christy: The plan was that I would spend 15 minutes of each meeting to discuss updates, answer questions, etc.
Susie: Christy had her staff put together data stuff for us.
Christy: Intake, is more urgent. Updates and work on intake operations, if receive the Pipeline, external newsletter. There’s a piece in there about intake. Just started doing QA on intake. Only thing measured in the past was timeliness to initiation. Not looking at quality of intake, accuracy of decision making, the priority level assignment, never looked at that. As intake has been regionalized, everywhere is except in Western (screened by supervisor in Wasilla still). Wanted to add in layers of QA. Revised policy a few years ago. Revised methods still when moving toward better.
Done two big QA for SCRO and Northern. A team, Bernita and Tammy, and CSM, pulled a random sample of reports looking at screen outs. Heard that screen out was catching more. Heard it at the level we heard it. In two regions so far, really off in terms in how screening is occurring. Statewide average is 61% of all reports is screened out. National average is 62%. When look at different regions, Northern is 70%, Western is part of SCRO for this because same supervisors, Western screen out was 38%. Through conversation with managers and supervisors about how policies are interpreted differently. No checks and balances without QA, so differences weren’t shown. Will do other two regions.
Looked to see how many everyone agreed in, where disagreement and what haven’t given right time and attention to. From implementation process, create QA process. Give folks attention they need to do intake as professional level we want.
Diwakar: I wonder if you can share the QA reports, if you have any?
Christy: What was in front of us, we didn’t do full narrative reports. It wasn’t data I was planning to distribute. I don’t know where you were planning to go with it.
Just not sure if it’ll make sense without someone walking you through it.About where the numbers came from. Wait till done it for other regions. Then look at everything, more complete.
Diwakar: At this point have Northern and SCRO including Western
Christy: We didn’t expect to see different trends between Western and SCRO because it’s the same person making the decisions.
Susie: This sounds great. At OPA was got an e-mail asking GALs for feedback on the new PCA case planning. The openness is great. Very encouraging. I’m happy to see it. Will make it even better.Anything else about intake?
Diwakar and I meet with Christy last week about the safety question. Let her know we’re kicking around the idea of whether kids are safe as an annual report issue. Christy can explain how our recommendation would dovetail with what she’s doing. Want accurate, measurable, and fills existing hole.
Christy: I don’t know if everyone has this in front of them. But these are all the ways in which the federal measures we’re reviewed on and we provide data on. All states are compared on those measures. Timeliness of investigations was terrible in 2008 which was why we moved to regional intake. Our policy didn’t offer enough clarity, intakes in small offices, it wasn’t that the workers wasn’t trying to get to it on time, but delays where in intake process. If P1, the clock starts ticking the minute the fax arrives, the minute the e-mail arrives, the minute the phone call comes in. Too many variables that cause it to get kinked up. That’s why we made staff move faster, decide on available information, not wait for teacher to return from long weekend.
Some regions have line in the sand so strong they never deviate. Know police officer back on duty at 8:00 a.m. next morning, have critical info, can wait to get it. In the PIP, we created strategies on each to figure out how to address. Timeliness of investigations, put stop watch on it. Workers need to make a decision in the time they have. Maintaining children in their own home. In home services, for PIP in Anchorage and Fairbanks did enhanced training on in-home services, revised policy on in-home for those sites. Workers aren’t comfortable providing services in small communities where there’s no services. No in home services except in Anchorage and Fairbanks. If they are, it’s piss poor. Even in ANC and FAI still more for improvement. Court and others provide supervision. Need to develop that to move forward.
The other thing, we hoped with practice model, we beefed up and doing a far more holistic assessment of a family, we know far more than ever before, far more than when I was a case worker, we could id cases with impending danger, if we don’t do something, in the next 2-3 weeks something will happen. We hoped that would help repeat maltreatment rate (cases back in 6 months). Still don’t see it in data. Haven’t made progress in recurrence either. A lot of room for improvement. Can see how well we’re doing at that.
Focus recommendation on safety, there’s a lot of work to be done. Finding the right strategies. The perfect ground that can deal with staff’s capacity, manage workload with staff we have, how to approach. In homecases , I want to serve in home if possible. Parent’s rights, attorneys get nervous. Can’t deal with voluntary CPS. Takes the courts. Don’t want to have to create new tracking systems, when we have good tracking systems. Numbers are better than when we did the Pip. But they need constant attention and help.
Susie: I heard you say we could be helpful, I’m sitting here cheering. I’m not committing us at all, but I’m wondering how we can tweak this, so when the Panel comes up for recommendations we’ve accomplished that. Our report is due June 30th. We want to change the way the Legislative thing happened this year was a mess. We want to be helpful.
Steve: Christy, we had custody held in abeyance. Families not held in formal custody, but would be if didn’t follow through. Kept attorneys happy. Kept pressure on. Have you ever used it?
Christy: It is how was can use this supervisory capacity. That’s how GAL and attorney is appointed. We don’t have custody, but gives them help to move on with good intentions. We immediately have ability to turn it into custody, if parents don’t follow through.
Susie: When it works correctly it works like that. We don’t use it enough.
Christy: You guys could help with that. Is it all communities or targeted communities? Keep kids safely in their own homes with the support of the community. Keep in-home (FAI and ANC) tied to this. Not open in-home without supervisory oversight. Ensures that family moves along, and brings in rest of the team.
Susie: That solves such a big part of my concern with in-home.
Christy: Is work load issue, some courts not excited.
Susie: That would address our concerns about in-home.
Steve: That’s a formal order?
Christy: I think everything is the same, same status hearings and report, parents have legal decision making authority and financial responsibility.
Steve: in DJJ is B2.
Susie: The supervisory addresses all of it.
Christy: Doesn’t address demand in rural Alaska. Does allow parties to drive process, the demand of court cases takes over. Put case at end of list. Can file for removal.
Susie: It’s a great idea.
Christy: Systemic issues that could be looked at. Not just us, but all the players, people were getting sued over due process. No such thing as a voluntary client in child services. Parents always need an attorney. If you want more information on any of those things, just ask.
Susie: Thank you for having staff put material together for us.
Christy left.
- Discussion of recommendations
Susie: Christy reacted to the safety questions because they have to answer to the feds on this. Anything else would put more on them, anything beyond PIP would be hard. Maybe general recommendation that stats with feds improve.
Kristin: Does is measure what we’re asking?
Susie: What are we asking?
Kristin: I’m not sure. Repeat maltreatment.
Susie: I don’t have any answers, it started with the Legislative thing where we listed things and it wasn’t helpful. It was a shot in the dark and she could come back with her own data. We shot at each other.
In-home services, bringing them into supervisory custody solves it. There’s a GAL, there are home visits, that’s a terrific recommendation. She can sell it. As far as the safety one, I don’t know what’s helpful.
Diwakar: I agree with Kirstin. They collect a lot of data, but are they measuring what they need to be measuring.
Susie: Can we answer that in the next two weeks?
Diwakar: That would be hard to come up with another recommendation that’s above and beyond what they do for the feds.
Susie: Maybe general recommendation that OCS take steps to get from 45th to 40th. Then we don’t have to micro-manage it.
Diwakar: That goal is an appropriate one, but meeting that goal can be qualified by so many statements. That can mean we improved, or other states got worse. In addition to that, maybe something on our agenda to take apart PIP as far as safety is concerned.
Dana: It’s a little bit like George Bush, o child left behind, every child is above average. I’m a little bit frustrated; Christy seems to be a moving target. I don’t get a lot out of her presentations. She works 50 hours a week and gets to say the right things. I don’t think the CRP was nailed what we can do with the time and money we have.
Susie: We need a strategic plan. But we have two weeks. And then we need recommendations.
Steve: I do think supervisory custody has the chance to improve their system. I’ve seen it work in DJJ. It puts the reasonability on family to follow through on case plan or they lose their kids. Someone is looking at it. Not in custody at the moment.
Kirstin: The difference between that andin-home?
Susie: It gets through the intake hole, and at fork in the road, goes to custody or in-home. SW works with family informally, after 6 months, if not better take kid into custody.
Kristin: Even kids that they take into custody, they don’t have case plans.
Susie: There’s all these other people to ask for a case plan.
Kristin: The reason why the court don’t like it is all these hearings.
Susie: I think it’s just because unfamiliar. Middle solution is rejected. In all my years as GAL, only 6 cases.
Steve: Is in statue already. Case workers like the hammer. If you have the hammer you take away the family’s authority. This provides more direct supervision id they do this correctly. More eyes on the family.
Susie: Anyone clear this should be a recommendation.
Dana: I don’t understand why in-home instead of custody.
Susie: The ROH doesn’t rise to the level of custody. If ROH doesn’t rise to level of removal, they don’t do after custody. Have to have serious enough safety concern to get custody. Difference between removal order or not.
Dana: How is this child put on their caseload?
Susie: As soon as court order is signed it goes on case load. If cases under supervision, only difference between that and custody is kid is still at home. Are all those eyes, everything is the same, case plan.
Diwakar: Is this in place or is she suggesting they act more on it?
Susie: A year ago she said in-home wasn’t bad. Kristin, Stella and Sylvan went through case files. She’s paying attention. I think her solution will work. It’s already there. The risk of harm doesn’t rise to custody.
Steve: In the past we’ve always talked about those cases that don’t reach the standard of custody. Right now nothing is happening. This would allow services and have someone else looking at them.
Susie: Will make these accountable cases.
Steve: I think rural Alaska will prefer these. It’s not a perfect solution, I don’t think the worker gets as much credit for a supervisory case as a custody case.
Dana: We could just ask a few social workers about their understand of the credit they get for cases.
Susie: The recommendation makes it a court case, and it’s the same amount of work as a custody case. Functionally they are the same.
Kristin: Why do you think they don’t use this?
Susie: I objected a few years ago because I didn’t understand it.
Dana: Are supervisory cases many used in one office? Or even around the state?
Steve: I don’t think we have the data.
Susie: I’ve only had six and they were all in Anchorage. It’s not trained. It never comes up.