Fill and Sign the Fema Quotation Form

Maine Statewide Assessment for the Child and Family Services Review March 2009 General Information Name of State Agency: Maine Department of Health and Human Services Office of Child and Family Services Period Under Review: Onsite Review Sample Period: 4/1/08 – 5/22/09 Period of AFCARS Data: 10/1/06 – 9/30/07 Period of NCANDS Data: 4/1/08 – 11/30/08 State Agency Contact Person for the Statewide Assessment: Name: Theresa Dube Title: Federal Plan and Performance and Quality Improvement Program Manager Address: SHS #11 2 Anthony Avenue Augusta, Maine 04333 Phone: 207-624-7945 Fax: 207-287-5262 E-mail: Theresa.Dube@maine.gov Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 1 Table of Contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4 II. State Data Profile ..................................................................................................................... 19 III. Narrative Assessment of Child and Family Outcomes .......................................................... 35 Safety Outcome 1: Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect. ......... 35 Item 1: Timeliness of initiating investigations of reports of child abuse of child maltreatment. .................................................................................................................. 35 Item 2: Repeat maltreatment. ............................................................................................... 42 Item 3: Services to family to protect child(ren) in the home and prevent removal or re-entry into foster care................................................................................................................. 46 Item 4: Risk assessment and safety management. ................................................................ 51 Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations. . 56 Item 5: Foster care re-entries. .............................................................................................. 57 Item 6: Stability of foster care placement. ............................................................................ 58 Item 7: Permanency goal for child........................................................................................ 62 Item 8: Reunification, guardianship, or permanent placement with relatives. ..................... 64 Item 9: Adoption. .................................................................................................................. 69 Item 10: Other planned permanent living arrangement. ....................................................... 75 Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children.......................................................................................................................... 80 Item 11: Proximity of foster care placement........................................................................ 80 Item 12: Placement with Siblings. ....................................................................................... 83 Item 13: Visiting with parents and siblings in foster care..................................................... 86 Item 14: Preserving Connections. ......................................................................................... 89 Item 15: Relative Placement. ................................................................................................ 95 Item 16: Relationship of child in care with parents. ............................................................ 99 Item 17: Needs and services of child, parents, foster parents. ........................................... 102 Item 18: Child and family involvement in case planning. ................................................. 110 Item 19: Caseworker visits with child ................................................................................ 114 Item 20: Worker visits with parents.................................................................................... 119 Item 21: Educational needs of the child.............................................................................. 121 Item 22: Physical health of the child................................................................................... 126 Item 23: Mental/behavioral health of the child.................................................................. 131 IV. Systemic Factors.................................................................................................................. 137 A. Statewide Information System........................................................................................... 137 Item 24: Statewide Information System. ............................................................................ 137 Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 2 B. Case Review System ......................................................................................................... 143 Item 25: Written Case Plan. ................................................................................................ 143 Item 26: Periodic Reviews. ................................................................................................ 148 Item 27: Permanency Hearings. ......................................................................................... 151 Item 28: Termination of Parental Rights. ........................................................................... 154 Item 29: Notice of Hearings and Reviews to Caregivers................................................... 158 C. Quality Assurance System ................................................................................................. 161 Item 30: Standards Ensuring Quality Services. .................................................................. 161 Item 31: Quality Assurance System................................................................................... 168 D. Staff and Provider Training ............................................................................................... 174 Item 32: Initial Staff Training. ........................................................................................... 175 Item 33: Ongoing Staff Training........................................................................................ 179 Item 34: Foster and Adoptive Parent Training. ................................................................. 183 E. Service Array and Resource Development ........................................................................ 188 Item 35: Array of Services. ................................................................................................. 188 Item 36: Service Accessibility. .......................................................................................... 194 Item 37: Individualizing Services. ..................................................................................... 197 F. Agency Responsiveness to the Community ...................................................................... 200 Item 38: State Engagement in Consultation with Stakeholders......................................... 200 Item 39: Agency Annual Reports Pursuant to the CFSP. .................................................. 209 Item 40: Coordination of CFSP Services With Other Federal Programs. ......................... 211 G. Foster and Adoptive Home Licensing, Approval, and Recruitment................................. 217 Item 41: Item 42: Item 43: Item 44: Item 45: Standards for Foster Homes and Institutions....................................................... 217 Standards Applied Equally. ................................................................................. 223 Requirements for Criminal Background Checks................................................. 226 Diligent Recruitment of Foster and Adoptive Homes. ........................................ 231 State Use of Cross-Jurisdictional Resources for Permanent Placements. ........... 239 V. State Assessment of Strengths and Needs............................................................................. 245 Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 3 I. Introduction Maine Child Welfare Services Reform Since 2000, the Maine Child Welfare Program has been directed by committed social workers with significant child welfare experience. This leadership has been a key factor in commencing, sustaining, and expanding child welfare reform in Maine. In particular, the vision, convictions, and commitment of James Beougher, Director of the Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) since 2004, have enabled managers and staff to place more children with families instead of in residential settings, place more children with kin, reform practice in cases of domestic violence, develop statewide high fidelity Wraparound and Family Reunification Services, and establish a network of staff committees for continuous quality improvement. In 2001, in response to the death of a child in foster care and concerns from legislators and the media, the Department’s Commissioner arranged for the services of the Casey Strategic Consulting Group (CSCG) to assist senior Child Welfare managers in reviewing processes and outcomes for children and families with whom DHHS was involved. CSCG provided consultation and assistance to Maine Child Welfare program reform for a four-year period. During this same time period, a larger Departmental merger and three changes of DHHS Commissioners occurred. With the help of CSCG, senior Child Welfare (CW) managers developed a Beliefs Statement and chartered a Child Welfare Senior Management Team committed to reforming the program. With the assistance of CSCG, a review was conducted which made clear that many Maine children stayed too long in foster care. This review also found that a relatively high percentage of youth were placed in therapeutic foster care and residential care, rather than in family foster homes or with kin. In 2002 the CW Senior Management Team made a strategic plan to work toward processes and outcomes consistent with their Child Welfare beliefs statement. Along with the first strategic plan came increased emphasis on data-driven management toward reform targets. Beginning with the introduction of Family Team Meetings in 2003, CW Senior Management has worked toward strength-based policies and practices to better engage and include youth and families. In 2003 Maine had its first Child and Family Services Review, which found Maine to be an outlier compared to most other states in its poor performance on achieving permanency for children. The OCFS Child Welfare Service Division successfully completed all 92 action steps of the Program Improvement Plan (PIP) that was designed to address the 2003 Federal Child and Family Services Review findings. In 2004, the OCFS Child Welfare Service Division began a sustained effort to place more children with families and reduce reliance on residential care. At that time over 26% of Maine foster children were in residential placements. As of December 2008 only 12% of Maine foster children were in residential care. During an overlapping time period, the percentage of kinship placements increased from 16% to 27.8%. Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 4 In 2005, making a concerted effort to formally move beyond the traditional practice model of the old organizational culture, child welfare senior management engaged staff from all districts in developing a new, strength-based Child Welfare Practice Model. The new Practice Model is consistent with the earlier 2002 Beliefs Statement as well as with the beliefs underlying Family Team Meetings. Also during 2005, key policies were revised to make them consistent with the new Practice Model. Each district took the lead in revising a key policy. In 2006, as a means of institutionalizing and expanding Child Welfare reform, DHHS Child Welfare Services formally applied for accreditation through the Council on Accreditation (COA). During the next two years, reform efforts largely driven by the accreditation self-study process and the policy, procedure, and practice changes resulting from it. In 2008, OCFS leaders decided that several factors required withdrawal from the accreditation endeavor. These factors included: funding reductions to contracted agencies that shifted workload to DHHS, reductions to the Cooperative Agreement with the University of Southern Maine, several critical vacancies in the DHHS Central Office, and most importantly, an overlapping time frame with the 2009 upcoming Child and Family Services Review. Available staff resources are now re-deployed to engage in the 2009 CFSR and to meet the June 2009 deadline for the federally required 2010-2014 Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP). DHHS Child Welfare Senior Management expects to use findings from the current CFSR and the final review of the previous CFSP to develop a new Child and Family Services Plan. This new CFSP is intended to become a true, widely shared multi-year strategic plan that will include and build on the anticipated Program Improvement Plan resulting from the current CFSR. While OCFS is proud of the progress it has made in meeting the needs of children and families in Maine, we also recognize the need for continued improvement. OCFS anticipates that the upcoming Child and Family Services Review will afford Maine the opportunity to continue progress. Strengths will be highlighted and focus brought to those areas needing improvement. In preparing for the CFSR, OCFS developed the CFSR Statewide Assessment through consultation with a steering committee that had initially been formed following the 2003 CFSR and PIP process. This has become the CFSR Steering Committee and includes representatives from OCFS, Treatment Foster Care agencies, foster parents, the legal community (AAG, GAL, parents’ attorney), Department of Education, Department of Corrections, Alternative Response Programs, and the University of Southern Maine. This committee has been the consulting body for the Statewide Assessment, and is expected to actively consult on the development and implementation of the anticipated Program Improvement Plan, as well as the upcoming Child and Family Services Plan. OCFS believes that this inclusive approach ensures a thorough assessment of Child Welfare policy, data, and practice and will ultimately lead to improved outcomes. Reform in Maine Child Welfare Services is still very much a work in progress. To the extent that the organizational culture has become transformed, a review will see implementation of the new Child Welfare Practice Model: Child Safety first and foremost Parents have the right and responsibilities to raise their own children Children are entitled to a safe and nurturing family Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 5 All Children deserve a permanent family How we do our work is as important as the work we do To the extent that the new Practice Model has taken hold, staff work to engage and empower the family, view parents as partners, and build on strengths to address needs. Caseworkers are more responsive and inclusive, using a team-based approach. In measuring and improving processes, outputs and outcomes, Child Welfare Management is increasingly data driven. “Hard data to show” has replaced “thinking you know.” For district management, performance expectations are tied to reform targets and data is reviewed in rating performance. A Monthly Management Report provides regular information on key activities, such as child protective response time, relative placements, and monthly caseworker contacts with foster children. A Weekly Residential Report provides information on numbers and percentages of children in residential placements, district by district. A central Performance and Quality Improvement Unit provides quarterly quality measures based on monthly supervisory case record reviews. In 2007 this unit conducted an in-house site review of all eight Child Welfare Districts, issuing findings to inform subsequent District Program Improvement Plans. The success of this data-driven management is best illustrated in the reduction of Maine children living in foster care. Since 2001, the number of children in foster care in Maine has steadily dropped from over 3,000 to less than 2,000. Current Innovations in Maine Child Welfare Services The Family Team Meeting has been a cornerstone of Maine Child Welfare practice since 2003. The Family Team Meeting is a process that brings together (a) family (b) interested people (such as friends, neighbors, and community members) and (c) formal resources (such as child welfare, mental health, education, and other agencies). It functions to serve the child and family’s achievement of safety, permanency, stability and well-being. The child and family team will brings together the wisdom/expertise of family and friends as well as the resources, experience and expertise of formal supports. Single system of care for children’s behavioral health services – This endeavor has included: analyzing the treatment/support/social services currently purchased by OCFS; deciding which treatment services to purchase or enhance, deciding how to measure outcomes and performance standards; and designing and implementing oversight and monitoring activities through utilization review, performance and quality improvement, outcome assessments, and stakeholder meetings. This integration has benefited children served by Child Welfare Services, as medication reviews and clinical guidance in specific child welfare cases is more readily available. Future Search – Utilizing Future Search, OCFS Leadership has worked to engage community stakeholders in integrated work toward strategic goals. Future Search is a methodology grounded in evidence that action is best achieved when a diverse group of people come together to discover and act upon common ground. Future Search seeks to change the ways in which people, communities and organizations interact with each other. District OCFS administrators, Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 6 including Child Welfare Program Administrators, have been charged with continuing this work communicating information with their larger communities. Managed behavioral health care – In the fall of 2007 a contract was awarded to APS, an Administrative Service Authorization Organization that will perform Prior Authorization and Utilization Review functions. This contract is designed to improve the cost-effective management of behavioral health services currently purchased through the State's Office of MaineCare Services and administered by the State's programs in Adult Mental Health Services, Children's Behavioral Health Services, and the Office of Substance Abuse. Wraparound Maine – Wraparound Maine is a statewide, multi-site initiative for youth with complex needs which complements other collaborative service planning approaches in Maine (Child and Family Teams, Family Team Meetings and Family and Systems Teams). The target population includes school age children and youth with complex needs (and their families), who have multi-system involvement and are either in residential treatment or at high risk of such placement. Wraparound is a process that follows a series of steps to help children and their families realize their hopes and dreams. The Wraparound process also helps make sure children and youth grow up in their homes and communities. With help from one or more facilitators, people from the family’s life work together, coordinate their activities, and blend their perspectives of the family’s situation. Though it may look different across communities, Wraparound should always be driven by the same principles and should always follow the same basic phases and activities. Family Reunification Program (FRP): In October 2006, Maine implemented the Family Reunification Program to return children home sooner by providing an intensive array of services to meet the family’s individualized needs. The focus of services is to help the family internalize behaviors and skills that strengthen the family system and prevent further out-ofhome placements for children. Maine has contracted with six agencies to provide this service in each of the State’s eight districts. Community Partnership for Protecting Children (CPPC), part of a nation wide initiative, began in two Portland neighborhoods in 2006. In this model, a team forms around the family to give the family support to protect their children and make necessary changes, allow for families to be strengthened, and children to be nurtured, and supported in a safe environment. Since the inception of the CPPC, two neighboring communities have expressed interest in developing such a program in their local areas. Child STEPs - Evidence-based psychotherapy – In 2008 Maine begun to participate in the Child System and Treatment Enhancement Projects (STEPs) Implementation Model. This model combines clinical training and supervision in evidence based treatments (EBT) with an electronic information system to guide treatment, and adds interventions to address family and organizational factors that are key to success of EBTs. The Child STEPs Project has been implemented in three sites in southern and central Maine. In 2008 Maine joined the other New England States in a Safety and Risk Assessment Breakthrough Series Collaborative sponsored by Casey Family Services. Five Maine teams receive consultation from Casey and work with national experts to address gaps in policy and practice, with emphasis on engagement with the family. A system of monthly measures will Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 7 monitor improvement in family engagement and satisfaction, in addition to child safety and wellbeing. Maine Budget Challenges The budget picture for the State of Maine has deteriorated dramatically since the Maine State Legislature’s Biannual Balanced Budget Agreement of June 2007. Revenue problems for Maine are largely caused by declining consumer and corporate sales taxes associated with the national recession. Reductions in Federal Medicaid reimbursements are also a significant factor for Child Welfare and other health and social services. In April 2008, the Maine State Legislature again had to balance the State budget to meet a $220 million projected shortfall. Further declines in state revenue required the Governor to issue an $80 million curtailment order in November 2007. In January 2009, the Legislature once more had to reduce the current budget by $200 million to realize sufficient savings for the remainder of the state fiscal year. The Governor’s proposed budget for the coming biennium contains further significant reductions in costs and services in response to an anticipated $800 million decline in state revenue during the upcoming two years. Balancing the budget will require significant changes in the private/public infrastructure, systems, staff, and numerous services on which service recipients, staff and the public presently rely. For Child Welfare Services these reductions thus far have resulted in frozen or eliminated positions, reductions in foster board rates, adoption subsidies, reductions in funds available for services to reduce abuse and neglect, elimination of contracted home studies, and reduced funding for training. While vacant caseworker and casework supervisor positions have been subject to the state hiring freeze, no such positions have been eliminated. DHHS remains committed to providing the high quality essential services to Maine’s children and families. Organizational Overview – Child Welfare Within the Larger Department Child Welfare Services is one of four Divisions (Child Welfare Services, Children’s Behavioral Health Services, Early Childhood, and Public Service Management), positioned within the Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) and housed within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). OCFS was created in May 2004 as part of the merger between the legacy Department of Behavioral and Developmental Services and the legacy Department of Human of Services in order to improve access, services and outcomes for the people of Maine. The Office of Child and Family Services is working toward a system of care that is childcentered and family-focused, with the needs of the family and child dictating the mix of services. The OCFS system of care will be largely community based, with the locus of services, as well as management and decision making responsibility, resting at the community and family level. The OCFS 2008 Strategic Plan is organized by four Department-wide priorities: 1. DHHS supports infrastructure that is easily accessible, well integrated, and uses best practices Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 8 2. Staff and Culture: Caring, responsive, and well-managed staff work in an efficient and effective culture. 3. DHHS service system is easily accessible, well integrated, and uses best practices. 4. DHHS is a responsive, caring, and well-managed organization that communicates effectively. Beginning in 2009, the OCFS Strategic Plan will be developed biennially to coincide with the state budget cycle. The Maine DHHS Child Welfare program is organized and managed through eight districts (see map), each headed by a Child Welfare Program Administrator. Each Child Welfare Program Administrator is supervised by one of two District Operations Managers. One District Operations Manager supervises Districts 1-4; the other supervises Districts 5-8. The Child Welfare Director in the OCFS Central Office supervises the District Operations Managers. Most district services – Child Protective, Foster Care, Adoption, Kinship Care, and Youth Transition Services – are directly provided by district casework staff and are supervised through the district chain of command. Three specialized district functions (and designated staff) are directly supervised by Central Office positions rather than through the district chain of command. These include Performance and Quality Improvement Specialists, Youth Transition workers, and IV-E eligibility staff. Child Protective Intake is also a centralized function, with all intake staff housed in the OCFS Central Office. District Child Welfare Program Administrators participate on the Child Welfare Senior Management Team, which meets monthly. The District Operations Managers and the Child Welfare Director chair these meetings. Geographic Overview Maine is the largest state in New England, accounting for nearly half the region’s entire land area. The state is known for its scenery — its jagged, mostly rocky 1,600 miles of coastline, its low, rolling mountains, and its heavily forested interior — as well as for its seafood, especially lobsters and clams. As of 2007, the organized municipalities of Maine consist of 22 cities, 432 towns, and 34 plantations. Maine also has three Reservations: Indian Island, Indian Township Reservation, and Pleasant Point Indian Reservation. Maine is divided into 16 counties. Maine’s population density is greatest in its coastal counties and along the ‘interstate corridor’ of I-95. Maine citizens tend to have relatively low income and pay relatively high taxes. With the erosion of Maine’s manufacturing base, many young adults leave the state in search of better jobs and income elsewhere. Maine is the most sparsely populated state east of the Mississippi River; ninety percent of its land is forest. In the forested areas of the interior there is much uninhabited land. For example, the Northwest Aroostook unorganized territory in the northern part of the state has an area of 2,668 square miles and a population of 27, or one person for every 100 square miles. Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 9 Maine is a popular tourist destination, but it also experiences harsh winters and, consequently, the great temporary influx of visitors occurs during the warmer months. Many of these visitors establish an alternate secondary residence in Maine during some or all warm months and then depart for their primary residence in the off-season. These are the summer people of Maine lore, often referred to, along with all other out-of-staters, as “flatlanders” or people “from away”. Official census figures normally count a person as a resident only once, at the place of the primary home. Therefore, in some situations official census figures could be misleading for Maine. Maine Census Data At the time of the 2000 U.S. Census, the State of Maine had 1,274,923 people living within its borders. Of those, 96.5 % were White Alone with no Hispanic or Latino heritage. Of the remaining population 0.5% was Black, 0.6% was of American Indian heritage, 0.7% was Asian, 0.2% described themselves as Other Race, 1% listed themselves as belonging to Two or More Races, and 0.7% was of Hispanic or Latino origins (U.S Census website). Maine’s ancestry heritage is commonly from the British Isles and Canada, with French and French-Canadian being the largest ethnic group. Other ethnic groups with a strong presence throughout Maine include Irish, Italian, Polish, German, and Scandinavian cultures (U.S. Census website). Two Native American tribes and two Native American bands reside in Maine: The Penobscot Nation (Indian Island, Penobscot County), the Passamaquoddy Tribe (Indian Township and Pleasant Point, Washington County), Houlton Band of Maliseets and the Aroostook Band of MicMacs (Aroostook County). By 2005, the population in Maine was estimated to have grown to 1,283,673, with 1,244,946 of the population being native to Maine, and 38,727 being foreign born. The White Alone population had declined to 96%, the Black population had increased to 0.7%, the American Indian population had slightly declined to 0.5%, the Asian population had slightly increased to 0.8%, Other Race was listed at 0.4%, those belonging to Two or More Races remained at 1%, and the Hispanic/Latino population increased to 0.9% (U.S. Census). These are not dramatic changes. In the 2000 U.S. Census, Washington County had the largest minority population, due to the large percentage of American Indians living there. Also of interest in the Census data, eleven per cent of Maine residents 25 years old or older did not graduate from high school. Of the population five years old and older, 7.6% speak a language other than English at home, and 2.0% speak English less than “very well.” Of the population for whom the poverty status could be determined, 160,627 individuals or 12.6% fell below the poverty level (U.S. Census website). The Maine population for all children in 2005 showed White at 94%, Black at 1%, American Indian at 1%, Asian at 1%, Two or More Races at 2%, and Hispanic/Latino at 1% (ME DOE website). In contrast, the breakdown for the total United States population for all children in 2005 shows a White population at 58%, Black at 15%, American Indian at 1%, Asian at 4%, Two or More Races at 2%, and Hispanic/Latino at 20% (U.S. Census website). Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 10 The school age population data shows more dramatic changes. Minority children were represented in schools in Maine in larger percentages that in the general population. At the same time, the general school population declined substantially. There appears to be a smaller percentage of children in immigrant families in Maine than the national average and more of these children seem to be better off financially. According to the Kids Count State-Level Data Online for 2005, five per cent of Maine’s children live in immigrant families compared to 21% for all of the United States. Of the immigrant children in Maine between 2002-2004, fifteen per cent live below the poverty threshold (the same as for non-immigrant children), compared with 22% for the national average. For children living in low-income families (defined as below 200% of the poverty threshold), children from immigrant families in Maine for 2002-2004 were at 29%, while children for the same time period who were in American born families in Maine were at 35%. At $60,400, the median annual family income for Maine immigrant families well exceeded the national average of $44,700, while the U.S. born families’ median income for Maine was at $47,500, down from the national average of $51,200 (Kids Count website). Children in Maine are most likely to be living in married couple households (69% - the same as the national average). They are more likely than the national average to be in father-only households (10% - national average 7%), and are less likely to be in mother-only households (21% - national average 25%). The children are less likely to be in single parent families at 31% (national average 32%) and less likely to be in the care of their grandparents at 3% (national average 4% - 2004). Maine children were also more likely to be living with cohabiting domestic partners (10%, compared to national average of 6%) (Kids Count website). In general, Maine has fewer children in poverty than the national average, but slightly more children than the national average who are under 5 years old and in poverty (Kids Count website). (source: Lynn Caldwell, “Demographic Profile of Maine’s General Population and of Child Welfare Service Recipients”, 2007) Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 11 Map of Maine Showing Counties and DHHS Districts Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 12 DHHS Organizational Chart James E. Beougher Director Office of Child & Family Services Vacant Constituent Services Specialist Frances Ryan Special Projects/ Resource Dev. Daniel Despard Joan Smyrski Patti Woolley Christa Elwell Elaine White Director Child Welfare Director Children’s Behavioral Health Director Early Childhood Director Public Service Management Office Specialist Support Staff See Division Org. Chart See Division Org. Chart See Division Org. Chart See Division Org. Chart See Division Org. Chart Approved as to form by s/James E. Beougher on February 28, 2007 Prepared by Elaine White, Office Specialist OCFS Designee (updated 9/16/08) Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 13 Office of Child and Family Services Child Welfare Daniel Despard Director Child Welfare Gina Googins SSPS II - IV-E Maine Caring Families Theresa Dube Federal Plan/PQI Manager Virginia Marriner Francis Sweeney Director Child Welfare Policy & Practice District Operation Manager Paul Martin CPS SSPS II B ets y Ciullo P am Chandler Wanda Fowler A nn B riggs Debbie Wright Nancy Lacombe Cathy Demos Lori Canty Wally Ham B renda McNeal Lee Caron-Tremblay K ama Chas e K elly Dav is Doug Hall Julie Lev itz Tony a Mc V ay Michele P eters Performance & Quality Improvement Financial Resource Specialists Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 Bobbi Johnson Program Administrator District 6 Marie Kelly Program Administrator District 7 Jeff Carty Program Administrator District 4 Tim Hickey Human Services Caseworker Ellen Beerits Program Administrator District 5 Cathy LaChapelle Program Administrator District 3 Dulcey Laberge Youth Transition Specialist (SSPS II) Rosemary Whittaker Community Collaborative Specialist SSPS II Program Manager Intake Louise Boisvert Program Administrator District 2 Susan Harris Financial Resource Specialist James Pelletier ICPC/LOC Program (SSPS II) Robert Pronovost Mark Dalton Program Administrator District 1 Timothy Swift Adoption/ICPC Specialist (SSPS II) Linda Brissette Children’s Svs. & Licensing (SSPS II) Martha Proulx District Operation Manager Chris Lyng Program Administrator District 8 Joyce Giguere HS Casework Supervisor - CPI J ennifer Dillihunt B rown Chris tine Hilins k i Thomas Lok oc z Wendy Lok oc z Tracee O’B rien Les lie Webs ter S teve Woodard S haron Woodruff Child Protective Intake Janet Whitten HS Casework Supervisor - CPI E leanor A dams J ennifer B ick ford Diane Dubois B arbara Goos s ens Dianne Haile K ate Imbruno Joan-Les lie B rown Charlene Mus grave J ennifer B aillargeon Chris tina Hunninghaus A my Morin Cathie Ric hards Maureen Talon Mars ha Thomas Child Protective Intake Youth Transition Caseworkers Cy nthia E ames Janet Fongemie Lillian Mas sie Cheryl P arker Diane P eters Wallene Ros s Melis s a S anford V ac ant Approved as to form by s/James E. Beougher on February 28, 2007 Prepared by Elaine White, Office Specialist OCFS Designee (updated 1/9/09) Child Protective Intake/ Afterhours Unit 14 Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 15 Acronyms and Terms AAG Assistant Attorney General ACES Adult and Children's Emergency Services ACF Administration for Children and Families (federal) ACTR Adoptions Created Through Relationships AFCARS Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System AFFM Adoptive and Foster Families of Maine AFFME A Family For ME AFFT Adoptive and Foster Family Training APOC Administrative Processes Oversight Committee APPLA Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement ARP Alternative Response Program ASFA Adoption and Safe Families Act ASPIRE Additional Support for People in Retraining and Employment BHR Bureau of Human Resources BIS Bureau of Information Services, Dept. of Administration and Financial Services BMS Bureau of Medical Services BMV Bureau of Motor Vehicles CA/N Child Abuse and Neglect CAAN Child Abuse Action Network CAPTA Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act CASA Court Appointed Special Advocate CBHS Children’s Behavior Health Services CDS Child Development Services CFSR Federal Child and Family Services Review Child STEPs Child System and Treatment Enhanced Projects CIP Community Intervention Program COA Council on Accreditation CPPC Community Partnerships for Protecting Children CPS Child Protective Services CSCG Casey Strategic Consulting Group CTBM Camp to Belong Maine CW Child Welfare CWI Child Welfare Institute CWS Child Welfare Services CWTI Child Welfare Training Institute DAFS Department of Administrative and Financial Services DHHS Department of Health and Human Services DHSTI Department of Human Services Training Institute DLRS Division of Licensing and Regulatory Services Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 16 DOC Department of Corrections DOE Department of Education DOM District Operations Manager EDSDT Early and Periodic Screening Diagnosis and treatment ETV Education and Training Voucher FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation FFTA Foster Family Treatment Association FRP Family Reunification Program FTM Family Team Meeting GAL Guardian ad Litem IASC International Adoption Service Centre IAU Institutional Abuse Unit ICPC Interstate Compact on Placement of Children ICWA Indian Child Welfare Act IEP Individualized Educational Plan IL Independent Living IRR Interdepartmental Resource Review ITRT Intensive Temporary Residential Treatment JR Judicial Review LOC Levels of Care LSW Licensed Social Worker MACWIS Maine Automated Child Welfare Information System MAGCP Maine Association of Group Care Providers MAMHS Maine Association of Mental Health Services MCF Maine Caring Families MEPA Multi-Ethnic Placement Act MFPA Maine Foster Parents Association MH Mental Health MI Motivational Interviewing MOU Memorandum of Understanding MSHA Maine State Housing Authority MYTC Maine Youth Transition Collaborative NCANDS National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System NRC National Resource Center NWI National Wraparound Initiative OCFS Office of Child and Family Services OPEGA Maine Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability OSA Office of Substance Abuse PA Program Administrator PDSA Plan, Do, Study, Act PET Pupil Evaluation Team Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 17 PFC Program Fiscal Coordinator PHN Public Health Nursing PIP Program Improvement Plan PNMI Private Non-Medical Institution (a Medicaid program) PPO Preliminary Protection Order PQI Performance and Quality Improvement RAM Regional Administration Manager RCC Regional Children's Cabinet RFP Request for Proposals RGCC Residential and Group Care Committee ROM Results Oriented Management System RTC Residential Treatment Center SACWIS Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration SBI State Bureau of Identification SEI Supervisory Enhancement Initiative SERU Support Enforcement and Recovery Unit SETU Staff Education and Training Unit SMT Senior Management Team TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families TNT Treatment Network Team TPR Termination of Parental Rights UNCOPE Used, Neglected, Cut down, Objected, Preoccupied, Emotional Discomfort YLAT Youth Leadership Advisory Team Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 18 Maine Child and Family Services Review Data Profile: December 16, 2008 II. State Data Profile CHILD SAFETY PROFILE Fiscal Year 2007ab Reports I. Total CA/N Reports Disposed1 % 6,710A Duplic. Childn.2 % 11,009 Unique Childn.2 % 12-Month Period Ending 03/31/2008 (07B08A) (not submitted) Reports % Duplic. % Unique % Childn.2 Childn.2 9,318 II. Disposition of CA/N Reports3 Substantiated & Indicated 2,566 38.2 4,118 37.4 3,797 40.7 Unsubstantiated 4,144 61.8 6,585 59.8 5,288 56.8 306 2.8 233 2.5 III. Child Victim Cases Opened for Post-Investigation Services4 1,369 33.2 1,254 33.0 IV. Child Victims Entering Care Based on CA/N Report5 878 21.3 766 20.2 0B 0 Other V. Child Fatalities Resulting from Maltreatment6 STATEWIDE AGGREGATE DATA USED TO DETERMINE SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY VI. Absence of Maltreatment Recurrence7 [Standard: 94.6% or more; national median = 93.3%, 25th percentile = 91.50%] VII. Absence of Child Abuse and/or Neglect in Foster Care8 (12 months) [standard 99.68% or more; national median = 99.5, 25th percentile = 99.30] 1,770 of 1,909 C 2,892 of 2,897 92.7 99.83 Fiscal Year 2008ab (not submitted) Reports % Duplic. Childn.2 % Unique Childn.2 % Additional Safety Measures For Information Only (no standards are associated with these): Fiscal Year 2007ab Unique Childn.2 VIII. Median Time to Investigation in Hours (Child File)9 IX . Mean Time to Investigation in Hours (Child File)10 X. Mean Time to Investigation in Hours (Agency File)11 XI. Children Maltreated by Parents While in Foster Care.12 % 8C of 2,897 Hours 12-Month Period Ending 03/31/2008 (07B08A) (not submitted) Unique Hours % Childn.2 Fiscal Year 2008ab (not submitted) 0.28 Unique Childn.2 Hours % 120 104 72 CFSR Round One Safety Measures to Determine Substantial Conformity (Used primarily by States completing Round One Program Improvement Plans, but States may also review them to compare to prior performance) Fiscal Year 2007ab Reports % Duplic. Childn.2 % Unique Childn.2 XII. Recurrence of Maltreatment13 [Standard: 6.1% or less) 139 of 1,909 XIII. Incidence of Child Abuse and/or Neglect in Foster Care14 (9 months) [standard 0.57% or less] 3C of 2,646 Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 % 12-Month Period Ending 03/31/2008 (07B08A) (not submitted) Reports % Duplic. % Unique % Childn.2 Childn.2 7.3 0.11 20 Fiscal Year 2008ab (not submitted) Reports % Duplic. Childn.2 % Unique Childn.2 % NCANDS data completeness information for the CFSR Description of Data Tests Fiscal Year 2007ab Percent of duplicate victims in the submission [At least 1% of victims should be associated with multiple reports (same CHID). If not, the State would appear to have frequently entered different IDs for the same victim. This affects maltreatment recurrence] Percent of victims with perpetrator reported [File must have at least 95% to reasonably calculate maltreatment in foster care]* Percent of perpetrators with relationship to victim reported [File must have at least 95%]* Percent of records with investigation start date reported [Needed to compute mean and median time to investigation] Average time to investigation in the Agency file [PART measure] Percent of records with AFCARS ID reported in the Child File [Needed to calculate maltreatment in foster care by the parents; also. All Child File records should now have an AFCARS ID to allow ACF to link the NCANDS data with AFCARS. This is now an all-purpose unique child identifier and a child does not have to be in foster care to have this ID] 12-Month Period Ending 03/31/2008 (07B08A) (not submitted) Fiscal Year 2008ab (not submitted) 7.5 100 85.4C 92.1 Reported 100 *States should strive to reach 100% in order to have maximum confidence in the absence of maltreatment in foster care measure. FOOTNOTES TO DATA ELEMENTS IN CHILD SAFETY PROFILE Each maltreatment allegation reported to NCANDS is associated with a disposition or finding that is used to derive the counts provided in this safety profile. The safety profile uses three categories. The various terms that are used in NCANDS reporting have been collapsed into these three groups. Disposition Category A B C Safety Profile Disposition Substantiated or Indicated (Maltreatment Victim) NCANDS Maltreatment Level Codes Included “Substantiated,” “Indicated,” and “Alternative Response Disposition Victim” Unsubstantiated Other “Unsubstantiated” and “Unsubstantiated Due to Intentionally False Reporting” “Closed-No Finding,” “Alternative Response Disposition – Not a Victim,” “Other,” “No Alleged Maltreatment,” and “Unknown or Missing” Alternative Response was added starting with the 2000 data year. The two categories of Unsubstantiated were added starting with the 2000 data year. In earlier years there was only the category of Unsubstantiated. The disposition of “No alleged maltreatment” was added for FYY 2003. It primarily refers to children who receive an investigation or assessment because there is an allegation concerning a sibling or other child in the household, but not themselves, AND whom are not found to be a victim of maltreatment. It applies as a Maltreatment Disposition Level but not as a Report Disposition code because the Report Disposition cannot have this value (there must have been a child who was found to be one of the other values.) Starting with FFY 2003, the data year is the fiscal year. Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 21 Starting with FFY2004, the maltreatment levels for each child are used consistently to categorize children. While report dispositions are based on the field of report disposition in NCANDS, the dispositions for duplicate children and unique children are based on the maltreatment levels associated with each child. A child victim has at least one maltreatment level that is coded “substantiated,” “indicated,” or “alternative response victim.” A child classified as unsubstantiated has no maltreatment levels that are considered to be victim levels and at least one maltreatment level that is coded “unsubstantiated” or “unsubstantiated due to intentionally false reporting.” A child classified as “other” has no maltreatment levels that are considered to be victim levels and none that are considered to be unsubstantiated levels. If a child has no maltreatments in the record, and report has a victim disposition, the child is assigned to “other” disposition. If a child has no maltreatments in the record and the report has either an unsubstantiated disposition or an “other” disposition, the child is counted as having the same disposition as the report disposition. 1. The data element, “Total CA/N Reports Disposed,” is based on the reports received in the State that received a disposition in the reporting period under review. The number shown may include reports received during a previous year that received a disposition in the reporting year. Counts based on “reports,” “duplicated counts of children,” and “unique counts of children” are provided. 2. The duplicated count of children (report-child pairs) counts a child each time that (s)he was reported. The unique count of children counts a child only once during the reporting period, regardless of how many times the child was reported. 3. For the column labeled “Reports,” the data element, “Disposition of CA/N Reports,” is based on upon the highest disposition of any child who was the subject of an investigation in a particular report. For example, if a report investigated two children, and one child is found to be neglected and the other child found not to be maltreated, the report disposition will be substantiated (Group A). The disposition for each child is based on the specific finding related to the maltreatment(s). In other words, of the two children above, one is a victim and is counted under “substantiated” (Group A) and the other is not a victim and is counted under “unsubstantiated” (Group B). In determining the unique counts of children, the highest finding is given priority. If a child is found to be a victim in one report (Group A), but not a victim in a second report (Group B), the unique count of children includes the child only as a victim (Group A). The category of “other” (Group C) includes children whose report may have been “closed without a finding,” children for whom the allegation disposition is “unknown,” and other dispositions that a State is unable to code as substantiated, indicated, alternative response victim, or unsubstantiated. 4. The data element, “Child Cases Opened for Services,” is based on the number of victims (Group A) during the reporting period under review. “Opened for Services” refers to post-investigative services. The duplicated number counts each time a victim’s report is linked to on-going services; the unique number counts a victim only once regardless of the number of times services are linked to reports of substantiated maltreatment. 5. The data element, “Children Entering Care Based on CA/N Report,” is based on the number of victims (Group A) during the reporting period under review. The duplicated number counts each time a victim’s report is linked to a foster care removal date. The unique number counts a victim only once regardless of the number of removals that may be reported. 6. The data element “Child Fatalities” counts the number of children reported to NCANDS as having died as a result of child abuse and/or neglect. Depending upon State practice, this number may count only those children for whom a case record has been opened either prior to or after the Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 22 death, or may include a number of children whose deaths have been investigated as possibly related to child maltreatment. For example, some States include neglected-related deaths such as those caused by motor vehicle or boating accidents, house fires or access to firearms, under certain circumstances. The percentage is based on a count of unique victims of maltreatment for the reporting period. 7. The data element “Absence of Recurrence of Maltreatment” is defined as follows: Of all children who were victims of substantiated or indicated maltreatment allegation during the first 6 months of the reporting period, what percent were not victims of another substantiated or indicated maltreatment allegation within a 6-month period. This data element is used to determine the State’s substantial conformity with CFSR Safety Outcome #1 (“Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect”). 8. The data element “Absence of Child Abuse/or Neglect in Foster Care” is defined as follows: Of all children in foster care during the reporting period, what percent were not victims of substantiated or indicated maltreatment by foster parent of facility staff member. This data element is used to determine the State’s substantial conformity with CFSR Safety Outcome #1 (“Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect”). A child is counted as not having been maltreated in foster care if the perpetrator of the maltreatment was not identified as a foster parent or residential facility staff. Counts of children not maltreated in foster care are derived by subtracting NCANDS count of children maltreated by foster care providers from AFCARS count of children placed in foster care. The observation period for this measure is 12 months. The number of children not found to be maltreated in foster care and the percentage of all children in foster care are provided. 9. Median Time to Investigation in hours is computed from the Child File records using the Report Date and the Investigation Start Date (currently reported in the Child File in mmddyyyy format). The result is converted to hours by multiplying by 24. 10. Mean Time to investigation in hours is computed from the Child File records using the Report Date and the Investigation Start Date (currently reported in the Child File in mmddyyyy format). The result is converted to hours by multiplying by 24. Zero days difference (both dates are on the same day) is reported as “under 24 hours”, one day difference (investigation date is the next day after report date) is reported as “at least 24 hours, but less than 48 hours”, two days difference is reported as “at least 48 hours, but less than 72 hours”, etc. 11. Average response time in hours between maltreatment report and investigation is available through State NCANDS Agency or SDC File aggregate data. "Response time" is defined as the time from the receipt of a report to the time of the initial investigation or assessment. Note that many States calculate the initial investigation date as the first date of contact with the alleged victim, when this is appropriate, or with another person who can provide information essential to the disposition of the investigation or assessment. 12. The data element, “Children Maltreated by Parents while in Foster Care” is defined as follows: Of all children placed in foster care during the reporting period, what percent were victims of substantiated or indicated maltreatment by parent. This data element requires matching NCANDS and AFCARS records by AFCARS IDs. Only unique NCANDS children with substantiated or indicated maltreatments and perpetrator relationship “Parent” are selected for this match. NCANDS report date must fall within the removal period found in the matching AFCARS record. 13. The data element, “Recurrence of Maltreatment,” is defined as follows: Of all children associated with a “substantiated” or “indicated” finding of maltreatment during the first six months of the reporting period, what percentage had another “substantiated” or “indicated” finding of Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 23 maltreatment within a 6-month period. The number of victims during the first six-month period and the number of these victims who were recurrent victims within six months are provided. This data element was used to determine the State’s substantial conformity with Safety Outcome #1 for CFSR Round One. 14. The data element, “Incidence of Child Abuse and/or Neglect in Foster Care,” is defined as follows: Of all children who were served in foster care during the reporting period, what percentage were found to be victims of “substantiated” or “indicated” maltreatment. A child is counted as having been maltreated in foster care if the perpetrator of the maltreatment was identified as a foster parent or residential facility staff. Counts of children maltreated in foster care are derived from NCANDS, while counts of children placed in foster care are derived from AFCARS. The observation period for these measures is January-September because this is the reporting period that was jointly addressed by both NCANDS and AFCARS at the time when NCANDS reporting period was a calendar year. The number of children found to be maltreated in foster care and the percentage of all children in foster care are provided. This data element was used to determine the State’s substantial conformity with Safety Outcome #2 for CFSR Round One. Additional Footnotes A. Maine has been slowly shifting staff resources to CPS Assessment in order to increase the percentage of appropriate reports that receive a CPS response. There has been a decrease in the number of reports assigned for alternative response as a result of this shift. In addition, the number of appropriate CPS reports received has increased compared to last year. B. In FFY 2007, the State reported one fatality in the Agency File. C. The State has a known data quality issue with regard to perpetrator relationship. There is no hard edit that requires entering a relationship code for all participants on an assessment. This issue will be referred to the SACWIS system Manager. Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 24 POINT-IN-TIME PERMANENCY PROFILE Federal FY 2007ab # of Children I. Foster Care Population Flow Children in foster care on first day of year1 Admissions during year Discharges during year Children discharging from FC in fewer than 8 days (These cases are excluded from length of stay calculations in the composite measures) Children in care on last day of year Net change during year % of Children 2,062 835 929 5 0.5% of the discharges 1,968 -94 12-Month Period Ending 03/31/2008 (07B08A) # of Children % of Children 1,977 920 924 15 1.6% of the discharges 1,973 -4 Federal FY 2008ab # of Children % of Children 1,961 892 961 18 1.9% of the discharges 1,892 -69 II. Placement Types for Children in Care Pre-Adoptive Homes Foster Family Homes (Relative) Foster Family Homes (Non-Relative) Group Homes 131 358 911 280 6.7 18.2 46.3 14.2 125 421 956 262 6.3 21.3 48.5 13.3 118 456 878 239 6.2 24.1 46.4 12.6 Institutions Supervised Independent Living Runaway Trial Home Visit Missing Placement Information 47 18 26 123 74 2.4 0.9 1.3 6.3 3.8 56 13 19 99 22 2.8 0.7 1.0 5.0 1.1 39 10 10 134 8 2.1 0.5 0.5 7.1 0.4 Not Applicable (Placement in subsequent year) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 III. Permanency Goals for Children in Care Reunification Live with Other Relatives Adoption Long Term Foster Care Emancipation Guardianship Case Plan Goal Not Established Missing Goal Information 616 60 534 83 252 55 97 271 31.3 3.0 27.1 4.2 12.8 2.8 4.9 13.8 753 54 557 77 248 69 103 112 38.2 2.7 28.2 3.9 12.6 3.5 5.2 5.7 804 47 586 67 194 51 116 27 42.5 2.5 31.0 3.5 10.3 2.7 6.1 1.4 Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 25 POINT-IN-TIME PERMANENCY PROFILE Federal FY 2007ab 12-Month Period Ending 03/31/2008 (07B08A) # of Children % of Children # of Children IV. Number of Placement Settings in Current Episode One Two Three Four Five Six or more Missing placement settings V. Number of Removal Episodes One Two Three Four Five Six or more Missing removal episodes VI. Number of children in care 17 of the most recent 22 months2 (percent based on cases with sufficient information for computation) % of Children 655 446 255 127 103 381 1 33.3 22.7 13.0 6.5 5.2 19.4 0.1 702 413 264 149 89 356 0 1,687 230 38 9 4 0 0 85.7 11.7 1.9 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 321 37.5 VII. Median Length of Stay in Foster Care (of children in care on last day of FY) VIII. Length of Time to Achieve Perm. Goal 18.1 # of Children % of Children 35.6 20.9 13.4 7.6 4.5 18.0 0.0 680 399 245 134 100 324 10 35.9 21.1 12.9 7.1 5.3 17.1 0.5 1,684 243 31 11 4 0 0 85.4 12.3 1.6 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 1,634 223 26 7 2 0 0 86.4 11.8 1.4 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 298 34.0 270 32.1 15.6 Reunification Adoption Guardianship Other Missing Discharge Reason (footnote 3, page 16) 343 327 49 210 0 Total discharges (excluding those w/ problematic dates) 929 27.6 924 25.0 961 21.8 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 26 # of Children Discharged 15.6 Median Months to Discharge 12.4 35.2 29.4 57.8 -- Dates are problematic (footnote 4, page 16) # of Children Discharged Federal FY 2008ab # of Children Discharged 347 313 64 200 0 Median Months to Discharge 11.7 32.0 27.7 52.1 -- 391 312 64 194 0 Median Months to Discharge 12.0 29.6 22.0 53.0 -- Statewide Aggregate Data Used in Determining Substantial Conformity: Composites 1 through 4 Federal FY 2007ab 12-Month Period Ending 03/31/2008 (07B08A) IX. Permanency Composite 1: Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification [standard: 122.6 or higher]. Scaled Scores for this composite incorporate two components State Score = 100.6 State Score = 98.7 State Score = 97.8 National Ranking of State Composite Scores (see footnote A on page 12 for details) 40 of 47 40 of 47 40 of 47 58.3% 57.6% 55.3% Median = 10.4 months Median = 10.0 months Median = 10.4 months 29.1% 23.6% 22.3% 10.4% 12.0% 13.2% Component A: Timeliness of Reunification The timeliness component is composed of three timeliness individual measures. Measure C1 - 1: Exits to reunification in less than 12 months: Of all children discharged from foster care to reunification in the year shown, who had been in foster care for 8 days or longer, what percent was reunified in less than 12 months from the date of the latest removal from home? (Includes trial home visit adjustment) [national median = 69.9%, 75th percentile = 75.2%] Measure C1 - 2: Exits to reunification, median stay: Of all children discharged from foster care (FC) to reunification in the year shown, who had been in FC for 8 days or longer, what was the median length of stay (in months) from the date of the latest removal from home until the date of discharge to reunification? (This includes trial home visit adjustment) [national median = 6.5 months, 25th Percentile = 5.4 months (lower score is preferable in this measureB)] Measure C1 - 3: Entry cohort reunification in < 12 months: Of all children entering foster care (FC) for the first time in the 6 month period just prior to the year shown, and who remained in FC for 8 days or longer, what percent was discharged from FC to reunification in less than 12 months from the date of the latest removal from home? (Includes trial home visit adjustment) [national median = 39.4%, 75th Percentile = 48.4%] Component B: Permanency of Reunification The permanency component has one measure. Measure C1 - 4: Re-entries to foster care in less than 12 months: Of all children discharged from foster care (FC) to reunification in the 12-month period prior to the year shown, what percent re-entered FC in less than 12 months from the date of discharge? [national median = 15.0%, 25th Percentile = 9.9% (lower score is preferable in this measure)] Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 27 Federal 2008ab FY Federal FY 2007ab Maine CFSR Statewide Assessment March 2009 28 State Score = 97.6 State Score = 105.6 31 of 47 Component A: Timeliness of Adoptions of Children Discharged From Foster Care. There are two individual measures of this component. See below. Measure C2 - 1: Exits to adoption in less than 24 months: Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in the year shown, what percent was discharged in less than 24 months from the date of the latest removal from home? [national median = 26.8%, 75th Percentile = 36.6%] Measure C2 - 2: Exits to adoption, median length of stay: Of all children who were discharged from foster care (FC) to a finalized adoption in the year shown, what was the median length of stay in FC (in months) from the date of latest removal from home to the date of discharge to adoption? [national median = 32.4 months, 25th Percentile = 27.3 months(lower score is preferable in this measure)] Component B: Progress Toward Adoption for Children in Foster Care for 17 Months or Longer. There are two individual measures. See below. Measure C2 - 3: Children in care 17+ months, adopted by the end of the year: Of all children in foster care (FC) on the first day of the year shown who were in FC for 17 continuous months or longer (and who, by the last day of the year shown, were not discharged from FC with a discharge reason of live with relative, reunify, or guardianship), what percent was discharged from FC to a finalized adoption by the last day of the year shown? [national median = 20.2%, 75th Percentile = 22.7%] Measure C2 - 4: Children in care 17+ months achieving legal freedom within 6 months: Of all children in foster care (FC) on the first day of the year shown who were in FC for 17 continuous months or longer, and were not legally free for adoption prior to that day, what percent became legally free for adoption during the first 6 months of the year shown? Legally free means that there was a parental rights termination date reported to AFCARS for both mother and father. This calculation excludes children who, by the end of the first 6 months of the year shown had discharged from FC to "reunification," "live with relative," or "guardianship." [national median = 8.8%, 75th Percentile = 10.9%] Component C: Progress Towa