10^th Annual Title IV-E Child Welfare Roundtable

The 10th annual Title IV-E Child Welfare Roundtable was held June 1-2 at the T Bar M Ranch in New Braunfels, Texas. More than 140 participants from every state in Federal Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas) attended the two-day conference to foster Title IV-E funded Agency/Texas State University-San Marcos collaborations. Such collaborations prepare social work students for public child welfare practice in the federal region. Participants explored topics including national, regional, and state perspectives on child welfare, collaborative training models and regional Title IV-E program evaluation results.

Approximately 35 Roundtable participants first met in June of 1997 at the Aquarena Springs conference center. The Agency/University collaborations participating in the Roundtable provide stipends for students, funds for curriculum innovations and salaries for staff. Current Title IV-E students and IV-E alumni were featured in the program as panel members and presenters. The Roundtable participants celebrated 10 years of cooperative work across the federal region and honoring the Title IV-E alumni--qualified and dedicated public child welfare practitioners.

Curriculum Focus Group

Mary Mulvaney & Annette Hodges-Brothers

What’s New?

• New changes in training in CPS; 12 weeks total – Core & Specialty

• Core test at 5 weeks
• 7 weeks investigation specialty
• 8 weeks FBSS/CVS

• Licensing Exam Prep Needed
• BSD Training
  • Arkansas

• 1 year training
• 10 week class
• OJT
• Selected training
• On-line activities (PIP & other trainings)

• University on-line training
• TX (CPS) moving toward on-line training because of training costs and travel and allows break from job and networking activities
• State school requirements: 120-128 hours
• Loss of 2-3 classes – e-learning to support loss
• Pressure to graduate in four years
• Young (need maturity in field)
• New Mexico State (4 weeks Core training)
• Oklahoma
  • No work until degree completed
  • New worker training – counted toward IV-E training. Is this a conflict for stipend student? (Double dip IV-E?) Is BSD funded by IV-E?
  • Must rely on Fed representative to ensure double dip does not occur
  • Hope for stronger FBSS/CVS
  • How much APS content in curriculum? Usually can show in current curriculum; but may need to infuse APS in curriculum. CSWE push for gerontology – audits to check content of CPS/APS. How much duplication in Core training and agency training?

• Arkansas

• University does all agency training
• 5 site in Arkansas with 1 hour travel time for agency staff
• 30% of staff have BSW
• tailored development classes toward child/abuse
• Block vs. concurrent placement

What’s Needed?

• Dealing with court system and legal issues – continuing ed.
• How to prepare supervisors to received social work students
• DSM training at BSW level – introduce how to read psych eval – identify diagnoses
• Psychotropic medications
• Boundaries – Friends, Self-Assessment, Self-Care Plan
• Ethics
• Cultural Competency
• Work Place trauma – secondary trauma – compassion fatigue
• Worker safety
• Why not work with perpetrators?
• Work with involuntary clients – what is involuntary?
• How to engage clients – finding strengths?
• Interviewing skills – role playing
• Liability: students’ liability; insurance early as junior, not just at practicum
• Drama dept.: provide feedback
• Effective use of supervision, collaboration – for supervisors who are so valued by workers
• Realistic job preview – 2 cases as practicum, then employed at CPS with 60+ cases
• Training for supervisors to work with BSW and MSW students

What’s Next?

• Duplication – find out if duplicating of services is occurring
• Legal – who is right person to teach and how to get that expertise (judges, university law professors) to partner with agency to help get this skill/expertise to our students
• By-In for agency to train non-social work supervisors

Employment and Retention Committee Presentation

Pat Nayle & Brian Brumley

A development group was formed to develop a method to track Title IV-E stipends

What’s New?

• The statewide DFPS tracking system of the Title IV-E stipends was developed and implemented within the agency
• A handout was passed out that showed a sample of information included in database
• Stipend data is entered by the contract managers
• Information included in database:
  • Stipend data of participants: name, social security number, contact information, university attended, classification (BSW or MSW), employment status at initial stipend, anticipated and actual graduation date
  • Stipend per academic unit
• Payback information:
  • If not hired, reason why, payback start date (for students date of hire – for current employees day after graduation date); payback method (employment, monetary, or employment and monetary; number of scheduled payments (if paying back monetarily))
• Monetary payment:
  • Authorization schedule is included in database where amount of stipend awarded is entered and system will figure repayment schedule. This is always in real time.
  • Contract staff can pull up information on a university by entering a university code or information for all universities can be pulled up

What’s Needed?

• A way to capture separation date for accuracy and effectiveness (at this time contract manager enters data when it is known)
• A way to track retention since this system does not include retention after payback. In order to do long range planning it would be good to know how long stipend recipients stay after payback. We want to know the % of stipend recipients that make a career in child welfare
• Access to information on database for universities (Working on allowing a “read-only” access option for university staff to get info for their universities)
• Criteria for student eligibility

Other Discussion

• “Hire Ahead Units” – The agency has 60 days within graduation to bring people in. If a position is not available, individuals are hired in generic positions and moved to a position when available. This unit helps with units that are overwhelmed with cases. This unit was developed because of high turnover. (At this time there is a freeze on hiring for this unit).
• Concern about individuals not passing initial test to receive stipends. One person reported that 2/3 of their students did not pass assessment exam.
• Concern about not having enough IV-E appropriate positions for payback. CPS contracts and Hiring Specialists are provided list of IV-E allowable vacancies.

What’s Next?

• Employment criteria – such as driving record requirements, central registry and criminal background checks
• “Read only” access for universities
• Expand database to capture retention data and payback data to include by 1) employment, 2) monetary, and 3) combination of employment and monetary
• Retention definitions
  • Desirable: completed payback by employment
  • Acceptable: by money or employment/money
  • Optimal: 2 years (+) employment post payback
• Submit to CPS Program
  

Field Focus Group

Melody Loya

What’s New?

• ABLE & PAN Pre-employment testing
• Concern about pass rates – some universities feel that too high of a % of their prospective stipend students aren’t passing

What’s Needed?

• All of above re: ABLE and PAN
• Melody Loya agreed to try to gather some of the info discussed and disseminate it to the universities.

What’s Next?

• Question raised about licensure
• There is concern that social work students/graduates don’t pursue licensure because it isn’t valued by CPS. Therefore there is a diminishing effect on the profession overall.
• Does this devalue the degree and the profession?
• In Texas, you cannot call yourself a social worker unless licensed, so there may be some cases of misuse of the title.
• Discussion
  • Recommending incentive for licensing
  • New Mexico ties the stipend agreement to licensure
  • Tabled for now
• Questions raised by several regions about timeline for processing student applicants – a checklist for the process with estimated times of completion (suggestion for future stipend recipients)
• Items for follow up:
  • Info about PAN and ABLE (Melody)
  • Continue discussion about licensure at a later date
• Anna Rae Rozell has agreed to be a co-chair
• Mark Sandel also offered to be a co-chair
  

The Impact of Title IV-E Training On Case Outcomes: A Preliminary Report of the Evaluation Focus Group

Patrick Leung & Donn Baumann

Current Research Studies on Title IV-E

Impacts of Title IV-E Training

• Other studies have shown that stipend program graduates are more prepared to enter the field of child welfare (S. Clark, 2003; Fox, Miller, & Barbee, 2003).
• Have better retention rates (Brown, Chavkin, & Peterson, 2002; Dickinson & Perry, 2002; Jones, 2002; Robin & Hollister, 2002; Rosenthal, McDowell, & White, 1998; Scannapieco & Connell-Carrick, 2003).
• More confident in their abilities (Gansle & Ellett, 2002).
• More competent in terms of their child welfare knowledge, skills, coping, and assertiveness (Brown, et al., 2002; Ellett & Gansle, 1998; Gansle & Ellett, 2002; Jones & Okamura, 2000; Scannapieco & Connell-Carrick, 2003).
• Have a higher level of intent to remain employed in child welfare (Ellett, Ellett, & Rugutt, 2003).
• Title IV-E training has been associated with longevity of employment
• Approximately 70% of IV-E participants remained employed with their agencies after their repayment obligation (Scannapieco & Connell-Carrick, 2003).
• Title IV-E programs have been suggested as being essential to the re-professionalization of child welfare practice (Ellett, Hopps, & Millar, 2001).
• Compared to Bachelor of Art degreed workers, workers with Bachelor of Social Work degrees were:
  • Less likely to leave CPS
  • More educationally prepared to handle their job
  • More perceived respect from co-workers
• Compared to workers with only Bachelor degrees, workers with Masters degrees in social work were:
  • Employed longer at CPS
  • More likely to advance to higher positions
  • Less likely to leave
  • More satisfied with their jobs

This indicates the effectiveness of higher education in social work.

Currently

• No publications examining the case outcomes of IV-E stipend recipients
• As discussions of possibly converting IV-E funding to block grants continue in Congress ( see E.J. Clark, 2003), it is imperative that partnership programs are able to demonstrate that continued federal support is justified in terms of effective outcomes in the lives of children.
• The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) testified before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the House Committee on Ways and Means regarding the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program
• Key recommendation include (Nadelhaft, 2006):
  • Conduct research to inform and improve service outcomes
  • Provide professional development preparation and ongoing training opportunities for frontline social workers and administrators
  • Offer employment incentives, such as student loan forgiveness and pay increases
  • Recruit more workers of color and ensure culturally competent training programs
  • Establish a national caseload size

Methodology

• Part A: State Case Outcomes
  • Examine existing administrative data to determine how case outcomes are affected by Title IV-E training
• Part B: CPS Worker Survey
  • Investigate characteristics of individual CPS workers
• Method: Part A
  • Examine existing administrative data to determine if the professional social work education provided by Title IV-E stipends leads to better case outcomes as defined by the Child and Family Services Review which includes:

• Recurrence of child maltreatment
• Foster care re-entries
• Incidence on child abuse and/or neglect in foster care
• Stability of foster care placement
• Length of time to achieve reunification
• Length of time to achieve adoption

Six Hypotheses

• The number of children that were victims of substantiated or indicated maltreatment that had another incident within six months was significantly lower for Title IV-E workers than non Title IV-E workers
• The number of children that re-entered foster care within 12 months of their previous episode was significantly lower for Title IV-E workers than non Title IV-E workers
• The number of children that suffered abuse and/or neglect while in foster care was significantly lower for Title IV-E workers than non Title IV-E workers
• The number of children that had no more than two placements during a 12 month period was significantly higher for Title IV-E workers than non Title IV-E workers.
• The number of children reunified within 12 months of entering foster care was significantly higher for Title IV-E workers than non Title IV-E workers
• The number of children in which reunification was not an option that exited foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 24 months of entering foster care, was significantly higher for Title IV-E workers than non Title IV-E workers

Method: Part A

• Six outcome measures were made available by DFPS through six computer datasets.
• A seventh dataset, the “primary file”, containing about 4.9 million transactions from Sept. 2003 to Oct. 2005, provided by DFPS that included a composite overview of each CPS worker which included:
  • Name of worker
  • Identification family case number
  • Identification stage number
  • Child stage number
  • Stage type
  • Date that the stage started
  • Date the stage closed
  • Date the case was assigned
  • Date that the case was unassigned
• Four of the six datasets did not include information such as worker name or identification number
• The primary file was merged with them to supply worker names
• A comprehensive list of Title IV-E graduates was compiled from lists provided by all of the schools in Texas (N=13) that participate in the Title IV-E funding
• The names on the primary list were coded
  • 1=Title IV-E graduate, 0=non Title IV-E graduate

Title IV-E School Names

• Lamar University
• Stephen F. Austin University
• Texas A&M – Commerce
• Texas A&M International – Laredo
• Texas A&M – Kingsville
• Texas State University - San Marcos
  
• Texas Women’s University
• University of Houston
• University of North Texas
• University of Texas – Arlington
• University of Texas – Austin
• University of Texas – Pan American
• West Texas A&M University

Method: Part A continued

• This comprehensive list was merged with the “Primary file” to identify the Title IV-E status of the worker
• Multiple workers were assigned to the same child in a given period of time, the investigators selected the worker who had the longest length of time to be the primary worker for the analysis
• In the case if two workers had the same length of time (number of days) working with the child, the latest worker assigned to the child was selected for the analysis
• As a result, the “Primary file” was reduced to about 1.8 million unduplicated interventions (or stage number).

Descriptions of the Six Remaining Databases

• Method: Part A (1st dataset)

• For recurrence of child maltreatment
• A child that experienced more than one substantiated or indicated maltreatment report within six months
• Variables in the dataset included:
  • The family case identification number
  • Child identification number
  • Stage designation, the status of the case, i.e. investigation, substitute care, family based services
  • Date the stage started
  • The worker’s identification number
  • Worker name
  • An outcome variable
  • 1=recurrence of maltreatment, 0=no recurrence of maltreatment
• This dataset provided the name of the worker responsible for the investigation on the previous report
• These names were matched with the “Primary file” to determine if worker was a Title IV-E stipend worker

• Method: Part A (2nd dataset)

• For foster care re-entries
• A child that reentered foster care within 12 months of a discharge from a prior foster care episode
• Variables included:
  • Child identification number
  • Family case number
  • Stage identification number
  • Time load (date that data was entered)
  • The stage type
  • Removal date for reentry
  • Original removal date
  • Discharge date for the original episode
  • An outcome variable
  • 1=reentry within 12 months of a discharge, 0= no reentry within 12 months
  • This dataset provided stage identification number which was merged with information from the “Primary file” to determine if the worker was a Title IV-E stipend worker

• Method: Part A (3rd dataset)

• Incidence of child abuse and/or neglect in foster care
• A child that had been abused and/or neglected in a foster home or facility
• Variables included:
  • A child identification number
  • A family case identification number
  • An intake identification number
  • An investigation identification number
  • A licensing investigation number
  • A licensing investigation start date
  • The licensing investigation end date
  • An outcome variable
• The stage identification number was merged with the “Primary file” to determine who was responsible for the child when the abuse and/or neglect occurred and if the worker was a Title IV-E stipend worker

• Method: Part A (4th dataset)

• Stability of foster care placement
• A child that had no more than two placements during a 12 month period
• Variables in the dataset included:
  • A child identification number
  • A stage identification number
  • A timeload variable
  • The worker identification number
  • The worker name
  • The number of placements
  • An outcome variable
  • 1=more than two placements, 0=two or less placements
• The name of the worker was merged with the “Primary file” to determine if the worker was a Title IV-E stipend worker

• Method: Part A (5th dataset)

• Length of time to achieve reunification
• A child that was reunified with his/her family in less than 12 months of being placed in foster care
• Variables in the dataset included:
  • A child identification number
  • A stage identification number
  • The start date
  • The discharge date
  • An outcome variable
  • 1=reunified with family in less than 12 months, 0=not reunified in less than 12 months
• This stage identification number was used to merge with the “Primary file” to determine if the worker was a Title IV-E stipend worker

• Method: Part A (6th dataset)

• Length of time to achieve adoption
• When reunification was not an option, a child exited foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 24 months of being placed in foster care
• Variables in the dataset included:
  • A child identification number
  • A stage identification number
  • Adoption date
  • An outcome variable
  • 1=adoption less than 24 months of being placed in foster care; 0= adoption more than or equal to 24 months of being placed in foster care
• This file was merged with the primary file to determine worker status name by stage identification number and Title IV-E status

Method: Part B

• Expanding the evaluation survey conducted by the Texas Title IV-E Evaluation Committee in 2003 on all state CPS workers in Texas
• Certain demographic characteristics have been associated with worker retention in child welfare, (start of child welfare employment at an older age, previous work in human services) (Rosenthal, McDowell, & White, 1998).
• Measures will include demographic data, previous professional experience, and job satisfaction
• These data will be linked with the above outcome data to determine what additional personal and professional characteristics contribute to optimal case outcomes

Instrument: Evaluation of Title IV-E Training Program

Findings

Hypothesis 1: The number of children that were victims of substantiated or indicated maltreatment that had another incident within six months was significantly lower for Title IV-E workers that non Title IV-E workers

• Two-way contingency table analysis was conducted to evaluate if Title IV-E workers had less instances of recurrence of maltreatment reports within sex months
• The two variables were:
  • Workers with two levels (Title IV-E and non Title IV-E)
  • Recurrence of maltreatment (maltreatment and no maltreatment)
• The cases assigned to Title IV-E workers (6.6%) had lower incidences of maltreatment within six months than non Title IV-E workers (7.1%)
• Data indicated that 93.4% of the children that were assigned to Title IV-E workers were not maltreated as opposed to 92.9% assigned to non Title IV-E workers
• However, worker and recurrence of maltreatment were found to be not significantly related, Pearson X² (1,N=73312)=(2.394, p=.122)(see Table 1)

Hypothesis 2: The number of children that reentered foster care within 12 months of their previous episode was significantly lower for Title IV-E workers than non Title IV-E workers.

• Two-way contingency table analysis will be conducted to evaluate if Title IV-E workers had less foster care reentries within 12 months of a discharge
• The two variables were
  • Workers with two levels (Title IV-E and non Title IV-E)
  • Reentry into foster care with two levels (reentry and no reentry)
• The investigators are still waiting for the reliability and validity check of the data
• Results will be reported in a final report

Hypothesis 3: The number of children that suffered abuse and/or neglect while in foster care was significantly lower for Title IV-E workers than for non Title IV-E workers

• Consisted of data about incidence of child abuse and/or neglect in foster care which was operationally defined as a child that had been abused and or/neglected in a foster home or facility
• The investigators are still checking on the reliability and validity of the dataset
• Results will be reported in the final report

Hypothesis 4: The number of children that had no more than two placements during a 12 month period was significantly higher for Title IV-E workers than non Title IV-E workers

• Two-way contingency table analysis was conducted to evaluate if Title IV-E workers had more stable placements
• The two variables were:
  • Worker with two levels (Title IV-E and non Title IV-E)
  • Stability (stability – no more than two placements during a 12 month period; and no stability – more than three placements during a 12 month period)
• About 83% of children assigned to Title IV-E workers had no more than two placements during a 12 month period while 81% of children assigned to non Title IV-E had no more than two placements
• About 17% of children assigned to Title IV-E workers had three or more placements during a 12 month period whereas almost 19% of children assigned to non Title IV-E workers had three or more placements
• Worker and stability were found to be significantly related, Pearson X² (1, N=37122) =6.532, p=.011 (See table 2).

Hypothesis 5: The number of children reunified within 12 months of entering foster care was significantly higher for Title IV-E workers than non Title IV-E workers.

• Two-way contingency table analysis was conducted to evaluate if Title IV-E workers had more reunifications within 12 months
• The two variables were:
  • Worker with two levels (Title IV-E and non Title IV-E)
  • Reunification (reunification and no reunification)
• Title IV-E workers had more reunifications within 12 months than non Title IV-E workers, 70.4% and 63.9% respectively (Table 3).
• About 30% of the children assigned to Title IV-E workers were not reunited within 12 months as opposed to about 36% of children than were assigned to non Title IV-E workers
• Worker and reunification within 12 months were found to be significantly related, Pearson X² (1, N = 7926) = 17.073, p = .000

Hypothesis 6: The number of children in which reunification was not an option that exited foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 24 months of entering foster care, was significantly higher for Title IV-E workers than non Title IV-E workers

• Two-way contingency table analysis was conducted to evaluate if Title IV-E workers had more finalized adoptions in less than 24 months
• The two variables were:
  • Workers (Title IV-E and non Title IV-E)
  • Adoption (adoption, no adoption)
• Title IV-E workers had more finalized adoptions than non Title IV-E workers, 58.6% and 52.3% respectively
• About 48% of the children assigned to non Title IV-E workers were without finalized adoptions as opposed to only 41% for Title IV-E workers
  
• Worker and adoption were found to be significantly related, Pearson X² (1, N = 5659) = 7.179 (See Table 4).

Discussion and Conclusions

• The data appear to support the fact that of all children who were victims of substantiated or indicated maltreatment, the number of children who had another incident within six months was lower for Title IV-E than non Title IV-E workers.
• Children who were assigned to Title IV-E workers had significantly less number of placements during a 12 month period than those assigned to non Title IV-E workers
• The number of children who were reunified with their families in less than twelve months was significantly higher for Title IV-E workers than non Title IV-E workers
• For cases in which reunification was not an option, the number of children that exited foster are to a finalized adoption in less than 24 months of being placed in foster care was higher for Title IV-E workers than non Title IV-E workers
• The preliminary findings suggest that Title IV-E training has had a significant impact on at least four of the six case outcomes as defined by the Child and Family Services Review.

Please send all your comments and questions on the evaluation committee’s work to Dr. Patrick Leung via e-mail at pleung@uh.edu