Common use of Permanency Clause in Contracts

Permanency. ‌ In order to achieve permanency for children in DHS’ custody, the department has implemented core permanency strategies for children with the goal of reunification; for children who are legally free with a goal of adoption but do not yet have a permanent family identified; for children who are legally free and have an identified permanent placement; and, for older legally free youth without an adoption goal at risk of aging out of ▇▇▇▇▇▇ care. For this report period, the Co- Neutrals find that DHS has made good faith efforts to achieve substantial and sustained progress toward the Target Outcomes for each of the ten permanency Metrics20. As discussed in greater detail below, for three of the permanency measures (6.2d, 6.3 and 6.7), DHS has achieved the Target Outcome for at least four consecutive report periods, and, for another two measures (6.1 younger cohort and 6.5), the department has made substantial progress and remains close to the Target Outcome. Similar to other performance areas noted in this Commentary, the Co-Neutrals have also informed DHS leadership that for several permanency measures (6.2a, b and c, 6.4 and 6.6), the department has either plateaued in its progress toward the Target Outcomes or has not made the level of progress expected at this stage in the reform. The Co-Neutrals will continue to report in this and future Commentaries the department’s efforts to assess current practice and adjust and expand upon its focus and strategies to achieve better outcomes in the permanency measures that are lagging in progress. The four 6.2 Metrics (a, b, c and d) measure DHS’ progress to achieve timely permanency for children who entered DHS’ custody at a designated time and who achieved permanency in 12, 24, 36 or 48 months from the child’s removal from their family. As detailed below, through this period, DHS remained focused on strengthening its efforts to achieve the individual permanency goal of each child by breaking through barriers, addressing deficiencies identified in case practice and establishing permanency for children as soon as possible after entering care. As previously reported by the Co-Neutrals, when the Target Outcomes for the 6.2 Metrics for timely permanency were established under the Pinnacle Plan in 2014, there were no similar national standards for these performance measures. DHS and the Co-Neutrals sought to establish progressive Target Outcomes for timely permanency that the department could strive to achieve for children in Oklahoma’s custody. Since that time, the Children’s Bureau, which is part of the United States Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for Children and Families, completed Child and Family Services Reviews to assess the performance of state child welfare agencies with respect to child safety and numerous other well-being outcomes for children in states’ custody, including timeliness to permanency. Based on the results of these reviews and other normalizing factors, the Children’s Bureau published national standards that predominantly reflect the average level of performance of all reporting states, including the 20 There were 11 permanency metrics originally established in the Metrics Plan, however, the measure that covers the older cohort of youth from the 6.1 metric is no longer reported as no children in this cohort remained in DHS custody as of the beginning of this report period. outcomes of the many states across the nation that struggle to achieve timely permanency. As such, the national standards do not represent what may be considered the reasonably optimal permanency outcomes for children and families, but they do offer a mean against which the federal government measures and establishes a minimum standard for each state’s performance. As shown in Table 13 below, the 6.2 Metric Target Outcomes established for DHS at the start of this reform are significantly higher compared to the equivalent federal standards for timely permanency. Timeliness to permanency within 24 to 36 months (6.2c) and within 36 to 48 months (6.2d) are combined into the federal measure of timeliness to permanency for any child in care for 24 months or longer. Federal Measure (Equivalent OK measure in parenthesis) Oklahoma Metric Target Outcome Oklahoma Performance Outcome this Period Federal CFSR National Standard Permanency within 12 months (6.2a) 55% 35.4% 40.5% Permanency within 12-23 months (6.2b) 75% 53.1% 43.6% Permanency for children in care 24 months or longer (6.2 c and d combined) 6.2c - 70% (24-35 months) 6.2d - 55% (36-48 months) 6.2c - 55.8% (24-35 months) 6.2d - 59.8% (36-48 months) 30.3% A review of DHS’ current permanency outcomes in the context of the current national average shows that DHS has made significant progress compared to states across the country and has exceeded the equivalent national standards for Metrics 6.2 b, c and d. However, DHS remains committed to achieve the Target Outcomes established for each of the 6.2 Metrics, and the Co- Neutrals evaluated DHS’ good faith efforts to achieve these specific Target Outcomes for the 6.2 metrics as described below.

Permanency. ‌ In order to achieve permanency for children in DHS’ custody, the department has implemented core permanency strategies for children with the goal of reunification; for children who are legally free with a goal of adoption but do not yet have a permanent family identified; for children who are legally free and have an identified permanent placement; and, for older legally free youth without an adoption goal at risk of aging out of ▇▇▇▇▇▇ care. For this report period, the Co- Neutrals find that DHS has made good faith efforts to achieve substantial and sustained progress toward the Target Outcomes for each nine of the ten permanency Metrics20. As discussed in greater detail belowMetrics.41 For one permanency Metric, for three 6.2a, which measures timeliness to permanency within 12 months of the permanency measures (6.2d, 6.3 and 6.7), DHS has achieved the Target Outcome for at least four consecutive report periods, and, for another two measures (6.1 younger cohort and 6.5), the department has made substantial progress and remains close to the Target Outcome. Similar to other performance areas noted in this Commentarya child entering care, the Co-Neutrals have also informed find, as explained further below, that DHS leadership that for several permanency measures (6.2a, b did not undertake good faith efforts to achieve substantial and c, 6.4 and 6.6), the department has either plateaued in its sustained progress toward a Target Outcome. For this period, DHS reported an outcome for permanency for children within 12 months that is below the Target Outcomes or has not made the level of progress expected at this stage baseline performance established in the reform. The Co-Neutrals will continue to report in this and future Commentaries the department’s efforts to assess current practice and adjust and expand upon its focus and strategies to achieve better outcomes in the permanency measures that are lagging in progress. 2013.42 The four 6.2 Metrics (a, b, c and d) measure DHS’ progress to achieve timely permanency for children who entered DHS’ custody at a designated time and who achieved permanency in 12, 24, 36 or 48 months from the child’s removal from their family. It is important to note that the permanency data outcomes reported for this period for the 6.2 Metrics extend only through March 2020. As detailed below, through this periodsuch, DHS remained focused has not identified any significant impact on strengthening its efforts to achieve the individual these permanency goal of each child by breaking through barriersoutcomes from COVID-19, addressing deficiencies identified which was declared a pandemic in case practice and establishing permanency for children as soon as possible after entering caremid-March 2020. As previously reported by the Co-Neutrals, when the Target Outcomes for the 6.2 Metrics for timely permanency were established under the Pinnacle Plan in 2014, there were no similar national standards for these performance measures. DHS and the Co-Neutrals sought to establish progressive Target Outcomes for timely permanency that the department could strive to achieve for children in Oklahoma’s custody. Since that time, the Children’s Bureau, which is part of the 41 There were 11 permanency metrics originally established in the Metrics Plan. However, the measure that covers the older cohort of youth from Metric 6.1 is no longer monitored and reported as no children in this cohort remained in DHS custody as of the beginning of this report period. 42 Metric 6.2a, for the current period, involves 2,017 children who entered ▇▇▇▇▇▇ care between October 1, 2018 and March 31, 2019, and measures the agency’s performance through March 31, 2020. All the children in the 6.2 Metrics for this period were removed from their families prior to the leadership of the current DHS director and the current child welfare director. United States Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for Children and Families, completed Child and Family Services Reviews to assess the performance of state child welfare agencies with respect to child safety and numerous other well-being outcomes for children in states’ custody, including timeliness to permanency. Based on the results of these reviews and other normalizing factors, the Children’s Bureau published national standards that predominantly reflect the average level of performance of all reporting states, including the 20 There were 11 permanency metrics originally established in the Metrics Plan, however, the measure that covers the older cohort of youth from the 6.1 metric is no longer reported as no children in this cohort remained in DHS custody as of the beginning of this report period. outcomes of the many states across the nation that struggle to achieve timely permanency. As such, the national standards do not represent what may be considered the reasonably optimal permanency outcomes for children and families, but they do offer a mean against which the federal government measures and establishes a minimum standard for each state’s performance. As shown in Table 13 16 below, the Metric 6.2 Metric Target Outcomes established for DHS at the start of this reform are significantly higher compared to the equivalent federal standards for timely permanency. Timeliness to permanency within 24 to 36 months (6.2c) and within 36 to 48 months (6.2d) are combined into the federal measure of timeliness to permanency for any child in care for 24 months or longer. Federal Measure (Equivalent OK measure in parenthesis) Oklahoma Metric Target Outcome Oklahoma Performance Outcome this Period Federal CFSR National Standard Permanency within 12 months (6.2a) 55% 35.434.8% 40.5% Permanency within 12-23 months (6.2b) 75% 53.1% 43.6% Permanency for children in care 24 months or longer (6.2 c and d combined) 6.2c - 70% (24-35 months) 6.2d - 55% (36-48 months) 6.2c - 55.8– 56.3% (24-35 months) 6.2d - 59.8– 51.0% (36-48 months) 30.3% A review of three of DHS’ current permanency outcomes in the context of the current national average standards shows that DHS has made significant progress compared to states across the country and has exceeded country, exceeding the equivalent national standards for Metrics 6.2 b, c and d. However, as noted in the comparison chart above, DHS remains committed to achieve below the national standard for permanency within 12 months, Metric 6.2a. The following summaries and tables detail the baseline, performance-to-date and Target Outcomes established Outcome for each of the 6.2 Metrics, and the Co- Neutrals evaluated DHS’ good faith efforts to achieve these specific Target Outcomes for the 6.2 metrics as described below.Metrics.43

Permanency. ‌ In order to achieve permanency for children in DHS’ custody, the department has implemented core permanency strategies for children with the goal of reunification; for children who are legally free with a goal of adoption but do not yet have a permanent family identified; for children who are legally free and have an identified permanent placement; and, for older legally free youth without an adoption goal at risk of aging out of ▇▇▇▇▇▇ care. For this report period, the Co- Neutrals find that DHS has made good faith efforts to achieve substantial and sustained progress toward the Target Outcomes for each of the ten permanency Metrics20. As discussed in greater detail below, for three of the permanency measures (6.2d, 6.3 and 6.7), DHS has achieved the Target Outcome for at least four consecutive report periods, and, for another two measures (6.1 younger cohort and 6.5), the department has made substantial progress and remains close to the Target Outcome. Similar to other performance areas noted in this Commentary, the Co-Neutrals have also informed DHS leadership that for several permanency measures (6.2a, b and c, 6.4 and 6.6), the department has either plateaued in its progress toward the Target Outcomes or has not made the level of progress expected at this stage in the reform. The Co-Neutrals will continue to report in this and future Commentaries the department’s efforts to assess current practice and adjust and expand upon its focus and strategies to achieve better outcomes in the permanency measures that are lagging in progress. The four 6.2 Metrics (a, b, c and d) measure DHS’ progress to achieve timely permanency for children who entered DHS’ custody at a designated time and who achieved permanency in 12, 24, 36 or 48 months from the child’s removal from their family. As detailed below, through this period, DHS remained focused on strengthening its efforts to achieve the individual permanency goal of each child by breaking in order to break through barriers, addressing address deficiencies identified in case 23 If a prospective kinship family has lived outside of Oklahoma within the past five years, DHS must request criminal and child welfare background checks from the out-of-state jurisdiction where the family previously resided before approving the placement, which can result in delays beyond the department’s control. practice and establishing establish permanency for children as soon as possible after entering care. As previously reported by For this report period, the Co-NeutralsNeutrals find that DHS has made good faith efforts to achieve substantial and sustained progress toward the Target Outcomes for each of the 6.2 Metrics. In early 2014, when the Target Outcomes for the 6.2 Metrics for timely permanency were established under the Pinnacle Plan in 2014Plan, there were no similar national standards for these performance measures. DHS and the Co-Neutrals sought to establish progressive Target Outcomes for timely permanency that the department could strive to achieve for children in Oklahoma’s custody. Since that time, the Children’s Bureau, which is part of the United States Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for Children and Families, completed Child and Family Services Reviews to assess the performance of state child welfare agencies with respect to child safety and numerous other well-being outcomes for children in states’ custody, including timeliness to permanency. Based on the results of these reviews and other normalizing factors, the Children’s Bureau published national standards that predominantly reflect the average level of performance of all reporting states, including the 20 There were 11 permanency metrics originally established in the Metrics Plan, however, the measure that covers the older cohort of youth from the 6.1 metric is no longer reported as no children in this cohort remained in DHS custody as of the beginning of this report period. outcomes of the many states across the nation that struggle to achieve timely permanency. As such, the national standards do not represent what may be considered the reasonably optimal permanency outcomes for children and families, but they do offer a mean against which the federal government measures and establishes a minimum standard for each state’s performance. As shown in Table 13 below, the 6.2 Metric Target Outcomes established for DHS at the start of this reform are significantly higher compared to the equivalent federal standards for timely permanency. Timeliness As noted in Table 13 below, timeliness to permanency within 24 to 36 months (6.2c) and within 36 to 48 months (6.2d6.2c) are combined into the federal measure of timeliness to permanency for any child in care for 24 months or longer. Federal Measure (Equivalent OK measure in parenthesis) Oklahoma Metric Target Outcome Oklahoma Performance Outcome this Period Federal CFSR National Standard Permanency within 12 months (6.2a) 55% 35.437.6% 40.5% Permanency within 12-23 months (6.2b) 75% 53.151.6% 43.6% Permanency for children kids in care 24 months or longer (6.2 c and d combined) 6.2c - 70% (24-35 months) 6.2d - 55% (36-48 months) 6.2c - 55.858.9% (24-35 months) 6.2d - 59.860.2% (36-48 months) 30.3% A review of DHS’ current permanency outcomes in the context of the current national average shows that DHS has made significant progress compared to states across the country and has exceeded the equivalent national standards for Metrics 6.2 b, c and d. However, DHS remains committed to achieve the Target Outcomes established for each of the 6.2 Metrics, and the Co- Neutrals evaluated DHS’ good faith efforts to achieve these specific Target Outcomes for the 6.2 metrics as described below.. The following summaries and tables detail the baseline, performance to date and Target Outcome for each of the 6.2 Metrics.24 24 For this report period, the Co-Neutrals counted in the 6.2 Metrics children who in their 12th month of care entered trial reunification as having achieved permanency. 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 28.9% 28.2% 27.2% 28.2% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% The vast majority of children who achieve permanency within 12 months of removal do so through reunification. This makes it critical for DHS to have in place a strong practice model to return children to their own homes as soon as safely possible in order to achieve substantial and sustained progress under Metric 6.2a, and also underscores the value of efforts made by DHS to have the first placement be a kinship placement, wherever appropriate and possible. Of the 792 children in the 6.2a cohort who achieved permanency this period, 597 (75 percent) were reunified, 89 (11 percent) were adopted, and 106 (13 percent) achieved permanency through guardianship or custody with a relative. As discussed in previous Commentaries, DHS has implemented Permanency Safety Consultations (PSCs) as the primary core strategy to achieve timely permanency for children with the goal of reunification. In addition, DHS has prioritized implementation of a more proactive and systematic practice to engage birth families early and often after a child is placed in DHS custody to secure more timely permanency for children with reunification goals. For children who have a permanency plan of adoption, DHS has implemented several strategies to finalize timely each ▇▇▇▇▇’s life-long connection with an adoptive family. These adoption strategies are described throughout the remainder of this permanency section. DHS has remained focused on building the quality and effectiveness of its PSC practice so that when a child’s permanency goal is to return to their own home, ongoing and timely safety assessments are conducted, and families are supported in their efforts to reunify with their children. PSCs are structured case conferences convened at regular intervals to assess through a team approach the viability of a child’s safe reunification with their family. PSCs are required for every child whose permanency plan is reunification. PSCs begin 90 days after a child’s removal from his or her birth family to identify and support opportunities for safe reunification as well as to address ongoing concerns preventing a child from returning to the parental home. At the conclusion of each PSC, the participating team records a recommendation of “safe” or “unsafe” to indicate if a pathway for safe reunification has or has not been identified. When reunification is determined to be possible, staff develop a plan of action to move the child timely back home with their family, with the supervisor and permanency worker completing a follow up case review every 30 days until the child is placed in trial reunification. For PSCs that conclude with an unsafe finding, subsequent PSCs are required at least every 90 days if reunification remains the child’s permanency goal. ▇▇▇ has trained select staff in every region to complete a fidelity review for every PSC convened to assess practice strengths and areas that require improvement. The department also assigned quality assurance staff to each region in order to better identify trends and more effectively use the PSCs to remediate any common barriers to permanency. To further support DHS’ quality assessments of the state’s PSC practice, the department reported the launch this period of a new electronic tracking system where all completed fidelity reviews are recorded and can be reviewed for statewide and local trends. To help district directors and supervisors remain on track in completing all required PSCs, DHS’ statewide PSC coordinator distributes monthly reports showing the children who are due or overdue for their next PSC. The monthly report also lists for each district all children who were identified more than 90 days previously as having a “safe” pathway to reunification but are not yet placed in trial reunification so that supervisors can review the factors that may be impeding their progress. DHS reported this period that it has begun to more thoroughly and systematically review the records for all children who recently entered DHS custody to identify any child who does not yet have a case plan goal recorded. The department recognizes the need to ensure the appropriate permanency goal is entered as a child could, in fact, have a goal of reunification and require a PSC despite their case record not yet indicating the same. Further, in May 2019 DHS launched new PSC online training, which all permanency planning staff were required to complete by August 30, 2019. DHS reported that 99 percent of required staff had either completed or started the training as of that date. The Co-Neutrals reviewed this PSC training and found that it clearly explains the process and purpose of PSCs and focuses on how to assess any ongoing safety threats that may remain as a barrier to reunification. DHS has established the expectation that permanency caseworkers, with the support of their supervisors, are prepared to present in each PSC a thorough and current understanding of any ongoing safety threats preventing reunification and to take the necessary follow up actions assigned to address those threats within the designated timeframes. As previously reported, the Co-Neutrals received feedback in discussions with permanency planning caseworkers and supervisors in the field that the PSCs also help prepare caseworkers to more thoroughly and clearly articulate to the court their safety assessments and recommendations for trial reunification, final reunification or continued out of home care. This is particularly important as DHS has found that efforts to move toward reunification after a safe finding by the department are sometimes met with legal challenges by the courts and, when this occurs, permanency can be delayed. This period, DHS’ PSC coordinator began to focus intensely on one region at a time to assess and provide guidance around the quality of the PSC practice, working in tandem with each region’s implementation of the advanced levels of Supervisory Framework training. This comprehensive training for supervisors is delivered on a rolling basis, also one region at a time, and is a part of DHS’ statewide improvement plan25 to enhance the skill set and level of guidance supervisors provide caseworkers to achieve safety, stability and permanency for children and families. Regions 1 and 3 implemented the supervisory training this period ending June 2019. Regions 5 and 2 are projected to follow next with training scheduled through the end of November 2019, and Region 4 supervisory training is planned for the beginning of 2020. Toward the end of the last period, DHS developed targeted plans in one district per region, with each plan designed to improve the quality of contacts between birth parents and their assigned permanency caseworker and visits between a child and their parents. More specifically, the plans focus on conducting regular and thorough assessments during visits to evaluate and support the birth parents’ protective capacities; engaging parents in developing their individual service plans toward reunification; proactively collaborating with the courts; and implementing accountability measures with supervisors reviewing permanency cases for each worker assigned to them and providing follow up coaching as needed. Expanded staff training and coaching was offered in these target districts, which includes the state’s two most populated counties: 25 DHS is currently implementing a federal Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) to improve safety, permanency and well-being outcomes for children, with the plan focusing largely on enhancing the quality of the coaching, support and supervision provided to frontline caseworkers. • Region 1 – District 4B – Canadian County • Region 2 – District 5 – Comanche County • Region 3 – District 7, 55B and 55H – Oklahoma County • Region 4 – District 19 – Atoka, ▇▇▇▇▇, Coal County • Region 5 – District 72G – Tulsa County In addition to the Supervisory Framework training, which also focuses on quality contacts with birth families, DHS reported that its permanency program leads are actively exploring new strategies to more effectively engage birth families toward reunification. Further, as described above in the placement stability section, DHS is working to strengthen its practice around Initial Meetings, which also focuses on ensuring that a schedule and plan for regular child-parent visits are established and supported. Before DHS can initiate trial reunification or advance from trial to final reunification, the department must receive court approval. As previously reported, the courts, at times, do not support DHS' recommendations to return a child to their birth parent’s home or even to allow birth parents visits with their children. DHS has identified the lack of the court’s support for trial or final reunification to be a recurrent barrier to timely permanency. As noted above, the department has used the PSC process to help staff better articulate the basis for their safety assessments and recommendations for reunification in order to ensure the courts are fully informed of the department’s efforts to ensure that reunification will be safe and in a child’s best interests. Further, DHS has implemented collaborative efforts with court administrators and judges, including Oklahoma’s Court Improvement Project (CIP), to strengthen relations and establish a shared understanding of a safety threshold for determining when reunification remains viable and is appropriate. Over the last two years, DHS and court partners in three jurisdictions (▇▇▇▇▇, Pottawatomie, and Canadian counties) implemented a pilot project to assess permanency data in those areas and improve exits to permanency within 12 months. Here, too, DHS reported that the focus was on increased parent engagement. The pilots were designed to: increase engagement from judges at the bench, such as praising parents for the progress they are making and encouraging them to complete treatment plans; reduce the time to appoint attorneys for parents; reduce time to adjudication and disposition hearings; and increase the number of combined adjudication/disposition hearings. DHS and judicial representatives from the three selected jurisdictions now present workshops to court partners from other areas on the work undertaken in the pilot sites. At the time of this report writing, DHS was in the process of analyzing data and the impact of the CIP pilot projects. DHS also reported efforts during this period to develop a training regarding court expectations for its child welfare field mangers, district directors, and supervisors to improve relationships and collaboration with judicial partners. A DHS-led focus group identified the following areas for the training: a format for consistent report writing and documentation; communication with court partners to build relationships and trust; roles/responsibilities of specialists, supervisors, and district directors when adverse rulings are made by the court that negatively impact permanency outcomes; and, etiquette in court. Further, to promote guardianship as a viable option to achieve permanency, particularly for children who are placed in kinship ▇▇▇▇▇▇ homes but are not legally free for adoption, DHS has developed a guide for its judicial partners on funding available to families who establish legal guardianship with a child in DHS custody. 80.0% 41.0% 38.8% 37.4% 38.6% 38.8% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% As shown in Table 14 below, reunification remains a constant, primary permanency outcome for children in the 6.2b cohort. Of the 776 children in this cohort who achieved permanency this period, 335 (43 percent) were reunified. DHS’ multipronged efforts, as outlined above, including strengthening the PSC practice in the field, supporting birth