Developing Cross-Systems Training Plans - Paltech || Planning and

							The Family Wellness Court
 for Infants and Toddlers
             Cynthia Ambar, MPA
               Project Director
  Santa Clara County Social Services Agency
              NCCAN, April 2009
           FWC Overview
 An expansion and enhancement of
  existing child welfare dependency
  drug court with a child focus
 Target population: Pregnant women
  and parents, with children 0 to 3,
  whose abuse of methamphetamine
  and other substances have placed
  their children in or at risk of out-of-
  home placement.
     Primary FWC Goals (1)
 Early  identification of and
  intervention for the needs of
  pregnant women and parents with
  substance use disorders.
 Rapid engagement and successful
  retention in treatment and care
 Reduction in subsequent positive tox
  births
        Primary FWC Goals (2)
   Early identification and intervention for
    developmental delays, disabilities and
    concerns for children 0-3 whose parents
    come before the FWC
   Creation of a comprehensive System of
    Care across all systems serving children in
    or at risk of out-of-home placement as a
    result of parents’ methamphetamine and
    other substance abuse
       FWC Eligibility Criteria
   The parent has given birth to an infant
    that has been exposed to
    methamphetamine or other substance
    abuse during the pregnancy; OR
   The parent has a child under the age of
    three that was either born drug exposed
    or has been raised in a substance abuse
    afflicted environment with documented
    abuse and/or neglect; AND
   The parent does not demonstrate
    intractable mental health issues as
    presented in the filed petition; AND
   The parent is not likely to face long term
    incarceration
FWC Customer Characteristics
 “Fast-track” cases
 History of child welfare system
  involvement as children
 Prior cases in CWS, many with prior
  termination of parental rights
 Extensive trauma history
 Extremely low income
 Homeless or living in substandard
  housing
 Methamphetamine primary drug of
  choice
    FWC Service Providers (1)
   A Juvenile Dependency Ct Judge
   A Superior Court Resource Coord
   A substance abuse assessor from
    the Department of Alcohol and Drug
    Services
   The Social Worker assigned to case
   Attorneys and paralegals from the
    law offices that represent parents
   Attorneys from the law office that
    represents children
   FWC Service Providers (2)
 One attorney from the law office that
  represents social workers (County
  Counsel)
 Four Mentor Mothers and One Mentor
  Father
 A Domestic Violence Specialist
 A FIRST 5 Santa Clara County
  Program Specialist
 FIRST 5 home visitors (Friends
  Outside and Public Health Nursing)
    FWC Service Providers (3)
   One or more representatives from
    the Child Advocate program (CASA)
   A Courtroom Clerk
   An Early Childhood Mental Health
    Specialist
   A Mental Health Therapist for
    Parents
   A Social Worker Court Liaison
   An Eligibility Worker
         FWC Services (1)
   Therapeutic court environment
   Legal representation
   Early drug and alcohol assessment
    and treatment
   Mentor Parent support from
    successful graduates of the
    Dependency Drug Treatment Court.
   Domestic violence advocacy and
    services
   Transportation assistance
         FWC Services (2)
   Limited funding to assist with
    barriers to case plan completion
   Linkages to employment and
    benefits services
   Therapeutic services
   Pregnancy prevention education
   Comprehensive developmental and
    behavioral screening, assessment
    and interventions for all children
   Child appointed special advocates
    (CASA’s) for many children
         FWC Services (3)
   Linkage to health coverage and
    primary care physicians
   Access to a wide array of parenting
    workshops
   Home visitation
   Early care and education services
   Oral health care for children and
    some limited dental services for
    adults
       Duration of Services
 Services   initiated at dependency
  hearing
 Services continue until child welfare
  case closed
 Aftercare program in development,
  Path IV, continued mentor
  involvement, recovery mentors,
  stepped down recovery support,
  alumni events, continuation of CASA
  services
         FWC Process (1)
Petition Filed with Juvenile Court
 All 0-3 cases with substance
  involvement scheduled in to
  presiding judge’s court
 FWC Judge, Mentor Program
  Coordinator and Court Resource
  Coordinator determine if case meets
  criteria at calendar call
 If both parents or sole parent that
  attends the hearing is in custody, MH
  issues are identified or if parent’s
  location is unknown, case is added
  once further information is obtained
         FWC Process (2)
At the Detention Hearing
 If parent(s) attend hearing, family is
  added to FWC.
 Parents assigned mentors
 Consent forms signed
 Team notified and services begin
 Attempt AOD assessment day of
  hearing; however, many parents are
  overwhelmed and the assessment
  may occur several days later
         FWC Process (3)
At the Jurisdictional Hearing:
 If a parent(s) attend the hearing and
  submits to Juris a Family Team
  Meeting is scheduled
 If Juris is not submitted to, then the
  case is sent for
  mediation. Depending on the
  outcome of the mediation and the
  facts of the case, the case will either
  be set for a Family Team Meeting or
  initial staffing with the FWC team.
        FWC Process (4)
At the Disposition Hearing:
 If the disposition recommendations
  are adopted, an FWC orientation
  date is given to the parents
 The court process and expectations
  are reviewed at the orientation
 The first FWC hearing is set
        FWC Hearings (1)
 Hearings  may occur weekly, twice a
  month or once monthly depending
  on parent progress
 Staffings are held with the court
  team prior to the hearing to discuss
  case progress, concerns and develop
  joint recommendations
 Incentives or Sanctions may be given
        FWC Hearings (2)
 Strength-based   therapeutic court
  environment
 Parents are given positive feedback
  on progress and areas of non-
  compliance are addressed
 Providers problem solve with client to
  identify and address needs
          FWC Hearings (3)
 “When I went to court, I always had
 a voice. I didn’t just sit and get
 talked about, I wasn’t just talked
 about from different views. I actually
 was given a choice, ‘Do you have
 any concerns? Anything that you
 need?’ I was given a chance, so I
 should to speak up and not be over
 looked and talked about among
 everybody.”
           FWC Hearings (4)
   “What was beneficial for me was the
    encouragement that they [FWC] give you.
    They give you so much encouragement
    and acknowledge every good thing you
    do. I got teary eyed every time they
    would acknowledge me for all the good
    that I’ve done, you know, the hard work. I
    overcame the hard stuff in my life. Now
    it’s getting easier and easier. They
    acknowledge every single thing, too. And
    that’s what makes me want to go on
    more. It encouraged me to do good
    things, because I’m getting acknowledged
    by these people in the court.”
     Family Team Meetings
 Purpose  is to develop the child
  welfare case plan in a strength-based
  environment with input from family
  and friends, SW and FWC Team
 Scheduled between jurisdiction and
  disposition hearings
 Ultimate goals are to enable children
  to remain at home with extra
  support and to give the family an
  active role in developing their case
  plan
          Engaging Fathers
 Equal  focus on parents
 Court environment

 Men’s treatment counselors

 Mentor Father

 Male THU in which fathers and their
  children can remain together
        Working with Trauma
 FWC  values statement includes
  trauma-informed system
 Commitments by Partner Agencies

 Provider education

 System assessment and modification

 Trauma specific services-DADS
  seeking safety, Mental Health trauma
  based cognitive behavioral therapy
    Non-Categorical Funding
 Flexible funds designed to address
  barriers to recovery or case plan
  compliance
 Purchased items may include
  assistance with housing, utilities,
  medical issues, transportation, self-
  sufficiency, etc.
 Any team member may make a
  request. Funds approved by Judge
  and by Project Director if exceed pre-
  set limits
         FWC Funding (1)
 Awarded   $3.7 million over five years
 $6.3 million total with First 5 match
 Grant funds Project Director,
  mentors, AOD assessor and
  counselor, mental health child
  specialist, court coordinator and
  training, onsite drug monitoring,
  short-term strategic planning and
  evaluation
 Evaluation >10% of project budget
        FWC Funding (2)
 Enhanced   model required an
  additional annual contribution of
  more than $500,000 for direct client
  services, many provided by one-time
  funding
 Additional positions include parent
  therapist, mentor father, part-time
  psychiatrist, men’s treatment
  counselors and eligibility worker
          Sustainability (1)
   Inventory existing funding streams
   Identify gaps in funding or capacity
    issues in the service array
   Identifying opportunities for
    systems integration/coordination,
    maximization of current leverage
    funding streams, and identification
    of funding steams that could be
    easily accessed to maintain the
    existing program
         Sustainability (2)
 Identifying  potential long term
  means to fund the program such as
  legislative initiatives, grant
  applications and seeking
  philanthropic support
 Ensuring families are linked to all
  benefits for which they qualify, in
  particular CalWORKS
 Cost analysis to demonstrate long-
  term cost savings
          Outcome Measures
   Child/Youth
    – Connection to services
    – Permanency (reunification, length of
      time in foster care, timeliness of
      permanency)
    – Safety (recurrence of maltreatment,
      reentry into care)
    – Well-being (improvement in socio-
      emotional, behavioral, developmental
      and/or cognitive functioning)
      Outcome Measures (2)
 Adult/Family
  – Treatment (length of time to
    assessment, length to treatment,
    treatment outcomes)
  – Aftercare linkages
  – Increased capacity to provide for
    children’s needs (employment,
    parenting skills, reduction in risk
    factors)
  – Family functioning
  – Criminal behavior
     Outcome Measures (3)
 Service Capacity
  –Interagency collaboration
  –Comprehensive training
  –Cross-systems information sharing
  –Increased case monitoring
  –Treatment capacity
 Collaborative Capacity Instrument
    Primary Keys to Success
 Commitment     at highest agency
  administrative levels
 Shared values

 Passion and commitment of involved
  staff
 Comprehensive service model

 Service model that evolves as
  additional client needs are identified
        Primary Challenges
 Sustainability  of enhanced model in
  an environment of budget cuts
 Multiple and complex needs of
  clients, in particular housing and
  self-sufficiency
 Information sharing and data
  collection without a centralized
  database
 Assessor funding years 3-5
           Traditional Courts vs.
          Problem-Solving Courts
Individuals representing         Court team working together
entities within the system to    to achieve the goal
achieve the goal
Adversarial                      Non-adversarial

Goal = “Legal Justice”           Goal = Restore client as a
                                 productive, member of society
Court has limited role in        Court plays integral role in
supervision of client            monitoring client progress in
                                 treatment
Treatment programs of            Individualized, but intensive
variable lengths and intensity   and structured, treatment
                                 programs
Relapse-Issues addressed         Graduated sanctions imposed
after client fails and           in response to non-
punishment is enhanced           compliance
Why Problem Solving Courts Work
 Best for Child Welfare Clients
 Proven  success, with cost-savings
  related to improved outcomes
 Blends dual goals of child safety and
  recovery
 Provide accountability and service
  coordination for clients with single
  vs. multiple case plans
 Designed to address multiple and
  complex needs
 Opportunity to model nurturing and
  support
Why Problem Solving Courts Work
 Best for Child Welfare Clients
 Multiple expectations in short
  timelines
 Less traumatic
 Strength-based
 Parent is a partner
 Gives families back their power and
  uses their own innate wisdom and
  understanding of their family
  situation to create more effective
  solutions
Why Problem Solving Courts Work
   “What was beneficial for me was the
    encouragement that they [FWC] give you.
    They give you so much encouragement
    and acknowledge every good thing you
    do. I got teary eyed every time they
    would acknowledge me for all the good
    that I’ve done, you know, the hard work. I
    overcame the hard stuff in my life. Now
    it’s getting easier and easier. They
    acknowledge every single thing, too. And
    that’s what makes me want to go on
    more. It encouraged me to do good
    things, because I’m getting acknowledged
    by these people in the court.”
           Questions???
       Ambar, Project Director
 Cindie
 (408) 491-6797

 Cynthia.Ambar@ssa.sccgov.org