Purpose
This assessment is designed to guide States, Territories and Tribes (STTs) in building a coordinated and integrated system of care to assist families and children and youth before and after they obtain permanency. The assessment highlights components needed for the development of an adaptive and coordinated system of resources, communication, civic engagement, and advocacy for the development of a meaningful permanency support and preservation program. STTs can use the assessment to assess their current system and determine where they can enhance their continuum of care through increased community engagement/partnership. The assessment consists of six components: Vision and Governance, Theory of Change and Ecosystem, The Importance of a Backbone Organization, Leveraging Community Assets, Parents as Civic Entrepreneurs, and Evaluation. A description of each of these components can be found by clicking on the linked headings in blue.
Click here to download the entire document: NRCA Readiness Assessment Tool
Click on here to bring up an electronic copy of the NRCA Assessment to Determine Form.
[su_accordion] [su_spoiler title=”Need for a Systems Approach”]
The NRCA Readiness Assessment Toolís emphasis on systems development and change is what sets the tool apart from scaling conventional post-permanency, service-delivery programs built on government dollars. Parsons (1997) identified three types of systemsóbureaucratic, professional, and communityóthat are all intertwined in the social systems of a community. ìCurrently, the balance tilts toward a combination of the bureaucratic and professional, creating an institutional focus,î (Parsons, 1997, p. 9). Although government, as led by the authorized child welfare agency, must be a critical sponsor of such a system, the communityís stakeholders must have a systematic plan to best support adoptive families within a systems approach. Given the unique and ever-growing dynamics of post-permanency activities, the tool focuses on shifting the balance toward a community-professional combination, grounded in the assets and desires of the community, and particularly by parents and youth themselves.
So why a new approach? Why not just scale services for post-permanency activities? Perhaps the biggest reason is due to the nature of current government funding structures. Unlike title IV-E foster care, title IV-E for adoption assistance does not have a corresponding program or administrative case management functions. According to the Congressional Research Service, nearly one-third of all title IV-E spending (state and federal) supports children in permanent adoption or guardianship placements. In FFY2011, more than 80% of the total spending for title IV-E adoption assistance ($4.0 billion) and title IV-E kinship guardianship assistance ($51 million) supported ongoing subsidies for eligible children (Stoltzfus, Child welfare: a detailed overview of program eligibility and funding for foster care, adoption assistance and kinship guardianship assistance under title IV-E of the social security act, 2012)). The subsidy amounts actually exceeded the maintenance portion of all foster care payments of over $2.4 million.
States do have federal dollars in the form of Title IV-B dollars, specifically Promoting Safe and Stable Families to support adoptive families. The statute includes four service categories that correspond to families at various levels of need (Stoltzfus, The promoting safe and stable families program: reauthorization in the 109th Congress, 2007):
- Family Support Services are intended to help families provide safe and nurturing environments for their children.
- Family Preservation Services are targeted to families in crisis and include placement prevention services, post-reunification services, respite care, parenting skills training and infant safe haven programs.
- Time-Limited Family Reunification Services help families that are seeking to address the conditions that led to removal of a child.
- Adoption Promotion and Support Services help families that are preparing to adopt or that have adopted a child from foster care.
Based upon the above authorization, states are required to comply with a 25% match and provide for no less than 20% of funds to be applied to each category. In the Adoption Promotion and Support Services category, there is no requirement as to the minimum or share that must be spent on post-adoption activities. In 2010, states were provided just over $341 million in PSSF funds compared to nearly $4.6 million in title IV-E payments for foster care.
In 2005, the share of funds available from PSSF for Adoption Promotion and Support Services was 19 percent, or $70 million (Casey Family Programs, 2011). Essentially, federal dollars available for post-adoption support has been, at the most anytime, 1.0% of the federal share of title IV-E foster care dollars and adoption subsidy support. Solely relying on federal dollars from title IV-E or IV-B for post-adoption supports will not suffice considering the current funding requirements.
Another contributing factor to a new approach is the extraordinary volume increase of children in subsidy arrangements. FFY2002 was a critical year as it was the first year that the nationís title IV-E monthly number of children receiving adoption assistance surpassed the number of children receiving foster care payments. Since then, the gap between adoption assistance and foster care has only widened. Since 2008, the number of children in adoption assistance has been more than double than those in foster care. The following chart illustrates the growing gap:
A common theme among all states that participated in the focus groups was the small number of paid staff dedicated to providing specific post permanency services or supports, even in those states with dedicated contracts for post-adoption supports. One of the states that participated in the focus groups had a healthy subsidy amount and more children in adoption assistance than foster care; however, the stateís adoptions administrator was the only paid professional who provides any type of navigation or services support to parents. In this state, support groups for parents were mainly offered through the foster adoptive association, and resource development was principally provided at the time of placement.
In North Dakota, a Post Adoption Service Task Force was created that developed a mission statement and guiding principles for such services in the state. Focus group members agreed that a perception of a lack of post-adoption services is a threat to recruitment. The Task Force recommended the concept of a North Dakota Post Adoption Center; with the target population of families who have adopted children with special needs from the stateís foster care system. The primary goal of the program would be to provide triage for adoptive families in crisis and post adoption support services to families who have adopted children with special needs. Ideally the Center would be administered through a licensed child-placing agency with experience in special needs adoption to facilitate the following:
- Information and referral through a toll-free phone number, web site and published materials
- Publish materials (cooperatively with the Department) regarding adoption process, and adoption supports in North Dakota.
- Facilitate support groups for adoptive parents and adopted youth (cooperatively with local foster adopt recruitment/ retention coalitions).
- Advanced training on special needs adoption for families.
- Training of mental health providers on special needs adoption.
- Crisis intervention, primarily through phone contact with families.
- Referral for on-going case management services, therapeutic services, mental health services (in-home and residential care) and respite care.
- Facilitating a mentorship program for adoptive parents.
All the services noted above would be provided to familiesí state wide, primarily through phone and other electronic means, for an estimated cost of less than $100,000 during the first year.
Stephen Goldsmith, a former chair of the Corporation for National Community Services (CNCS) notes in his book, The Power of Social Innovation: How Civic Entrepreneurs Ignite Community Network for Good ñ that we clearly need new methods to provide support for families and communities on social challenges. NRCA cautions against dedicated funding for post permanency services that is overly prescriptive unless it is integrated with mental health and educational systems and leverages other multiple levels of funding for children and youth. When funds are spent just to deliver services, their impact is limited to the people who receive those services. However, when funds are also devoted to systems change, their impact can extend beyond a single service, thereby impacting the well-being of youth and stability of adoptive families on a long-term basis. Significant benefits and supports can be created without government controlling both the decision-making, coordinating, and funding of supports. As the focus group participants clearly noted, there is not one size that fits all when developing post-permanency systems that support families.
The current dynamics of federal funding compounded with the growing numbers of children in subsidized assistance agreements, makes a new approach not only ideal but also a necessity. This system development must be based on ìsystems changeîóa shift in the way that a community makes decisions about policies, programs, and the allocation of its resourcesóand, ultimately, in the way it delivers services to its citizens. To undertake systems change, a community must build collaborative bridges among multiple agencies, community members, and other stakeholders (Foster-Fishman, Van Egeren, & Yang, 2005).
Top-down service delivery models must be supported with bottom-up civic and parent engagement. Adoptive parents and guardians in particular have unique gifts to share, not just for their children, but also for the broader community. The best and most creative post-permanency programs are aware of these assets and provide opportunities for them to be leveraged. Making creative connections and building innovative relationships is the heart and soul for any community (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993).
As Goldsmith (2010) noted, ìTransformative social progress today is held back more by precedent and existing structures and processes than by resource limitations or a lack of the publicís interestî (p. 3)
This system approach recognizes components that interact with one another to function as a whole (Foster-Fishman, Van Egeren, & Yang, 2005).
Systems change takes place in multiple dimensions that are inter-connected; change in one supports change in all the others. Supporting an evolving and organic ecosystem of post-permanency activities must move include more than simply advocating for more government-funded services. Systems change may involve the following:
- Shifting system components and/or their sequence.
- Shifting interactions between system components.
- Altering the ìwhole Aî through shifts in underlying choices.
- Shifting the manner in which the system provides feedback to itself.
The development of this systems approach must be appropriately balanced among government, professional, and community components. As with most social services, greater emphasis on community development and parent engagement strategies is imperative in leveraging both formal and informal supports. These approaches must be resourced in a planned manner. Adoptive parents and guardians cannot be simply viewed as traditional consumers of services and supports. Rather, they should be seen as parents who must be engaged as leaders, identified as community connectors, and empowered to design creative solutions. Adoptive parents should be viewed as ìcivic entrepreneursîóthose who can shift the power dynamic and make real change possible on an individual and community level (Goldsmith, 2010). System development for post-permanency services must be seen through an asset-based community development approachófocusing first on the gifts of individual adoptive parents/guardians, followed by inclusion of informal associations, and finally coordination with formal institutions. Ultimately, such processes must be nurtured in a network approach that implements activities into impactful outcomes for children and families.
[/su_spoiler][/su_accordion]
[su_accordion] [su_spoiler title=”Post Adoption Community Assessment Diagram”]
The following post-adoption ecosystem has been adapted by the Asset Based Community Development Institute (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993).
[/su_spoiler][/su_accordion]
[su_accordion] [su_spoiler title=”Directions for the Tool”]
STTs should review the six components on the tool to answer “yes” or “no” next to each factor. After reviewing all of the factors under a component, the STT should assess whether they believe the overall component has been met. If it has been met, mark “yes” for completed. If not, then the STT should assess whether they believe the STT is currently working toward meeting this component and is on track. The tool should help a STT to assess their overall progress in effectively using the community to create a robust post adoption program
Click on here to bring up an electronic copy of the NRCA Assessment to Determine Form.
[/su_spoiler][/su_accordion]
Tinukoy at hinirang ng public-private partnership ang magkakaibang grupo ng mga indibidwal na sumang-ayon na maging miyembro ng steering committee na tumutulong na mamuno, mag-coordinate, bumuo, at magsama ng mga suporta at aktibidad pagkatapos ng pagiging permanente sa isang itinalagang komunidad.
[table id=1 /]
[table id=7 /]
B. Teorya ng Pagbabago at Ecosystem
Ang ahensya ng kapakanan ng bata ng estado o county ay pinahintulutan na mag-institutionalize ng public-private partnership para sa mga layunin ng pagbuo ng isang malawak na ecosystem ng mga patakaran, aktibidad, serbisyo, at suporta pagkatapos ng pagiging permanente. Ang partnership ay susuportahan ng isang ìsteering committeeî bilang lugar para sa pagpaplano at pagbuo ng ìteorya ng pagbabagoî sa isang postpermancy system.
[table id=2 /]
[table id=7 /]
C. Ang Kahalagahan ng isang Backbone Organization
Ang sistema ng gawain sa pangangalaga ng Steering Committee ay susuportahan at ipapatupad ng isang Backbone Organization na mangunguna sa mga pagsisikap sa koordinasyon, pagpaplano ng mga estratehiya, pagsubaybay sa mga gawain, pagpopondo/fiduciary at pakikipagtalastasan at mga aktibidad.
[table id=3 /]
[table id=7 /]
D. Paggamit ng Mga Asset ng Komunidad
Ang Komite ng Tagapamahala ay bumuo at tumukoy ng mga aktibidad at hanay ng serbisyo na pinamumunuan ng komunidad na magagamit nang walang bayad o nominal na bayad sa mga adoptive na magulang/tagapag-alaga.
[table id=4 /]
[table id=7 /]
E. Mga Magulang bilang Civic Entrepreneur
Tinitiyak ng Steering Committee na ang mga adoptive na magulang/tagapag-alaga ay nakikibahagi bilang mga civic entrepreneur para sa mga layunin ng pagdidisenyo ng patakaran, pagbuo ng mga solusyon, pagbibigay ng suporta sa peer at pagsasanay, at paggamit ng mga ugnayan at asset ng komunidad. Ang mga magulang ay may lehitimong boses sa child welfare system, na makakapagbigay ng feedback at patnubay sa mga patakaran at programa na direktang tumutugon sa mga isyu sa pag-aampon/pag-alaga.
[table id=5 /]
[table id=7 /]
F. Pagsusuri
Ang Steering Committee ay bumuo ng isang ìlogic modelî na nagmamapa ng mga input, aktibidad, output, at panandalian at pangmatagalang resulta na nasusukat sa paglipas ng panahon. Tinitiyak ng Komite ang pagsubaybay at pagsusuri ng mga output at resulta kabilang ang pagtatasa ng epekto sa pamamagitan ng pagsusuri sa Return on Investment.
[table id=6 /]
[table id=7 /]
[su_divider top=”hindi”]
[su_spoiler title=”Bibliography”]Andrea A. Anderson, P. (nd). Ang diskarte ng tagabuo ng komunidad sa teorya ng pagbabago: isang praktikal na gabay sa pag-unlad ng teorya. New York: Ang Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change.
Opisina ng Gabinete ng Ikatlong Sektor. (2009). Social return on investment – para sa social investing: kung paano magagamit ng mga investor ang SROI para makamit ang mas magagandang resulta. Opisina ng Gabinete ng Ikatlong Sektor .
Campos, M., Gowdy, H., Hildebrand, A., & LaPiana, D. (2009). Convergence: kung paano muling bubuo ng limang trend ang sektor ng lipunan. San Francisco: Ang James Irvine Foundation.
Mga Programa ng Pamilya ni Casey. (2011, Mayo). Ang Programang Pagsusulong ng Ligtas at Matatag na Pamilya. Nakuha noong 11 26, 2013, mula sa www.casey.org: http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/pdf/SafeandStableFamilies.pdf
Foster-Fishman, P., Van Egeren, L., & Yang, H. (2005). Paggamit ng diskarte sa pagbabago ng mga sistema upang suriin ang mga komprehensibong hakbangin sa pagbabago ng komunidad. Toronto, Canada: WK Kellogg Foundation.
FSG Social Impact Consultant. (2013, Marso). Nangunguna sa pagiging kumplikado. Nakuha noong Nobyembre 28, 2013, mula sa www.fsg.org: http://www.fsg.org/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/PDF/Leading_in_Complexity.pdf
Goldsmith, S. (2010). Ang kapangyarihan ng social innovatoin: kung paano pinasisigla ng mga civic entrepreneur ang mga network ng komunidad para sa kabutihan. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kretzmann, J., & McKnight, J. (1993). Pagbuo ng mga komunidad mula sa loob palabas: isang landas patungo sa paghahanap at pagpapakilos ng mga ari-arian ng isang komunidad. Evanston: Asset-Based Community Development Institute.
Martin, E., Kania, J., Merchant, K., & Turner, S. (2012). Pag-unawa sa halaga ng mga backbone na organisasyon sa kolektibong epekto. Pagsusuri ng Stanford Social Innovation.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Muling pag-imbento ng gobyerno: kung paano binabago ng diwa ng entrepreneurial ang pampublikong sektor. Lungsod ng New York: Grupo ng Penguin.
Parsons, B. (1997). Paggamit ng diskarte sa pagbabago ng mga sistema sa pagbuo ng mga komunidad. Boulder: InSites.
Smith, S. (2010). Pagtupad sa pangako: ang kritikal na pangangailangan para sa mga serbisyo pagkatapos ng pag-aampon upang magtagumpay ang mga bata at pamilya. Perspektibo sa Patakaran at Practice, Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute.
Stoltzfus, E. (2007). Ang pagtataguyod ng ligtas at matatag na programa ng pamilya: muling awtorisasyon sa 109th Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Stoltzfus, E. (2012). Child welfare: isang detalyadong pangkalahatang-ideya ng pagiging karapat-dapat sa programa at pagpopondo para sa foster care, tulong sa pag-aampon at tulong sa pangangalaga sa pagkakamag-anak sa ilalim ng pamagat IV-E ng social security act. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Services.
WK Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Patnubay sa pagbuo ng modelo ng lohika. Battle Creek: WK Kellogg Foundation.[/su_spoiler]