Commission on Children in Foster CareMarch 10, 2014Washington State Supreme Court Commission on Children in Foster Care Members present: Justice Bobbe Bridge (ret.), Washington State Supreme Court, Commission Co-Chair (by conference call) Members not present: Ms. Beth Canfield; Ms. Chorisia Folkman; Representative Ruth Kagi; Representative Mary Helen Roberts; Senator Steve O’Ban Guests: Ms. Cindy Bricker, Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC); Mr. John Morse and Ms. Megan Walton, Amara; Ms. Laurie Lippold, Partners for Our Children; Ms. Katie Kaiser, College Success Foundation; Ms. Catherine Pickard, Washington State Center for Court Research; Mr. Jim Theofelis, The Mockingbird Society Staff present: Ms. Jessica Birklid, CCFC Intern, Center for Children & Youth Justice (CCYJ) Staff not present: Mr. Michael Curtis, Executive Director Call to Order Justice Bridge called the meeting to order. Welcome and Introductions Asst. Secretary Strus welcomed Commission members and guests, and everyone introduced themselves. Approval of December 17, 2013 Meeting Minutes Asst. Secretary Strus presented the meeting minutes from September 16, 2013. Motion to approve the minutes as written was made by Judge Kitty-Ann van Doorninck. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mike Canfield. The September 16, 2013, minutes were unanimously approved without changes. DSHS/Children’s Administration Updates Family Assessment Response (FAR) Program Asst. Secretary Strus reported that Family Assessment Response (FAR) has been rolled out in three offices: Aberdeen, Lynnwood, and two zipcodes in Spokane. The Children’s Administration (CA) is tracking FAR intakes in each of these offices with their new intake assessment tool, which was initiated in October. With this tool, even if an office does not have FAR, they can do a “mock referral” so CA can track potential FAR intakes across the state. It was originally predicted that they would have 60-65 percent of referrals going to FAR, which is holding true. CA has more intakes going to a 24 hour initial face to face than predicted. Perhaps because the new intake tool is more accurate than the old one. Anecdotally, social workers like FAR because it helps them feel they are doing more social work. Families seem to be receptive and are more likely to accept CA’s offer of assistance than they are under CPS investigations. Six more offices will be rolled out in July. Asst. Secretary Strus said there are some difficulties with legislators who anticipate an immediate drop in foster care rates. Other states that implemented differential response have found it takes three to five years to see an impact in the foster care system. Performance Based Contracts Asst. Secretary Strus discussed the Request for Interest (RFI) in Spokane and seven surrounding counties for HB 2264, Performance Based Contracting (PBC), the successor to HB 2106. HB 2264 is on a shorter time frame and is not as intense as Request for Proposals (RFPs). The deadline for counties to submit whether or not they are interested is March 26, 2014. The RFI has broad parameters about what the legislature requires and what CA would like to see without being overly prescriptive. Respondents will present CA with ideas of what will work and how best to accomplish it. Empire Health Foundation (EHF) has pulled together a consortium that includes Children’s Home Society, the Lutheran Family Services, and some out of state agencies as well. The question is whether they will stay together to submit a letter of interest. Asst. Secretary Strus said the executive director of EHF, Antony Chiang, is positive the consortium will stay together. She says EHF has some interesting ideas and is looking in ways that CA has historically not. CA will not award a contract from an RFI, but it helps collect good ideas which can be converted to an RFP. Family Court Project Mr. John Morse and Ms. Megan Walton introduced Amara’s project intended to explore ways in which the judiciary can produce better outcomes for children and families. Ms. Walton reported that Amara had a small house party where Justice Bridge discussed other states’ unified family courts or independent family courts. In December, Amara hosted a panel presentation about creating special family courts in Washington. Justice Bridge and Asst. Secretary Strus presented. There is still a lot of work needed to research practices in other states and how judges are involved. If outcomes for children and families are better, Amara plans to survey judges and others who interact with the system across the state to assess the biggest challenges. They will then select one or two top challenges to address. Ms. Walton said that Amara wants to bring people together around the conversation of a unified family court and hired an independent researcher to research this topic. They are hosting two events, one in Spokane on April 25, 2014, and one on May 21, 2014, in Seattle, to discuss this topic with the public and gather more information. Ms. Walton said they are here today to discuss next steps and gather any advice or insight the Commission can offer. Mr. Jim Bamberger asked what Amara is looking to accomplish and hopes to realize. Ms. Walton said at the very beginning it was an attractive idea to people frustrated by court processes in dependency and family law matters. Amara hired an independent researcher to assist with an in-depth analysis on the current challenges to the judicial system today that serves children and families. One challenge is that unified family court is a term that has no standard meaning. What is called unified family court, consolidated court, or family court across the country looks very different in each location. Justice Bridge discussed common elements across these courts. These courts take on at least all or some portion of family law cases, child welfare cases, and juvenile justice cases. There is usually one judge or a team of judicial officers that preside over a particular family and covers all their cases, also known as “one judge, one family”. There is either a permanent or long term assignment for a judge to the family court. Judges may be directly elected or appointed to a court that exclusively does juvenile or family law matters but there is always some long term commitment. Judges who serve in these assignments have special training before and during their time in these courts on issues that are non-legal but are frequently encountered in these courts, such as child development or the cycles of domestic violence. Justice Bridge said it may be that when the research is complete other core components will be identified, such as judicial leadership in community and judges becoming advocates for resources. The idea is to drill down to see what we know and where courts are, and align that to inform conversations with judges across the state. Justice Bridge hopes that foster and birth families and youth will also be involved. Mr. Bamberger asked if this conversation will include the possibility of changing the nature of the judicial relationship and creating a new type of judicial officer that plays a facilitator role in achieving effective results. Justice Bridge said everything is on the table right now. Justice Bridge hopes that the Commission will hear reports on a regular basis on what has been learned, what has yet to be learned, and get their reactions. This can be done both at regular meetings and in the interim. Ms. Carrie Wayno said it is not clear why the focus is on the judicial system versus other parts of child welfare system which also have needs and limited resources. Justice Bridge replied that this is not just about child welfare but also about family law and juvenile justice cases which often involve the same family. We need to determine what is best for the state of Washington and then how to apply the needed resources. Ms. Wayno said there are significant differences in local practice and some courts have had successful reforms. She is worried that this new idea might wash away this good work in an effort to make courts consistent across the board. Justice Bridge said the hope is that these good practices are replicated. Ms. Wayno said the Attorney General’s Office recommends the implementation of best practices in whatever way each local court can manage to do in order to give courts some local control. Justice Bridge said if something really is best practice it should be available to all kids, regardless of where they live. Mr. Ryan Murrey would like to see a comprehensive approach where the courts work with CA instead of focusing on one separate piece of the system at a time. Justice Bridge said focus on one system does not mean exclusion of others. Good practice is about being multidisciplinary. Dr. Ken Emmil said there are pros and cons to both local control and centralized control but we should expand the dialogue to talk about when is appropriate to implement best practices across the board and when is it appropriate to have local level control over practices. Asst. Secretary Strus is concerned that things may be ordered that are expensive, forcing CA to cut from somewhere else to pay for them. Asst. Secretary Strus said Amara should interview CA social workers to get their opinions about the court system. The group discussed next steps on the family court project. Ms. Walton said they will complete the research, the survey of judges, and the two events. The research is due April 15, 2014 and will include as much as they can get done in that time. What the final product will look like will be informed by research results. Ms. Walton and Mr. Morse will report at the next meeting on May 12, 2014. Washington Tribal-State Judicial Consortium Ms. Cindy Bricker reported that a couple years ago Justice Madsen requested the Gender and Justice Commission, the Minority and Justice Commission, and the CCFC work together on convening a tribal consortium to discuss areas where tribal and state courts overlap. The first meeting with tribal and state court judges was held in September 2013, and attendees discussed ongoing efforts of relationship building between the two courts. They discussed issues such as truancy, domestic violence, sharing background checks for foster parents, resources for families and dependent youth, and child support agreements. There was an interest by attendees in formally starting the consortium. Their next steps were to develop ideas around creating and running the consortium equitably and selecting members. Ms. Bricker asked the Commission how they would like to get involved, what specific issues they would like addressed by the Consortium, and how often they would like to be updated. Justice Bridge shared that as the Tribal-State Consortium was getting underway they came to CCFC, the Gender and Justice Commission and Minority and Justice Commission and asked if they could run things by the groups and get advice when relevant issues arose. Mr. Bamberger thinks it is important for the Commission to have an intentional relationship with the Consortium, either through a formal liaison to the Consortium or through regular updates. Asst. Secretary Strus said CA is updating their memorandum of agreement with all federally recognized tribes to specify their duties and CA’s responsibilities in a case involving a tribal child. Ms. Wayno offered the Attorney General’s Office’s input on the Consortium’s draft resource guide they are developing and would be willing to share feedback with this Commission. The group discussed Ms. Chorisia Folkman’s potential role in this, as she is the Commission’s tribal representative. Ms. Wayno said Ms. Folkman is in a new position where she is no longer working for the tribe. Justice Bridge said we should inquire from her and from Northwest Intertribal Council whether it is still an acceptable role for Ms. Folkman. The Commission would like regular updates but the question remains whether the group wants to send a liaison to the Consortium. Ms. Bricker said that because the Consortium covers a broad range of issues, there may be a subcommittee on child welfare issues. She will report in May where the subcommittee stands and the group will then discuss whether to send a formal liaison. Legislative Update Ms. Laurie Lippold, Partners for Our Children, discussed a number of child welfare legislative items that have been addressed this legislative session. An update of legislation as of March 10, 2014, includes:
CSEC and Improving Outcomes for Foster Youth Federal Legislative Update Justice Bridge updated the group about three pieces of federal legislation pertaining to child welfare and the intersection with child sex trafficking.
Justice Bridge says that Rep. Reichert believes something will pass in this Congress. Asst. Secretary Strus asked about specific funding streams. S.1518 is specific about funding levels and where funding comes from but HR. 4058 does not explicitly discuss this. Asst. Secretary Strus is concerned because S. 1518 siphons off money from the Social Security Block Grant, one of the most flexible funding sources for CA. Workgroup/Oversight Reports Normalcy Workgroup Ms. Jeannie Kee asked Asst. Secretary Strus CA’s position on including the “Myth Buster” document presented on the September 16, 2013. Asst. Secretary Strus said she did not know and would find out from Peggy Lewis. Ms. Kee said the group is hoping to create recommendations of guidelines around the prudent parent standard and the group continues to think of ways to create normalcy recommendations for the extended foster care population. The group is currently working on creating a tool for social workers to use at the 30-day health and safety visits to check for normalcy. WA-QIC Update Ms. Hathaway Burden provided a WA-QIC update. Most of the project’s recent work focused on the changes in King County, where on July 1, 2013, all public defense attorneys became King County employees. King County is discussing consolidating agencies into fewer divisions, but this should not be an issue during the study which wraps up next spring. The concern is that the treatment and control groups could end up in the same division. Half of the agency attorneys were receiving incentive payments for being compliant with data collection. Now that they are county employees, King County decided that none of the participating attorneys can keep the money for themselves. The money is earmarked however, to provide a two-day retreat next spring for training. The project is in the process of contacting attorneys and asking them to continue participating regardless of whether they get monetary compensation. Ms. Burden reported they had a positive response as many of the attorneys knew this was going to happen. Ms. Burden said she hopes to report at the next CCFC meeting a plan for training control attorneys once the study ends. The evaluation is expected to be done around summer of 2015, a few months after data collection wraps up. WA-QIC is looking at outcome differences between attorneys complying with best practice training recommendations and attorneys who are not. There will be no specific evaluation of the effects of attorneys versus no attorneys, although researchers will outline administrative data to study these differences. Old Business Gender and Justice/CCFC Joint Project Proposal Ms. Jessica Birklid reminded members of a joint project with the Gender and Justice Commission, per the request of Chief Justice Barbara Madsen. Previously the project proposals were related to domestic violence and the child welfare system, but due to the momentum from the federal legislation, Justice Bridge would like to focus on the intersection of child sex trafficking and the foster care system. Ms. Birklid shared a project proposal for the Commission, along with the Gender and Justice Commission and with funding support from the American Bar Association, to sponsor a judicial training to help judges better respond to children before them who have been victims of child sex trafficking or are at risk of it. Potential training topics are shown in the Sex Trafficking Training Outline Examples handout. In order to receive ABA funding, the training needs to be completed by August 31, 2014. Ms. Birklid asked the Commission if they would be interested in this project, what feedback or questions they might have, and what content or expertise they thought was missing from the training outline. This same proposal will be given to the Gender and Justice Commission at their March 14, 2014, meeting. Asst. Secretary Strus asked what the training hopes to accomplish. Ms. Birklid replied that this training is intended to raise awareness and provide a broad overview for judges on the topic of child sex trafficking. Asst. Secretary Strus says that focusing on child sex trafficking is not what the child welfare system was designed to do. She says that Washington statistics show that not very many foster children are victims of sex trafficking. Asst. Secretary Strus does not like the idea of putting these children into the child welfare system. Mr. Ryan Murrey asked what the Washington State data is. Asst. Secretary Strus said CA data shows that there are very few children in the child welfare system who are trafficked. She agreed to send this data out to members. Ms. Hathaway Burden said that Terri Kimball at CCYJ works on a sex trafficking in Washington project and likely has more information and could shine some light on these Washington specific numbers. Judge Kitty-Ann van Doorninck asked if Ms. Kimball could present at the May meeting. Presentation on Family Time/Visitation Guidelines Ms. Birklid reminded members that at the September 16, 2013 meeting, they received a copy of the Family Time and Visitation Guidelines document from Ms. Kelly Warner-King. The workgroup received the Commission’s recommendations and is in the process of looking for funding to pilot the guidelines in one county through a partnership with CA. They would look for community based resources so that additional visitation resources would be available so that a judge could order it without it being an extra resource CA needs to cover. Judge Kitty-Ann van Doorninck said that Pierce County is working locally to try to identify these partners as well. Creating a Foster Care Transitions Workgroup There is no need to take any action at this time. New Business Members and guests discussed some upcoming events that might be of interest to other members.
Next Meetings The next meeting is on May 12, 2014, at the Temple of Justice, Chief Justice’s Reception Room. The Foster Youth and Alumni Leadership Summit is scheduled for July 1-2, 2014, at Seattle University. The Commission meeting will take place on July 2 from 1:00pm-3:00pm. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Jessica Birklid, CCYJ |
Privacy and Disclaimer Notices Sitemap
© Copyright 2025. Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts.
S5