The document provides information about upcoming webinars on leveraging the Strengthening Families Act and court oversight of its provisions. It discusses requirements for court oversight of normalcy and youth engagement under the Act. It also provides examples of practices implemented in Nebraska, Missouri, and Tennessee to promote oversight of normalcy and youth engagement in reviews. These include judicial training in Nebraska, a CASA fostering futures training curriculum in Missouri, and the use of foster care review boards in Tennessee that employ peer advocates.

2. 1
• Monday, March 28, 2016
• Thursday, May 26, 2016
• Tuesday, July 26, 2016
• Thursday, Sept. 29, 2016
All times are 2 p.m. – 3 p.m. EST
Upcoming Webinar Series Dates:
Leveraging the Strengthening Families Act

3. 2
• If you experience technical difficulties during this
webinar, visit www.aecf.org/webex for guidance. If
you still have trouble, notify us using the chat or
Q&A window, or contact WebEx technical support
at 1-866-229-3239.
• If you do not see the Q&A window, make sure the
Q&A icon at the top of that column is blue (see
image to left; icon circled in red). If it is not blue,
click the icon, and the window should appear.
• You can type questions for presenters in the Q&A
window at any time during the webinar.
• The webinar is being recorded and will be available
after the presentation.
Questions?

4. 3
• Sarah Helvey, Director of Child Welfare Policy, Nebraska Appleseed
• Nyasha N. Justice, Court Improvement Program, Tennessee Supreme Court
• Jennifer Rhodes, Peer Advocate, Tennessee Court Improvement Program
• Clark Peters, Assistant Professor, University of Missouri School of Social Work,
Truman School of Public Affairs
• Jenny Pokempner, Supervising Attorney, Juvenile Law Center
• Andy Shookhoff, Attorney and Former Juvenile Court Judge (TN)
• Glenda Volmert, Executive Director, Franklin County CASA
• Moderator –
Dianna Walters, Program Associate
The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative
Today’s presenters

5. 4
• Review legal requirements for court oversight of normalcy and
youth engagement provisions of the Strengthening Families Act (SFA)
• Highlight recommendations for court oversight to support effective
implementation of SFA
• Spotlight efforts to improve oversight:
– Training of court personnel in Nebraska
– Training CASAs and youth in Missouri
– Specialized administrative reviews in Tennessee
Goals of Session Two:
Court Oversight

6. 5
• It is a key mechanism for accountability
• It is a key mechanism for enforcement and taking remedial action
• Court expectations help set systemwide expectations
Importance of Court and Administrative Oversight

7. 6
• At each review hearing, the court must document steps being taking
to ensure:
– the child has regular, ongoing opportunities to participate in
age- and developmentally appropriate activities, and
– the caregiver is exercising the Reasonable and Prudent Parent
standard
• To satisfy this inquiry the court can consult with the child in an “age-
appropriate manner about the opportunities of the child to participate
in the activities.”
42 U.S.C.A. § 675a(a)(3)(B) and (a)(3)(A)
Court Oversight Requirements with Respect to Normalcy

8. 7
• The law requires only that these findings be made for youth with an
Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA) plan
• Best practice and efficiency support making these findings
for all youth regardless of permanency plan because:
– the reasonable and prudent parent applies to all placement settings
and youth with all permanency plans
– normalcy is important to healthy child and adolescent development
and is an element of well-being
Recommendations for Scope
of the Oversight Provisions for Normalcy

9. 8
• Should the normalcy and Reasonable and Prudent Parent standard
court inquiry be applied to all youth?
• What questions or information should the court ask or request
to make the finding?
– Court report
– Review of the case plan
– Questions asked of the agency
– Questions asked of the youth
– Questions asked of the caregiver
Implementation Decisions

10. 9
The court should:
• Ensure youth can participate in activities to greatest extent possible
• Ensure age-appropriate opportunities for freedom and responsibility
are provided
• Involve youth in discussion about participation in activities, interests
and skills development
• Address barriers to participation when the case plan teaming cannot
resolve them
The court should not:
• Micromanage the caregiver’s exercise of the Reasonable and
Prudent Parent standard
Nature of the Court’s Inquiry on Normalcy

11. 10
• Beginning at age 14, youth must be provided with a list of their
rights as part of the case planning process
– The list must at least include: rights with respect to “education,
health, visitation and court participation,” the right to discharge
documents and to “stay safe and avoid exploitation”
– The case plan must include a signed acknowledgement that the
list of rights has been received and “explained to the child in
age-appropriate way”
42 U.S.C.A. § 675a(b)
The Youth Engagement Provisions

12. 11
For youth ages 14 and older, the child welfare agency must document
the youth has been:
• consulted in the development of the case plan, and
• given the opportunity to involve two people in case planning who
are not a foster parent or part of the casework staff, and that at
least one of these individuals may be an advocate on the exercise
of the Reasonable and Prudent Parent standard
42 U.S.C.A. § 675 (5) (C)(iv)
The Youth Engagement Provisions

13. 12
• The court must “consult” youth in an “age-appropriate manner” about
the proposed permanency and transition plan (existing requirement)
42 U.S.C.A. § 675 (5)(C)(iii)
• For youth with APPLA permanency plan, the court must ask the child
about his or her desired permanency plan
42 U.S.C.A. § 675a(a)(2)(A)
Requirements for court oversight
of the youth engagement provisions

14. 13
• How should “consult” be defined?
– Current federal guidance does not interpret “consult” as a
youth’s physical presence or direct conversation with the youth
– ACF Child Welfare Manual, Section 8.3C.2c, Question 4,
https://goo.gl/lcNZ2E
• How will the list of rights be distributed?
• Should the court be involved in this process?
• What policies will be put in place to make sure youth are prepared
to take advantage of the opportunity for more active case
planning and court engagement?
Implementation Decisions

15. 14
• What activities is the youth participating in?
• Is the youth getting to take part in experiences such as:
– Spending time with peers and/or mentors?
– Traveling?
– Attending family celebrations (foster and biological)?
– Working after school or interning?
– Assuming more independence and responsibility at home or
placement, such as chores, later curfew and budgeting?
– Taking driver’s education and getting a driver’s license?
– Participating in cultural activities?
Example Court Inquiries — Normalcy

16. 15
• Does a youth who is placed in congregate care understand how to
seek permission from the caregiver to participate in activities?
• If the youth is not participating in age- and developmentally
appropriate activities — or to the extent considered appropriate ―
what are the barriers?
– Does the child face barriers because of a disability, special
need, LGBT status, parenting or other identified issues?
– Does the child or caregiver need support or assistance
to address these barriers?
– Does the case planning team have a plan to address
the barriers?
Example Court Inquiries — Normalcy

17. 16
• Has the youth age 14 and older participated/been consulted
in developing the case plan?
– How has the youth participated?
– Does the youth understand main case plan/transition plan goals?
• Has the youth age 14 or older been given list of rights as part
of the case planning process?
– Have any concerns been raised about any rights?
• Has the youth identified two people to join case planning team
who are not the social worker or foster parent?
• Are there trainings, groups or services to help youth develop
self-advocacy skills or enhance ability to participate in case planning
or court?
Example Court Inquires — Youth Engagement

18. PRACTICE EXAMPLES:
JUDICIAL TRAINING IN NEBRASKA
SARAH HELVEY, NEBRASKA APPLESEED

19. 18
Goals
• Educate court stakeholders
• Help them to “get” what normalcy is
• Push practical implementation to achieve law’s intended outcomes
Content
• SFA background and overview
• Status of Nebraska implementation
• Trafficking (Attorney General’s office)
• Focus on Title I, Subtitle B: Reasonable and Prudent Parent
standard, APPLA, youth participation in case planning, rights
notification and pre-discharge documents
The Training: Content and Goals

20. 19
Content
• For each provision
– Deeper dive through federal law
– Crosswalk with existing statutes, regulations and policy
and identify needed changes for full implementation
– “Policy and Practice Considerations”
and “Questions to Ask from the Bench”
The Training: Content and Goals

21. 20
• Make sure you have enough time for questions and discussion
• Use practical tools (e.g., hypotheticals, small group discussions)
• Include panel with youth, parents, foster parents, providers, etc.
• Create and share resources (e.g., bench card, normalcy guide,
the Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative’s “What Young
People Need to Thrive” and other national fact sheets)
• Be available for follow-up and local technical assistance
Training: Lessons Learned and
Recommendations for Training Strategies

22. 21
LB 746
Reasonable and Prudent Parent standard
• SFA findings for all ages and permanency plans
• HHS must document in the court report:
– Consultation with biological parents on RPPS
– Any barriers to participation in RPPS activities
• If the child, GAL, caregiver or any party believes the child has not
had access to RPPS, the juvenile court may make appropriate
findings or orders to ensure the child has access — but deference
to caregiver in making decisions within RPPS
Pending Nebraska Law on Judicial Oversight
of Normalcy and Youth Engagement

23. 22
LB 746
Notice of Rights
A hard copy of notice of rights shall be provided to youth within 72 hours
of placement and at every dispositional and review/permanency hearing
Pre-discharge documents
The court must make a finding as to whether the child has received
the required documents at the last court hearing before aging out
Youth involvement in case planning
The transition plan must document the efforts to involve and engage
the child in the development of the transition plan. The court must ask
the child about his or her involvement and make a finding
Pending Nebraska Law on Judicial Oversight
of Normalcy and Youth Engagement

24. 23
LB 746
APPLA
The court must determine the agency has met the SFA APPLA
documentation requirements before approving APPLA plan for 16+
GAL
GAL report to the court must specifically address access to RPPS,
explanation of rights, efforts to involve the child in case planning,
efforts to prepare the child to participate in court if the child wishes,
and whether the transition plan includes the services needed to assist
the child to transition to a successful adulthood
Pending Nebraska Law on Judicial Oversight
of Normalcy and Youth Engagement

25. PRACTICE EXAMPLES:
CASA FOSTERING FUTURES TRAINING
CURRICULUM IN MISSOURI
GLENDA VOLMERT AND CLARK PETERS

26. 25
CASA Fostering Futures Training:
Background and Lessons
Background
• Challenge of retaining young people in care
• Special challenges in representing their best interests
• Recognition of special role of CASA volunteers
Lessons helpful to all court professionals
• Youths and young adults have special developmental needs
• Building rapport with teens
• Need for point-of-contact for re-engagement/reentry

27. 26
• Understanding youth development
• Possible selves
• Laws related to youth in foster care
• Identifying key supporters for youth
• Principles of engagement
• Older Youth Needs and Resource Assessment
• CASA action plan
Fostering Futures Curriculum Detail:
Key Areas and Goals

28. 27
• Increased number of youth attending Family Support
Teams and court
• Court report includes youth’s goals and family
or community connections
• Increased referrals for the Chafee program
• Advocacy for college visits
• Formation of the Permanency Summit Committee
to address barriers
• Increased CASA involvement/retention
Examples of Positive Effect
of Fostering Futures in Franklin County

29. 28
• Promotes a stable relationship during periods of tenuous contact
with court and agency
• Aids recruitment and retention of CASA volunteers and clients
• Offers insight into individual-level “normalcy”
• Provides an implemented curriculum that recognizes need
for age-appropriate activities
• Can help guide “decisions that maintain the health, safety, and
best interests of a child”
Fostering Futures Can Support
Implementation of the Strengthening Families Act

30. PRACTICE EXAMPLES:
FOSTER CARE REVIEW BOARDS (TN)
NYASHA N. JUSTICE, JENNIFER RHODES & ANDY SHOOKHOFF

31. 30
• Administrative reviews for status hearings are authorized
by the Social Security Act
• Review board members are trained volunteers appointed
by the Juvenile Court
• Foster Care Review Boards
– review the safety, permanency and well-being of the child
and assess progress
– submit to judge and the parties an advisory report of findings
and recommendations
• When the board has significant concerns, it can refer the case
for a prompt judicial hearing
The Foster Care Review Board Structure

32. 31
• They can bring a breadth of expertise and experience that an
individual may not have
– Expertise in substantive topics
– Expertise in engaging youth
• They are able to spend more time on a case than is possible in
most court reviews
• The less formal setting of the foster care review board can promote
youth engagement and a more collaborative, problem-solving
approach to case reviews
• They allow court docket time to be reserved for cases that could
benefit from judicial attention
Benefits of Foster Care Review Boards

33. 32
• Focus on well-being
– Placement
– Health
– Education
– Visitation
– Independent living
– Transitional living
• Recruit specific professionals for well-being areas
– Develop partnerships with state agencies
Model Foster Care Review Boards in Tennessee

34. 33
• Boards can be age-specific
– Infant and toddler
o Focus on reducing developmental gaps
– 14 to 17 years old
o Focus on independent and transitional living
o Accepting EFC
– EFC boards
o Focus on obtaining postsecondary education certificate/degree
Model Foster Care Review Boards in Tennessee

35. Peer Advocate Program
• Advocacy program for older youth
and young adults in foster care
– Establishes and maintains rapport
with youth before each board review
– Identifies barriers to safety and
well-being
– Discusses pros/cons of accepting
extension of foster care services
– Serves as advocate for youth
– Offers insight on youth’s
preferences, needs
Peer Advocates
– Ages 20 – 29
– Were in foster
care after 14
– Accepted service
from Department
of Children’s
Services after 18
– Receive
quarterly training
34

36. 35
• Planning and training stage
– Child development
– Motivational interviewing
• Implementation stage
– Foster Care Review Board forms have specific questions
regarding normalcy and extracurricular activities
– Technical assistance provided during reviews
Incorporating Normalcy into Foster Care Review Boards

37. 36
• Greatest success is with 17 – 21 population
• Promoting normalcy positively affects acceptance
of extension of foster care services
Successful Promotion of Normalcy

38. 37
• Buy-in from the stakeholders is paramount
• Recognize training is not enough
• Foster youth voice/perspective is essential
Successfully Integrating Normalcy Inquiry
Into Administrative or Court Reviews

39. 38
Questions