Northampton County
Outcome Report
Review Period:
Fiscal Year: 2013-2014
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
Reporting Period: Fiscal Year 2013-2014
Overview of the Intervention(s)
JusticeWorks provides innovative and cost-effective services for at-risk families at any point in the
continuum of involvement with the child welfare and/or juvenile justice system(s). We find a way to engage
families to achieve better results regarding factors impacting safety, permanence, well-being, and
delinquency. Our model supports flexible service provision, in the community, and employs techniques
grounded in theory for more effective intervention efforts. Our work is guided by:








Strong partnerships with public systems to cost-effectively treat troubled youth and families;
Continuous quality improvement;
Dependable/Reliable staff;
Strengths-based, solution-focused practice principles;
The highest professional, and ethical, standards;
Consistent application of the Pennsylvania BARJ framework;
Participation in Juvenile Justice System Enhancement Strategy; and,
Family-centered, family-based services to dependent or delinquent youth in need of enhanced
support and supervision.
Aftercare is not an afterthought. We plan from day one for successful transition.
In human services, the “how” is more important than the “what,” and the “how” is directly related
to the “who.” Our staff reflects the cultural diversity of the youth we work with and bring skill,
empathy and our “whatever it takes” philosophy to succeed with troubled families and youth.
JusticeWorks YouthCare (Northampton County) currently provides 3 services to Children and Youth
Services. Children and Youth Services make referrals to the “Just Care-Standard,” “Just Care-Intensive”,
and “STOPP,” services.
Therefore, the following report will focus on program outcomes for the STOPP® and JustCare®.
Below is a brief overview of the various interventions offered including their intended outcome(s).
STOPP® (Short-term Therapeutic Outreach to Prevent
Placement)
STOPP® has the fundamental goal of keeping children safe with a mission to help keep families intact and
well-functioning. While we work to maintain children in their own homes and rectify relational, behavioral and
other problems, we will err on the side of child safety when we perceive dangerous situations. Situations of
(actual or potential) child abuse, criminality in the home, unsafe living conditions will prompt us to effectuate
removal of the children (while, as described below, making plans whenever possible to remedy the problems
and return the children home).
The goal of STOPP® Services is to prevent the out of home placement of children within profoundly
dysfunctional families, reduce length of stay in private residential placements, and achieve superior
outcomes when youth return to the community.
The STOPP® Service modality features:
1
Whatever it takes!







Staff with caseloads that reasonably allow them to respond to families’ needs;
Family contact within 1-3 hours of referral;
Identification, and diligent utilization, of community resources;
Collaboration with county partners;
Close attention to the planned change process;
Thorough assessment to identify the ‘drivers’ of family dysfunction; and
Skill techniques consistent with helping professions (brokering, education, modeling, mediating,
etc).
Our program values emphasize being proactive and creative. Staff work non-traditional hours and use a
variety of approaches to achieve positive results with complex, and challenging, clients. Emphasis is
placed on working within family neighborhoods and behavioral contracting. Team members are trained to
understand the needs and context of our public sector partners and work collaboratively to make sure
services are aligned with County caseworkers’ expectations. A key value is regular communication to
avoid surprises and ‘dropped balls.’
In 2013-2014, the average length of service for a family involved in this intervention was 69 days, or, roughly,
10 weeks.
This number is based off of all services discharged between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014.
JUSTCARE® PROGRAM
JustCare® has the fundamental goal of keeping children safe with a mission to help keep families intact and
well-functioning. While we work to maintain children in their own homes and rectify relational, behavioral and
other problems, we will err on the side of child safety when we perceive dangerous situations. Situations of
(actual or potential) child abuse, criminality in the home, unsafe living conditions will prompt us to effectuate
removal of the children (while, as described below, making plans whenever possible to remedy the problems
and return the children home).
In 2013-2014, the average length of service for a family involved in the JustCare® Intensive intervention was
138 days or, roughly, 20 weeks.
In 2013-2014, the average length of services for a family involved in the JustCare® Standard intervention
was 116 days, or roughly, 17 weeks.
These numbers are based off of all services discharged between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014.
2
Whatever it takes!
Referral Source(s)
During 2013-2014, JusticeWorks received a total of 55 referrals extending across all interventions/programs.
The table below provides further clarification surrounding the sources of those referrals.
Out of the 55 total referrals received, all 55 were
referred from Northampton County Children and
Youth Services. Of those:
Referral Sources
Intake

2 referrals (roughly 3%) were referred by the
Intake/Assessment Department;

52 referrals (roughly 68%) were referred by
the In-Home/Ongoing Department;

1 referral (roughly 1%) were referred by the
Placement Department
In-Home
Placement
2% 4%
94%
Types of Referral(s)
JusticeWorks YouthCare offers services to families involved with either the juvenile justice or child welfare
system(s). The types of referrals that the program receives represent the wide-range of needs identified within
each family/youth served.
CYS: Case Referral Reasons
60
40
20
0
Physical Abuse
General Neglect
Truancy
3
Other
Whatever it takes!
The figure above represents child welfare cases that were closed between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014;
and outlines the reasons for which they were referred. As visually represented above:




Roughly 1 case, or 2%, was referred for reasons related to physical abuse.
Roughly 50 cases, or 91%, were referred for reasons related to general neglect.
Roughly 3 cases, or 5%, were referred for reasons related to excessive truancy.
Roughly 1 case, or 2%, was referred for reasons related to “other”.
Out-of-Home Placements
While JusticeWorks’s primary goal is to effectively deliver services to families/youth in the community using
theoretically sound intervention strategies for improving relational, behavioral, and/or social issues, we will err
on the side of caution if we perceive potentially unsafe conditions.
Situations of (actual or potential) child abuse, criminality in the home, and/or unsafe living conditions will
prompt us to effectuate removal of the children (while making plans, whenever possible, to remedy the
problems and return the children home).
The information below describes those juveniles or families whose case(s) with JusticeWorks were closed
between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014; and, who experienced some type of out-of-home care episode.
The graph below represents cases in which an out-of-home care episode began prior to JusticeWorks
YouthCare’s involvement with the family. JusticeWorks staff provided supervised visitation or communitybased support to help expedite reunification, and achieve permanency for children in the custody of
Northampton County.
Of the total cases closed during this review
period (55 cases), 8 families had children
already residing in a formal, county-funded, outof-home care setting. Of these:

Placement Prior to Involvement
with JusticeWorks
Reunified with success
Decision not to reunify
3 cases (38%) were reunified with an
appropriate caretaker during
JusticeWorks YouthCare’s involvement.
37%

In 5 cases (63%), a decision to reunify
was not reached during JusticeWorks
YouthCare’s involvement.
63%
4
Whatever it takes!
The graph below shows the overall cases that resulted in an out-of-home care episode, versus those that did
not result in an out-of-home care episode during the course of JusticeWorks’s involvement and clarifies the
type of placements associated with each of these.
CYS: Placement During
Involvement with JusticeWorks
Informal out-of-home care
Formal out-of-home care: County Funded
25%
75%
JusticeWorks YouthCare identifies out-of-home care episodes which occur during the course of service
delivery, across three distinct categories. Those categories are: “Informal Out-of-Home Care: No Funding,”
“Formal Out-of-Home Care: County Funded,” and “Formal Out-of-Home Care: MA Funded.”
“Informal Out-of-Home Care: No Funding” represents situations where children are moved temporarily from
their primary residence, and perhaps out of the care of their primary, adoptive, and/or biological parent, and
into an alternate setting. Usually this happens in families where there is concern regarding the extent to which
the primary caretaker(s) is/are able to meet the basic, and secondary, needs of the child(ren). Families are
usually the decision makers with regard to these informally arranged situations; and, custody of the child(ren)
is not transferred to Northampton County.
2 cases, or 25%, entered into some type of informal out-of-home care arrangement during JusticeWorks
YouthCare’s involvement with the family.
“Formal Out-of-Home Care: County Funded” represents situations where children have been removed from the
care of their primary caretakers, through a finding of dependency. With custody formally transferred to
Northampton County, these children are placed into some type of foster care, kinship care, shelter, detention,
secured residential, or group home setting.
6 cases, or 75%, entered into some type of Northampton County, child welfare funded, out-of-home care
arrangement during JusticeWorks YouthCare’s involvement with the family.
“Formal Out-of-Home Care: MA Funded” represents situations where children have been removed from the
care of their primary caretakers, due to some extreme behavioral or emotional distress. These placement
types represent those paid for by the child(ren)’s insurance (private or Medicaid). Examples include rehab,
long-term substance abuse inpatient counseling, inpatient mental-health treatment, or residential treatment
facilities.
0 cases, or 0%, entered into some type of insurance-funded, out-of-home care arrangement during
JusticeWorks YouthCare’s involvement with the family.
5
Whatever it takes!
SHORT-TERM VERSUS LONG-TERM OUT-OF-HOME CARE EPISODES
JusticeWorks understands that out-of-home care episodes, on a short-term basis, can sometimes create
conditions which motivate families/youth in the pre-contemplation stage of change to make necessary
behavioral changes. Additionally, they can, at times, give primary caretakers or clients the time necessary to
make changes to living situations and/or lifestyles to successfully mitigate the concerns identified by the child
welfare, or juvenile justice, professional(s) with whom they work.
Therefore, JusticeWorks identifies short-term, out-of-home care episodes as part of a successful resolution of
the case.
For this reason, the graph below shows a breakdown of Northampton County funded out-of-home care
episodes which occurred during JusticeWorks’s involvement, and identifies which of these episodes resulted in
the child(ren) returning home before JusticeWorks discharged the family (short-term out-of-home care
episode); and, those which resulted in the child(ren) remaining in an out-of-home care episode after
JusticeWorks discharged the family (long-term out-of-home care episode).
CYS: Long-Term, County-Funded
Out-of-Home Care Episode
Issues Resulted in Long-Term, Out-of-Home Care
Episode
Issues Successfully Resolved
9%
91%
As visually demonstrated in the graph(s) above, JusticeWorks YouthCare successfully prevented long-term,
county-funded, out-of-home care episodes, in:

90%, or 55 cases referred by Northampton County Children and Youth Services; and,
Conclusion
JusticeWorks continues to maintain superior outcomes by redeveloping the approaches of traditional service
delivery within the child welfare, and juvenile justice, system. Our innovative approaches, dedicated team of
6
Whatever it takes!
specialists, and well-defined interventions assist us with successfully establishing rapport with families,
ultimately elevating the program’s ability to engage these families in the planned change process. Because of
this, over the course of this reporting period, JusticeWorks YouthCare has:





Successfully delivered, (on average), above 84% of prescribed/authorized service hours to families (at
times, even exceeding 100%).
Delivered, on average, 2 hours of service (per week) for families receiving the Just Care-Standard
intervention.
Delivered, on average, 3 hours of service (per week) for families receiving the Just Care-Intensive
intervention.
Delivered, on average, 5 hours of service (per week) for families receiving the STOPP intervention.
Successfully avoided CYS, county-funded and long-term, out-of-home care episodes in 90% of child
welfare cases.
JusticeWorks continues to offer a full repertoire of evidence-based practices. Specifically:





Nurturing Parenting Programs;
Thinking for a Change (T4C) (Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention);
WhyTry (Truancy Remediation);
Anger Management (Certified through the National Anger Management Association); and,
Girls’ Empowerment Movement (GEM) (Trauma-Informed Care).
JusticeWorks thanks stakeholders for their continued partnership and collaboration to support the families of
Northampton County.
7
Family Group Decision Making
Northampton County CYS FY’ 13-14
Overview of the Intervention
JusticeWorks is adept and established at working with families, teenagers and delinquent youth in coordination
with Caseworkers and Juvenile Probation to help develop specific and achievable continuing care plans, and
supervise the transition back to the community and family units.
We are familiar with swiftly building relationships, de-escalating potential crises and assisting to create
compromises within the family structure to preserve the family, assuring safety and establishing guidelines
which satisfy bottom line concerns identified by CYS and/or JPO. Our staff recognizes the urgency of FGDM
conferences to be coordinated timely, ensuring outreach to all possible supports and gaining valuable input
from all professionals involved within the family within 45 days.
The JusticeWorks FGDM programs were implemented at various times since 2009 in an effort to reduce the
number of children placed outside the home by County Offices of Children & Youth Services and Juvenile
Probation. Agencies opt to either front load treatment services to prevent placements, providing families
support and education or if the family is already experiencing some type of out-of-home care episode, utilize
our Aftercare programs to reduce the length of stay in all placement sources. This outcome report measures
the impact of our FGDM services for 2013-2014, calculated from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014.
JusticeWorks YouthCare works diligently to prevent placements and assist to reunify youth via immediate and
continuous contact with the family, thorough assessment across all domains of concern: community outreach,
building on family strengths, and stabilization or remediation in all areas of basic living and special concerns
(including employment, housing, education, drug abuse and mental health treatment). We move swiftly to
secure resources to address all family needs and to prevent placement whenever viable: with an explicit
attempt to circumvent formal adjudication through the court.
In 2008 we were nominated by three counties as a promising practice for their needs based budget for 2009,
based on our service provision and outcome reports. In 2011 we expanded our FGDM service line to include
Chester County Juvenile Probation, Dauphin County Children and Youth, Indiana County Children and Youth,
Lehigh County Juvenile Probation and Children and Youth Services. In 2012 we further expanded our FGDM
service line to Wayne County Juvenile Probation and Chester County Children and Youth Services. In 2013
JusticeWorks YouthCare was asked to implement the Family Group practice in Armstrong County, Dauphin
County Juvenile Probation, Jefferson, Greene, Susquehanna, Washington and Wyoming County. In 2014 we
were asked to expand our FGDM service line to Aging and Adult Probation services in Dauphin County.
JusticeWorks now provides FGDM services to 16 counties throughout Pennsylvania.
Since we are called upon to evaluate and assess situations where the safety of children or community is atrisk, we responsibly err on the sire of child safety. We will not hesitate to recommend placement when that is
the most ethical and responsible option.
JusticeWorks measures the quality of its services, parallel to state requirements, through routine
supervision and comprehensive case reviews. We document program outcomes utilizing our internal
tracking system and obtaining data from CYS & JPO, adhering to best practice services to evaluate
program effectiveness.
1
Family Group Decision Making
Northampton County CYS FY’ 13-14
Goals and Outcomes
1. Swiftly coordinate FGDM upon referral. We set up and conduct the FGDM meeting within 45 days of
referral if able.
2. On an emergency basis, and by request by CYS or JPO, a Rapid Safety Conference Team approach
can be utilized. A FGDM conference would be held within 3-5 days to resolve an immediate crisis.
3. Provide quality staff to implement and conduct the meetings (facilitators, individual support person, and
security).
4. Assist the County and family to reach an appropriate and healthy decision, within guidelines
established by the CYS Caseworker or JPO Office. Improvements in the health of parents as
individuals (i.e. able to make healthy choices, and decisions for themselves and children, able to cope
with stress and crisis, etc.
5. Track FGDM outcomes including: time to meeting: whether meeting ended with a positive plan: follow
up at or before 60 days to see if the plan was followed.
6. Improve the family’s ability to reunify and or prevent recidivism.
7. Improve continuing care planning, coordination and implementation with community resources.
8. Coordinate post-meeting follow up to ensure family plan follow through.
Program Impact
The below numbers are based off of all services discharged between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014.
In FY: 2013-2014, the average length of service for a family involved in this practice was 156 days, or, roughly,
22.2 weeks.
•
JusticeWorks YouthCare received a total of 17 referrals. There were a total of 29 children/youth that
were affected through the FGDM referral (counting identified child and siblings under the age of 18).
o 9 referrals resulted in a successful conference
o 2 referrals resulted in a successful referral
o 6 referrals resulted in an unsuccessful referral
•
•
53% success rate in completion of FGDM conference,
12% successful in applying a new family engagement/activity through FGDM.
o 1 Family Team Meetings was held.
35% unsuccessful referrals.
o 6 families refused the FGDM process.
•
Unsuccessful Referral: An unsuccessful referral is defined as the referral of a family to FGDM that does not
result in a FGDM conference or any new engagement activities due to lack of engagement of nuclear and
extended kin.
Successful Referral: A successful referral is defined as new family engagement actions/activities occurring
after a referral to FGDM that directly correlate to the FGDM referral, but that do not lead to a successful FGDM
conference. The new engagement/activities must be documented in the Family Service Plan.
2
Family Group Decision Making
Northampton County CYS FY’ 13-14
Successful Conference: A successful conference is defined as a conference that is held with a facilitator,
nuclear family, and extended kin.
The total number of days that it took to coordinate a successful conference is broken down as follows:
•
•
•
•
2 conferences, or roughly 22, were coordinated in 10 days or less.
2 conferences, or roughly 22%, were coordinated in 30 days or less.
2 conferences, or roughly 22%, were coordinated in 31-60 days.
3 conferences, or roughly 33%, were coordinated in 61 days or more.
o 61 days or more of coordination time could be due to weather, vacations of professional
participants or family members, sensitivity to domestic violence and sexual abuse cases, PFA
orders or a safety plan in place.
Total Days to Complete Conference
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
10 Days or less
30 Days or less
31-60 Days
61 Days or more
The average number of days that were spent on coordinating a successful conference was 39.3 days.
The average number of hours that were spent on coordinating a successful conference was 24.1 hours.
• Please note this number is calculated based on the average numbers JW spent coordinating the
conference – this does not count follow up/post conference meetings.
7 conferences, 78%, were held at a location other than the family’s home or the county building.
• 3 conferences were held at a local church
• 4 conferences were held at the JWYC office
• 0 conferences were held at a community center or building
• 0 conferences were held at the local public library
• 0 conferences were held at a site listed as other
• 2 conferences were held at the CYS/JPO office
The number of successful conferences where the plan satisfied the bottom lines was 9 conferences, or
roughly, 100%.
The number of plans that were accepted and signed off on by the JPO/CW was 9 conferences, or 100%.
3
Family Group Decision Making
Northampton County CYS FY’ 13-14
8 successful conferences, or roughly 89% had a pre-conference prior to the conference. If the percentage
reflects more than 100% it took into account that the pre-conferences were held with the intention to hold a
FGDM conference, however then the FGDM conference did not take place.
7 successful conferences, or 78%, had a follow up/post conference meeting scheduled.
• Of those 7 follow up meetings scheduled, 4 or roughly 57%, the family had a follow up meeting.
Referral Source(s)
During FY: 2013-2014 JusticeWorks received a total of 17 referrals for Family Group Conferencing. The table
below provides further clarification surrounding the sources of those referrals.
CYS Referral Source
Placement
•
•
Adolescent
•
InHome/Ongoing
•
•
CPS
•
Community
1 referral (roughly 6%) was referred by the
Placement department;
4 referrals (roughly 24%) were referred by
the adolescent department,
5 referrals (29%) were referred by the InHome/Ongoing department;
3 referrals (roughly 18%) were referred by
the CPS department,
1 referral (6%) was referred by the
community,
3 referrals (roughly 18%) were listed as
other or unit unknown.
Other
Types of Referral(s)
JusticeWorks YouthCare offers services to families involved with either the juvenile justice or child welfare
system(s). The types of referrals that the program receives represent the wide-range of needs identified within
each family/youth involved.
4
Family Group Decision Making
Northampton County CYS FY’ 13-14
Referral Types
50
40
30
20
10
0
GPS
Reunification
Preservation
Aging out of
Care
Truancy
Custody Issues
Other
Detention
The figure above represents juvenile justice cases that were closed between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014:
and outlines the reasons for which they were referred. As visually represented above:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Roughly 0 cases, or 0%, were referred for reasons related to GPS.
Roughly 6 cases, or 35%, were referred for reasons related to reunification.
Roughly 8 cases, or 47%, were referred for reasons related to preservation.
Roughly 0 cases, or 0%, were referred for reasons related to aging out of care.
Roughly 0 cases, or 0%, were referred for reasons related to truancy.
Roughly 3 cases, or 18%, were referred for reasons related to custody issues.
Roughly 0 cases, or 0%, was referred for reasons of detention placement.
Roughly 0 cases, or 0%, were referred for reasons listed as other. Some reasons for other may be
permanency, identifying supports, or maintaining placement.
The graph below takes the above data and analyzes secondary, or tertiary, factors that necessitated the
involvement of JusticeWorks YouthCare. These are factors that support the initial case “type” and help to
establish the depth of families’ struggles, the list for identifying these additional needs is a multi-select type.
Given this, each case has the potential to meet the definitions for multiple secondary reasons. However, each
case does not need or may not have a secondary reason listed as well. These are only factors that were
identified at the time of referral.
Secondary Reasons
150
100
50
0
Reunification
•
•
Preservation
Aging out of care
Truancy
Custody Issues
Other
Roughly 0 cases, or 0%, identified needs related to reunification as a factor for involvement.
Roughly 3 cases, or 100%, identified needs related to preservation as a factor for involvement.
5
Family Group Decision Making
Northampton County CYS FY’ 13-14
•
•
•
•
Roughly 0 cases, or 0%, identified needs related to aging out of care as a factor for involvement.
Roughly 0 cases, or 0%, identified needs related to truancy as a factor for involvement.
Roughly 0 cases, or 0%, identified needs related to custody issues act as a factor for involvement.
Roughly 0 cases, or 0%, identified needs related to other concerns as a factor for involvement.
Demographic Information
JusticeWorks is committed to maintaining a staff component which is diverse, culturally component and
reflects the families we work with. We have bilingual Spanish staff available to help translate for families.
We have arranged for other translation services as needed.
•
•
1 referral, or roughly 6%, required a bilingual coordinator/facilitator at the conference.
0 referrals required additional language services//translator at the conference
Our training programs ensure that all staff are cognizant and respectful of the ethnic, racial and religious
diversity of the families entrusted to our care. We understand and are sensitive to mixed culture
relationships, step parent issues, adoption, non-traditional families (including gay and lesbian) and other
issues which reflect the nationality or religious heritage of the families with whom we work.
Out of all referrals received during the period
under review, participants and their gender were
identified to the following:
•
•
Gender
6 males or 35%
11 females or 65%
Male
Female
Out of all referrals received during the period
under review, participants and their gender were
identified to the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Race
Caucasian
10 Caucasian individuals or roughly 59%
3 African American individuals or roughly
18%
2 Bi-Racial individual or roughly 12%
0 Multi-Racial individual or roughly 0%
2 Hispanic individuals or roughly 12%
0 Unknown race or roughly 0%
African American
Bi-Racial
Multi-Racial
Hispanic
Unknown
6
Family Group Decision Making
Northampton County CYS FY’ 13-14
Out of all referrals received during the period
under review, the age of the identified individual
was reported as:
•
•
•
•
•
Age of Individual
6 individuals, or roughly 35%, were 0-5
years of age;
3 individuals, or roughly 18%, were 6-12
years of age;
8 individuals, or roughly 47%, were 13-17
years of age;
0 individuals, or roughly 0%, were 18-21
years of age.
0 individuals, or roughly 0%, were 21 years
and older of age.
0-5 years of age
6-12 years of age
13-17 years of age
18-21 years of age
21 years and older
17 families were referred and resided in or near
Northampton County. Of those:
•
•
•
•
•
•
4 families resided in Bethlehem;
8 families resided in Easton;
2 families resided in Bangor;
1 family resided in Pen Argyl;
1 family resided in Wind Gap,
1 family resided in Stroudsburg.
Case Background Information
JusticeWorks feels it is necessary to track how many of the families referred were previously involved in the
FGDM process.
•
Out of 17 referrals, 2 families, or roughly 12%, were previously involved in the FGDM process.
o All 2 of those families (100%) were involved with FGDM through Child Welfare
JusticeWorks also tracks the number of referrals that identify domestic violence as a concern. Safety
measures are taken and these conferences could take longer to coordinate to ensure safety of all
participants.
7
Family Group Decision Making
Northampton County CYS FY’ 13-14
All of our FGDM Coordinators are trained and certified in Strategies to Empower Families Experiencing
Domestic Violence from the Child Welfare Resource Center through the University of Pittsburgh. Our
coordinators express the laws and regulations that guide Child Welfare practice when domestic violence is
present throughout the casework process. They recognize the prevalence of domestic violence (DV) in
families referred to the Family Group Decision Making (FGDM) process. Our coordinators are able to identify
the impact that a batterer’s mindset has on the specific tasks of a coordinator and facilitator of a FGDM
conference, as well as specify what questions should be asked to explore the presence of DV within the
family dynamic. Lastly, our coordinators determine what safety interventions need to be in place, before,
during and after the conference.
•
1 referral was identified as domestic violence cases.
Referrals are received mainly through the child welfare and juvenile justice systems, however it is important
to note other county systems that may be involved with the families.
•
5 families had county systems involved, other than the child welfare system. Families may have
multiple county systems involved.
o 0 families were also involved with JPO
o 1 family was also involved with MH
o 3 families were also involved with D&A
o 1 family was involved in a county system listed as other: Adult Probation
Family Engagement Strategies
JusticeWorks utilizes family engagement and involvement as one its strengths-based perspectives to assist
families in achieving the best possible outcomes. These key elements include but are not limited to,
listening to each family member, demonstrating respect and empathy for family members, developing an
understanding of the family’s past experiences, current situation, concerns and strengths, responding to
concrete needs quickly, establishing the purpose of involvement with the family, being aware of one’s own
biases and prejudices, validating the participatory role of the family and being consistent, reliable and honest.
Our staff and families work together in relationships based on equality and respect and clearly articulated
goals. Staff are trained to enhance families’ capacity to support the growth and development of all family
members. Our FGDM service affirms and strengthens families’ cultural, racial and linguistic identities and
enhance their ability to function in a multicultural society. Programs are embedded in their communities and
contribute to community-building process. Staff advocate with families for services and systems that are fair,
responsive and accountable.
JusticeWorks believes that in order for FGDM to be successful both maternal and paternal sides of the family
need to be invited and attend to create a plan. Of the 11 referrals that had a successful conference outcome:
•
•
•
•
9 conferences, or roughly 100%, the mother of the identified individual was invited to the conference.
o Of those 9 invited mothers, 9 or roughly 100% attended the conference.
8 conferences, or roughly 89%, the father of the identified individual was invited to the conference.
o Of those 8 invited fathers, 7 or roughly 88% attended the conference.
7 conferences, or roughly 78%, the paternal side of the family was invited to the conference.
o Of those 7 invited paternal relatives, 7 or roughly 100% attended the conference.
7 conferences, or roughly 78%, the maternal side of the family was invited to the conference.
8
Family Group Decision Making
Northampton County CYS FY’ 13-14
•
o Of those 7 invited maternal relatives, 7 or roughly 100% attended the conference.
1 conference, or roughly 11%, more than one father was involved and invited to the conference.
o Of those 1 invited fathers, 1 or roughly 100% attended the conference.
* Please note the invitations extended are based on the identified family’s agreement to having their
attendance at the conference.
JusticeWorks also tracks the number of family members we were able to identify through the FGDM process.
•
•
•
•
•
38 family members were identified at the time of the referral
40 family members were identified and coordinator was able to reach out to
52 family members attended the conferences
22 maternal relatives attended the conferences
18 paternal relatives attended the conferences
The number of conferences where everyone invited to the conference, actually attended the conference was
2 conferences, or roughly 22%. This number is based on no-shows to the conference, refusal to attend,
illness, transportation that was not previously reported as a need, and other reasons not listed.
Out-of-Home Placements
While JusticeWorks’s primary goal is to effectively deliver services to families/youth in the community using
theoretically sound intervention strategies for improving relational, behavioral, and/or social issues, we will err
on the side of caution if we perceive potentially unsafe conditions.
Situations of (actual or potential) child abuse, criminality in the home, and/or unsafe living conditions will
prompt us to effectuate removal of the children (while making plans, whenever possible, to remedy the
problems and return the children home).
The information below describes those juveniles or families whose case(s) with JusticeWorks were closed
between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014; and, who experienced some type of out-of-home care episode.
The graph below represents cases in which an out-of-home care episode began prior to JusticeWorks
YouthCare’s involvement with the family. JusticeWorks staff provided supervised visitation or communitybased support to help expedite reunification, and achieve permanency for children in the custody of
Northampton County.
Of the total cases closed during this review period (17 cases), 7 families had youth already residing in an outof-home care setting.
•
•
•
•
•
•
3 youth were in an out-of-home care setting in a foster care setting
1 youth were in an out-of-home kinship care setting
2 youth were in an out-of-home care informal-kinship care setting
0 youth were in an out-of-home care detention center setting
1 youth were in an out-of-homecare setting listed as other: possible group home or IL home.
0 youth was in an out-of-home care RTF care setting.
9
Family Group Decision Making
Northampton County CYS FY’ 13-14
Of these,
Out-Of-Home Care Episodes:
Prior to JWYC involvement
Reintegration
Decision not to
reunify
•
6 cases (86%), a decision to reunify was not
reached during JusticeWorks involvement.
•
1 case (14%), were reunified with an
appropriate caretaker during JusticeWorks
involvement.
The following graph shows the overall cases that resulted in an out-of-home care episode, versus those that
did not result in an out-of-home care episode during the course of JusticeWorks’s involvement and clarifies the
type of placements associated with each of these.
Out-of-Home Care Episodes
(CYS) During JWYC involvement
Formal Out-Of-Home Care: No Funding
Formal Out-Of-Home Care: County
Funding
Formal Out-of-Home Care: MA Funded
Placement Avoided
JusticeWorks YouthCare identifies out-of-home care episodes which occur during the course of service
delivery, across three distinct categories. Those categories are: “Informal Out-of-Home Care: No Funding,”
“Formal Out-of-Home Care: County Funded,” and “Formal Out-of-Home Care: MA Funded.”
“Informal Out-of-Home Care: No Funding” represents situations where children are moved temporarily from
their primary residence, and perhaps out of the care of their primary, adoptive, and/or biological parent, and
into an alternate setting. Usually this happens in families where there is concern regarding the extent to which
the primary caretaker(s) is/are able to meet the basic, and secondary, needs of the child(ren). Families are
usually the decision makers with regard to these informally arranged situations; and, custody of the child(ren)
is not transferred to Northampton County.
10
Family Group Decision Making
Northampton County CYS FY’ 13-14
•
0 cases, or 0%, entered into some type of informal out-of-home care CYS arrangement during
JusticeWorks YouthCare’s involvement with the family.
“Formal Out-of-Home Care: County Funded” represents situations where children have been removed from the
care of their primary caretakers, through a finding of dependency. With custody formally transferred to
Northampton County, these children are placed into some type of foster care, kinship care, shelter, detention,
secured residential, or group home setting.
•
0 cases, or 0%, entered into some type of Northampton County, child welfare funded, out-of-home care
arrangement during JusticeWorks YouthCare’s involvement with the family.
“Formal Out-of-Home Care: MA Funded” represents situations where children have been removed from the
care of their primary caretakers, due to some extreme behavioral or emotional distress. These placement
types represent those paid for by the child(ren)’s insurance (private or Medicaid). Examples include rehab,
long-term substance abuse inpatient counseling, inpatient mental-health treatment, or residential treatment
facilities.
•
0 cases, or 0%, entered into some type of insurance-funded, out-of-home care arrangement during
JusticeWorks YouthCare’s involvement with the family.
SHORT-TERM VERSUS LONG-TERM OUT-OF-HOME CARE EPISODES
JusticeWorks understands that out-of-home care episodes, on a short-term basis, can sometimes create
conditions which motivate families/youth in the pre-contemplation stage of change to make necessary
behavioral changes. Additionally, they can, at times, give primary caretakers or clients the time necessary to
make changes to living situations and/or lifestyles to successfully mitigate the concerns identified by the child
welfare, or juvenile justice, professional(s) with whom they work.
Therefore, JusticeWorks identifies short-term, out-of-home care episodes as (potentially) a necessary element
of a successful resolution of the case.
For this reason, the graph below shows a breakdown of Northampton County funded out-of-home care
episodes which occurred during JusticeWorks involvement, and identifies which of these episodes resulted in
child(ren) returning home before JusticeWorks discharged the family (short-term out-of-home- care episode):
and, those which resulted in the child(ren) remaining in an out-of-home care episode after JusticeWorks
discharged the family (long-term out-of-home care episode).
11
Family Group Decision Making
Northampton County CYS FY’ 13-14
Long-Term, Out-of-Home Care Episodes: CYS
Placement Avoided
Placement Occurred
JusticeWorks YouthCare successfully prevented long-term, county-funded, out-of-home care episodes, in:
•
100%, or 17 cases referred by Northampton County Children and Youth Services.
State Fidelity Surveys
Three forms are used in Pennsylvania’s Statewide Evaluation of Family Group Decision Making. One of those
forms, the baseline form, is completed by a professional at the conclusion of the conference and is returned
with conference surveys. The form’s purpose is to help gather outcome data in order to better understand the
impact of Family Group conferences. In addition to completing the baseline form, all participants attending the
conference also fill out a satisfaction survey on their experience with the FGDM process. JusticeWorks started
tracking in January 2014 certain questions for outcome reporting purposes and maintaining fidelity of the
model. Those results are below.
Northampton County CYS – 34 surveys were collected at FGDM conferences.
•
Q8 – The family group understood the reasons for holding the conference
o Strongly Agree: 20 responses – 59%
o Agree: 10 responses – 29%
o Disagree:1 responses – 3%
o Strongly Disagree: 0 responses
o Don’t Know: 1 responses – 3%
o N/A: 2 response – 6%
•
Q9 – The conference was held in a place that felt right to the family group:
o Strongly Agree: 18 responses – 53%
o Agree: 12 responses – 35%
o Disagree: 2 response – 6%
o Strongly Disagree: 0 responses
o Don’t Know: 1 responses – 3%
o N/A: 1 responses – 3%
12
Family Group Decision Making
Northampton County CYS FY’ 13-14
•
Q11 – More family group than paid professionals participated in the conference:
o Strongly Agree: 18 responses – 53%
o Agree: 8 responses – 24%
o Disagree: 4 responses – 12%
o Strongly Disagree: 1 response – 3%
o Don’t Know: 1 responses - 3%
o N/A: 2 responses – 6%
•
Q12 – Different sides of the family participated in the conference:
o Strongly Agree: 18 responses – 53%
o Agree: 10 responses – 29%
o Disagree: 2 responses – 6%
o Strongly Disagree: 2 responses – 6%
o Don’t Know: 0 responses
o N/A: 2 responses – 6%
•
Q13 – People at the conference were relatives and/or people who feel “like family:”
o Strongly Agree: 17 responses – 50%
o Agree: 10 responses – 29%
o Disagree: 4 responses – 12%
o Strongly Disagree: 1 responses – 3%
o Don’t Know: 0 responses
o N/A: 2 responses – 6%
•
Q16 – The conference had enough supports and protections:
o Strongly Agree: 18 responses – 53%
o Agree: 13 responses – 38%
o Disagree: 2 response – 6%
o Strongly Disagree: 0 responses
o Don’t Know: 0 responses
o N/A: 1 response – 3%
•
Q18 – The family group had private time to make their plan:
o Strongly Agree: 24 responses – 71%
o Agree: 7 responses – 21%
o Disagree: 0 response – 0%
o Strongly Disagree: 1 responses – 3%
o Don’t Know: 0 responses
o N/A: 2 responses – 6%
•
Q20 – The plan included steps to evaluate if the plan is working and to get the family group back
together again if needed:
o Strongly Agree: 16 responses – 47%
o Agree: 8 responses – 24%
o Disagree: 3 responses – 9%
o Strongly Disagree: 0 responses – 0%
o Don’t Know: 3 responses – 9%
o N/A: 4 response – 12%
13
Family Group Decision Making
Northampton County CYS FY’ 13-14
•
Q23 – I would recommend family group to other families:
o Strongly Agree: 22 responses – 65%
o Agree: 8 responses – 24%
o Disagree: 0responses – 0%
o Strongly Disagree: 0 responses – 0%
o Don’t Know: 3 responses – 9%
o N/A: 1 responses – 3%
•
Q24 – Do you have any other thoughts or comments about the conference?
o It was not as bad as I thought it would be, It was a good experience
o Whitney was great, she had a short amount of time to put meeting together and it went great
o It was much less tense than I expected
o I would like to have a follow up on future events with the family and safety of the kids
•
Q28 – Ethnicity – Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin?
o 62% answered NO
o 38% answered YES
•
Q29 – Race of participant:
o Black/African American: 0%
o White/Caucasian: 73%
o Asian/Pacific Islander: 0%
o Native American/Alaskan/Hawaiian: 0%
o Multiracial: 0%
o Other: 27%
Conclusion
JusticeWorks continues to maintain superior outcomes by redeveloping the approaches of traditional service
delivery within the child welfare, and juvenile justice, system. Our innovative approaches, dedicated team of
specialists, and well-defined interventions assist us with successfully establishing rapport with families,
ultimately elevating the program’s ability to engage these families in the planned change process. Because of
this over the course of this reporting period, JusticeWorks YouthCare has:
•
•
•
•
•
Coordinated successful conferences in 60 days or less 67% of the time, averaging 39 days.
Successfully held a FGDM conference in 53% of referrals
Successfully held conferences where CYS has signed off on the plan in 100% of the cases.
Successfully avoided county-funded and long-term, out-of-home care episodes in 100% of child welfare
cases.
Successfully reunified 14% of youth in placement prior to referral back into the community through the
FGDM plan.
14
Family Group Decision Making
Northampton County CYS FY’ 13-14
JusticeWorks continues to offer a full repertoire of evidence-based practices. Specifically:
•
•
•
•
•
Nurturing Parenting Programs;
Thinking for a Change (T4C) (Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention);
WhyTry (Truancy Remediation);
Anger Management (Certified through the National Anger Management Association); and,
Girls’ Empowerment Movement (GEM) (Trauma-Informed Care).
Many thanks to our stakeholders and Community Resource Constituents for the collaboration and partnerships
to work together to keep children, youth and families safe and healthy.
15