Safe Transition of Youth Leaving CAS Care - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Safe Transition of Youth Leaving CAS Care

Overview, Findings and Afterthoughts

Presenters: Inshirah Hassabu – FGC Program of Toronto @ George Hull Centre& Keith Lee – Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

1

November 14th, 2016Child Protection ADR SymposiumSlide2

FGC for Youth: Objectives & PrinciplesFGC for youth: A Tailored Process

Youth Needs and ChallengesBarriers/Challenges to PermanencyFGC for Permanency PlanningMCYS supports for Youth - 2013Implementation of Youth Led FGCFGC coordinator’s experienceQ & A

2AgendaSlide3

To give youth the opportunity to get together with the important people in their life including family, relatives, friends and supports to help plan for their future

To decide on and create a plan to help the youth have more permanent connections to both family and community3

FGC for Youth: Objectives Slide4

Is driven by and focuses on the youthThe youth is the leader and author of his or her future plansInvites collective participation and supportive decision making

Inclusive not exclusive processProcess is tailored to meet each individual youth’s needs4 FGC for Youth: Principles Slide5

The Coordinator works closely with the youth regarding safety planningParticipants’ circle is widened to include people the youth sees as important

Participation of professionals at private time is determined by the youthEveryone is prepared by the CoordinatorNo restrictions placed on preparation time or participants number5

FGC for Youth: A Tailored Process Slide6

6

A conceptual comparison of two models

FAMILY- Led FGC

1. Decision making, can be

ADR

2. Family decides who to

attend

3. Family is author of Plan

4. External Process &

Facilitator

5. Usage: to be considered

but optional

6. Widening the circle after referral

7.

Worker as gatekeeper

8. Family private time,

bottom lines

9. Conference preparation

is critical

10. Might have follow up

conference(s)

YOUTH- Led FGC

1. Transition Planning

2. Youth

decides who to attend

3. Youth decides what goals to work on

4. External Process/Facilitator

5. Permanency initiative/goal for youth in transition

6. Family/kin/support search is 1

st

step

7. Youth has final say in having a FGC

8.

Private time with flexible participation , goals

9. Conference preparation focus on youth

10. A trial of follow up conference Slide7

Productive adulthood normally requires PERMANENCY Permanency is achieved through

Lifetime family connectionsInformal but, substantive connections with other caring adults.Supportive communities/systemsMany youths are leaving care without the above connections and permanency plans

7Youth Transitioning out of Care: Needs and challengesSlide8

Myths exist that youths are not interested in

forming or strengthening connections to adult support and that few families are interested.Complex needs Strained family relationships.

Belief that adoptive families are impossible to find for older youth and youth are not interested8

Youth Transitioning Out Of Care: Barriers to PermanencySlide9

9

Youth Leaving Care: Challenges over time

1991 Study ( Cook) 2011 data ( Youth Leaving Care Hearing) High School graduation 54%

44% ( general pop 81%) Mental Health issues 38%

46%20% experienced homeless43% of homeless youth with child welfare, 68% from placements

Over presentation in youth justice system

Unchanged

Unemployment 49%

16.5 % under 18 living independently. Canadian

avg

is mid- 20sSlide10

Continued Care and Support for YouthLiving and Learning GrantJoint Protocol for Student Achievement

Renewed Youth SupportOntario Child Benefit equivalentOntario Student Assistance ProgramRESP50 Youth in Transition WorkersOntario Access GrantNew Permanency Funding- Targeted Subsidies and Stay Home for School policy

10MCYS supports for youth-2016Slide11

11

Areas to Consider in PlanningSlide12

Pilot Background

Pilot project 2013– collaboration with the Toronto FGC programReferral criteria- a boarder definition of transitionTime taken from referral to conference : 22 days to 5 months.85% of referrals materialized in a FGC ( as opposed to 50-60% of protection cases referred) FGC coordinators have common background in child welfare.Worker’s reasons given for not considering a referral: placement change/instability , youth ‘s refusal,

PAC/CSW decision, having support in place 12Implementation of Youth Led FGCSlide13

Helped them connect with kin & kith previously not part of their support network

“Fantasy Busting” … Who turns out to be a real support for them or not FGC process is different from other planning meetings hosted by CASFGC participants the youth invited authored the planYounger youth (<16) displayed more difficulty comprehending the goals/tasks developedA few youth were embarrassed to admit that during the conference, they did not understand some of the conversationsParticipants were able to identify very practical ways to support them (i.e. lending money, doing check-ins, offering a place to stay,

etc…)The majority of the youth who were leaving care, identified that they were not prepared to live independently; for instance ,21 yr old youth shared: “it would be much better if this took place well before my 21st birthday”.

13

Youth’s Feedback to the PilotSlide14

PROCESS

Youth Led Element

Supervisor and worker review Permanency Consultation recommendations and list of youth turning 17 monthly Worker discusses FGC with youth and set up meeting with FGC staff

Outcome Plan documentation

FGC staff provides In house consultation 

Every youth given the opportunity to be informed of FGC via a meeting with FGC staff

Youth makes an informed decision independently re having a FGC

14

A Youth Led Process

Introduction and sharing of information

Participants and youth are clear about what supports are made available to youth during transition.

The availability of a concise and reader friendly resource guide. A new step to be incorporated to share with conference participants.

Family Private Time

Youth ‘s wishes and voices are respected in the process

Flexible to include both family and professional support persons. Youth ‘s choice.

FGC staff check in with youth

as a regular practice

Conference Day

Consultation/DecisionSlide15

Implementation of Youth Led FGC

15Progress and Challenges

Infrastructure: committee and in-house consultationTraining and team meetingsProcedural: youth turning 17, documentationOther deliverables: promotional materialResearch designCases included reunification, preparation for college, transitioning out of care, transitioning to DSOSlide16

The sponsor: Child Welfare Institute Referrals and conferencing data from the past 12 monthsCharacteristics of 15 subjects ( age, gender, in care days)

Objectives : process ( youth led element, satisfaction, worker’s perspectives)and outcome ( anxiety level, durability of support)Design of the study. Time 1 , 2 and 3 16

Research background / early findingsSlide17

Feedback and thoughts of FGC youth participants

Their HopesOne area they count most on for SupportTheir SatisfactionAreas they worry about and changes after the conferenceWhat’s happening later….

17Findings Slide18

Majority of youth were satisfied with the level of control in decision to have a FGC, who was

invited , who were included in private time. Also their cultural/ethnic background were respected and a high level of understanding of the details of the plan ( close to or over 80% ). Attention and improvement noted on the goals selection, focus of them in private time and more time spent with FGC coordinator

18To what extent is it Youth Led?Slide19

What worked well:Focus on youth, their strengths and what support they looking for

Chance to meet family , old and new members/supportFGC coordinator’s neutral position /supportive rolePrivate timeReferral and preparation processWhat did not work wellConference taken over by family members who may have different views and youth’s voice was minimized

Recommends : better youth engagement strategies and conference process, more education/sharing about the program with workers to maximize the benefits

19

Findings: CAS worker focus groupSlide20

Planning can be a lengthy

processSome youth say no at first and take time to agreeMust be patient and use gentle persuasionNeed to proceed at the pace of the youthSome are faced with many challengesUse texting not phone is preferred by youthWork in partnership with social worker and foster parent in some situations

Keep youth informed every step of the preparation20FGC Coordinator’s ExperienceSlide21

On conference day there maybe very few people Long disconnection from extended family & strained

conflictual family relationshipsFamily private time can look very differentLocation and time need to be youth sensitiveEnsure goals are clear as defined by youthClarify what CAS will

offerCan be used for youth in Correctional facilityCan be confusing for social workers-role clarity21

FGC Coordinator’s ExperienceSlide22

Use of FGC with Youth in Transition

Examples in Ontariono known formal FGC program for Crown Wardsbeing tried in different locationslow numbers and limited accessCrown Ward clients usually “excluded” from the ADR ( Child Protection)

Examples in the U.S.YIT Conferencing Project( Hennepin County, Minn.2010) , starts at age16 , focus on planning re 6 life domains, selected & co-led by youth. (Dauphin County, Penn.2001), FGC at six months prior and six months after exiting care. Goal to locate one permanent support person.Example in B.C.Youth Transitioning Conferences ( Ministry of Child and Youth Development, B.C. 2005) , FGC as one option for permanency planning, to create or to firm up a plan prior to leaving care.Early results of B.C. ResearchSupport for YTC is 4.6 out of 5 when asked if they would recommend it to others

Most report having good emotional and practical support

22Slide23

Q & A

23