-: Well, all right, welcome everyone
to "CFSR Round 4: Stakeholder Engagement."
My name is Tom Oates.
This session is about
meaningful strategies and expectations for stakeholders.
I want to give a few housekeeping items
before we officially get started.
First off, everyone is muted.
And just to let you know, your mics have been muted
and this webinar is being recorded for distribution later.
Now, while your mics are muted,
we do encourage your questions.
And if you have any questions
at any time during the webinar,
we encourage you to use the Q and A function with Zoom,
which should be located at the bottom of your Zoom window.
Just type in your question at any time.
Now, we are saving time after the presentation
to answer any of those questions that are brought up
through the Q and A.
We'll also offer you time for you
to verbally ask any questions you may have
using the raise-your-hand feature.
Again, this will be after the presentation.
We'll save time for your questions.
But if you have any questions
at any time during the webinar,
please send them our way using the Q and A feature.
All right, that's our housekeeping notes,
and we want to get this started.
For that, I'll pass it over to Jennifer Haight.
Jennifer?
-: Thanks, Tom.
Hi everyone.
Welcome.
Thank you for coming to join us on our fourth call
in this series of National Calls on CFSR Round 4.
Today, we are pivoting a little bit
from the measurement and technical side
to focus more broadly on stakeholder engagement.
And we are doing that deliberately.
We envision in Round 4, as you know,
a broader and deeper effort
to engage with stakeholders, broadly defined
from the community all along the stages of the CFSR
from the start with the statewide assessment,
all the way through PIP development.
And not only are we envisioning
a sort of a broader scope of engagement,
but also broadening the way in which
we would like to see engagement
with representatives from the community,
so that they're not only a source of information,
but they are with us as we help to process that information
and make decisions, eventually,
about what we might look to do differently
in Program Improvement Plans.
But anyway, that's enough for me.
In keeping with today's focus,
we have a broader group of people presenting today,
and if we could go to the next slide,
I just want to go through quickly who you'll be hearing from.
First, I'm Jennifer Haight.
Can we move to the next slide please?
From the Division of
Performance Measurement and Improvement.
And we will be hearing from Jim Gregory and Beth Pierce,
who are on the CFSR team.
In this division, we'll be hearing from Christine Kiesel,
who is a Child Welfare Specialist
focusing on legal-judicial issues.
And we have youth support leads,
Mary-Kate Myers and Shailiegh Piepmeier,
who will also be presenting today.
So with that, I'd like to turn it over to Jim
and once again welcome you and thank you
for joining us this afternoon, or morning.
Jim?
-: Thank you, Jennifer.
Good day, everyone,
and welcome to session 4
in the Round 4 CFSR call series.
My name is Jim Gregory.
I'm a member of the CFSR team here at the Children's Bureau.
I have over 20 years of experience working in
state and federal child welfare systems and programs.
We welcome your questions, input, and interaction
during this particular presentation.
We encourage you, as content is being presented
and questions arise, please utilize the Q and A function.
We have multiple individuals
who are assisting us in monitoring the Q and A,
and we will be as responsive as we possibly can be
during the presentation.
At the end of the presentation, as Tom mentioned,
we'll unmute all the lines
and welcome any additional questions.
Lastly, we have compiled a resource document
for stakeholder engagement
that is available for download.
It's currently in the chat function in Zoom.
The overall purpose of this session
is to provide our state partners with ideas and resources
to support you in your efforts to engage
all your system partners, stakeholders,
including efforts to engage
parents and young persons with lived experience
throughout the CFSR process.
We will include a mix of engagement activities,
such as poll questions and general presentation of content.
Let's begin with some poll questions.
We really encourage your participation.
Tom, can you put up the first poll for us?
Our first poll question is,
"How well do you feel your state
is engaging youth and young persons with lived experience
during statewide assessment development activities?"
Tom: All right, Jim, so we've got folks voting.
Folks, take your time,
but we'll want to make sure
everybody gets a chance
to read the question, read the answer,
but we ask that you place your votes in a little bit.
When we get enough votes, we'll tally the results.
We've got a lot of you on the call here.
So it's great information for the team,
but we encourage you to get your votes in.
We'll leave the poll up for just a few more seconds
to get those last votes in.
All right, if you haven't voted,
we're about to close this one.
So get those last few votes in.
Okay, so we're going to close this out
and take a look at the results.
-: Thanks, Tom.
It looks like the majority here is --
we have some engagement in case review interviews.
Okay.
Can we go on to the second poll question, Tom?
"How well do you feel your state
is engaging youth and young persons with lived experience
during case review interviews
and stakeholder interviews?"
Tom: And Jim, we can leave this open
for a few more seconds.
Get those last votes in.
Okay, let's close this out
and take a look at the results.
-: Looks like the majority,
we have some engagement during case review interviews
and stakeholder interviews only.
All right, Tom, can we do our last poll question here?
"How well do you feel your state
is engaging youth and young persons with lived experience
in PIP activities and state policy
and program service development?"
Tom: We can leave this last question up
just a few more seconds.
Get those last votes in.
Okay, let's take a look at the results.
-: Looks like we've got a majority here of,
little struggle with youth and young person engagement
in PIP development and state policy
and program service development.
Okay.
All right.
All right, Tom, I think we have one more poll question.
"How well do you feel your state
is engaging those with lived experience
in diverse and underserved populations
that you serve in your state?"
Tom: Okay, we'll ask folks to get those last answers in.
And just a reminder for everybody,
we will have some more poll questions
coming up for you later in the webinar.
All right.
We can close this out here
and take a look at the results.
-: Looks like we've got a majority of it
doing some exploration of ways to be more inclusive
of diverse and underserved populations
of those with lived experience.
Okay.
Very good.
All right, we really appreciate
you participating in those polls.
Okay, next slide.
We want to acknowledge that parents, caregivers,
youth, and young adults are all experts of their own lives
and their experiences with the child welfare system.
The CFSR team has continued to canvass opportunities
to assist states in improving on some lessons learned
over the past three rounds
and build on areas of growth and improvement.
We wanted to start off by sharing a project
we've been working on.
The CFSR team has worked diligently
with our contractor, JBS,
to develop three distinct areas
where the CFSR team can work with
our CFSR Regional Office team members and our state partners
to improve on operationalizing youth voice
in CFSR Round 4.
JBS, our contractor, conducted focus groups
on how best to engage young persons in the CFSR process
with two distinct groups
of young persons with lived experience.
These sessions modeled meaningful involvement
throughout the process
by involving young persons with lived experience
in the development and implementation of the focus groups.
To date, the focus groups have been completed
and interim feedback shared with the Children's Bureau.
JBS is now in the process of drafting recommendations
to be shared with the Children's Bureau.
The CB will take the recommendations
and work alongside a young person
to find ways to operationalize them.
Group 1 consisted of young persons with lived experience
and experience in working alongside federal staff
to provide assistance to states and evaluate state programs.
Group 2 consisted of young persons with lived experience
recruited from national organizations
to provide alternative perspectives
that are not informed by experiences,
partnering with federal staff on monitoring efforts.
Areas covered during these focus groups
included the statewide data indicators;
statewide assessment; the onsite review,
including case reviews, interviews,
and stakeholder interviews;
Program Improvement Plan; PIP development and monitoring;
and a wrap-up in a debrief session.
We will be sharing some quotes
from the youth and young people
who participated in these focus groups
that align with the content to be shared today.
Next slide.
Through the focus groups
with the young persons with lived experience,
we gathered some initial feedback and comments
in the form of some powerful quotes,
and we wanted to share a small sample with you today.
I know you can read those that are on the slide,
but I am going to read those out loud,
because they are quite powerful.
"Young people need to know what the ramifications are
to taking part in a review --
knowing what tangible results might stem
from playing a crucial part in a review."
"I like the idea of having a young person
or young adult with lived expertise
co-facilitate case-related interviews with young people.
I think having that ally presence
in the room for those interviews
could be very empowering for both parties."
"Youth should be involved in all areas
and not so much with an emphasis on any,
but representation at all levels
at the discretion of the youth.
There are plenty willing to give input
in an area they are interested in
given the prep and support."
"Provide a clear understanding
of how their feedback will be used and acted on.
Sometimes it feels like feedback
from young people is, quote 'heard,'
but then never used or acted on."
Next slide.
Let's start with talking through the CB expectations
for stakeholder involvement in the CFSR process.
Next slide.
We have some basic guiding principles and foundations
for including the family voice in the CFSR.
Families and youth are our best sources of information
about the strengths and needs
of their families and communities.
Yet historically, we make decisions and plans
in the absence of their input.
Moreover, when input is sought,
it may not receive meaningful consideration.
We often make assumptions as a field
that solutions reside in the services and programs only,
especially those with an evidence base.
This may be true in some situations,
but many other families may need something much more basic,
such as concrete supports in a time of need.
Longstanding family teaming models in the field
have demonstrated that shared decision-making
and planning approaches increase engagement
by directly involving families and youth
in discussions about their family's strengths,
resources, and needs in identifying solutions.
A key principle of child welfare practice
is creating a helping relationship
with those we serve by empowering families and youth
to make critical decisions in their lives
and supporting child welfare professionals
to honor those decisions and assist with achieving them.
We are investing in the long-term protective capacities
of families and youth
and protective factors within communities.
Next slide.
The Child and Family Services Reviews
are based on several central principles and concepts,
and collaboration during the review process
is an important key component.
The safety, permanency, and well-being of children
is a shared responsibility.
Child welfare agencies must make every effort
to actively engage and involve
families and youth with lived experience,
foster/adoptive parents,
agency frontline workers and supervisors,
service providers, legal and judicial communities,
Tribes, and key stakeholder system partners in the state
who can help achieve positive results
with respect to the outcomes
and systemic factors subject to review.
We know that child welfare agencies
do not serve children and families in isolation.
They should work in partnership with policymakers,
community leaders, and other public and private agencies
to improve practice and system performance
for children and families in their states.
This includes partnering with organizations
that directly serve children, youth, and families,
and those whose actions affect family and community life.
Next slide.
In accordance with Executive Order 13985,
"Advancing Racial Equity and Support
for Underserved Communities
Through the Federal Government,"
states should consider issues
of diversity, equity, and inclusion in their work
on the Child and Family Services Review process.
This includes a willingness to examine
whether and how existing policies and practices
have disparate and sometimes harmful impacts
on historically underserved and marginalized people.
It also includes ensuring
in their collaborative working process
inclusion of those who belong to underserved communities
that have been denied fair, just, and impartial treatment
within the system.
Family-centered and community-based practices
are integral to improving system performance
for children and families.
Collaboration with families, including young people,
is important in identifying and assessing
strengths and barriers to improved outcomes
for children, youth, and families.
States can best prepare families and young adults
for participation in the process
by explaining why their participation is critical
to improving practice for those served
by the child welfare system,
and the overall process and expectations.
We have another quote I'd like to share with you
from our focus group.
"Equitable participatory research,
for example, black, brown, Tribal,
LGBTQ+, Two-Spirit youth,
addressing geographical inequities,
as well as those with disabilities.
Addressing an age gap as well is very important.
For example, not just stopping at age 24.
This research, in my opinion,
needs to be gathered consistently.
We need to hear from those
who are not involved in the advocacy community,
thinking of those with less proximity."
Next slide.
States are encouraged to use a variety of approaches
to continue their collaboration and consultation
with Tribes' legal and judicial communities.
Those with lived experience, including young persons,
parents, caregivers, and other key stakeholders
that informed the Child and Family Services Plan,
or CFSP, throughout the review process.
For example, the agency might gather information
by holding focus groups, conducting surveys,
holding joint planning forums,
or developing other strategies
for linking the review process
with the ongoing consultation process used
for title IV-B child and family services planning.
The Children's Bureau expectations
related to the use of data in collaboration with
the state's legal and judicial communities, Tribes,
and other key stakeholders is consistent
across all assessment and planning processes.
It is important to note that efforts should not stop
with stakeholder participation
after involvement in any of these suggested processes.
There should be ongoing engagement with your stakeholders
in identifying strategies
that directly address areas in need of improvement
in your child welfare system.
This includes ensuring that data is presented
in a digestible manner for each stakeholder group.
We have another quote I would like to share with you
from our young people.
"One thing that I've noticed particularly in my state
is that they have a habit of
talking through some of the data
and even the cross-cutting themes with young people.
However, when it comes to developing,
it's almost as if the youth, many times,
are not in that perspective --
'What is your feedback?'--
instead of having them there through the entire process."
Next slide.
Next, we'd like to offer some specific engagement efforts
for stakeholders with lived experience,
specifically youth, parents, and caregivers.
Next slide.
Let's start with what we know about youth voice,
the benefits to organizations and benefits to young people.
When organizations actively involve young people
in program evaluation, it yields better results.
It supports resiliency, autonomy,
and well-being of young people.
When organizations encourage
a comprehensive understanding of young people
and their changing needs in real time,
it teaches young people how to take initiative
and builds accountability.
By utilizing young people's knowledge and insights,
it promotes developmentally appropriate services.
Young people feel empowered to advocate for themselves.
It improves an organization's cultural responsiveness.
It provides young people with opportunities for leadership,
critical thinking, decision-making,
and community engagement.
It creates youth buy-in.
It creates retention and engagement in services.
It encourages young people to build professional skills
in a professional environment.
Next slide.
You may be asking yourself,
"How can my state more effectively operationalize
youth voice in CFSR Round 4?"
The CB has developed some suggested strategies for doing so.
First, we encourage states to canvass
the voice of current youth and young persons
who had previous involvement in your child welfare system.
Some states may have existing youth boards
that meet routinely.
Others may have access to these individuals
via their independent living program area.
We encourage states to routinely canvass
youth voice frequently,
particularly as youth transition out of care into adulthood.
It's equally important to understand and identify
the diversity, equitable disparities, and inclusion needs
of your youth and young persons of your state.
We challenge you to identify voices of
youth and young persons who may not usually be called upon
to provide input on a regular basis.
So, for example, youth who are in institutions
and are quite capable of engagement,
LGBTQ youth, diverse populations of ethnicities,
and those who the state identifies
as underserved, et cetera.
The second area involves recruitment
of young people with lived experience.
This includes utilizing those identified
in the previous step.
States are encouraged to utilize your youth boards,
IL coordinators, frontline caseworkers and supervisors,
as resources and recruitment
of young persons with lived experience.
Utilize these individuals to help you recruit
other youth and young person's voices.
As mentioned, it's important to identify a group of youth
that is representative
of your state's youth and young person's diverse population.
Find voices that have not been heard
or are underrepresented, in addition to those
who routinely help with state processes.
During recruitment processes,
it's important to explain in youth-friendly terms
what the CFSR is all about.
States are encouraged to use resources
such as the Youth Fact Sheet
to be located on the CFSR Information Portal,
and other youth who have previously participated,
and your Regional Office and CFSR leads
are also good resources to help in that process.
Lastly, expanding on the first two steps and most important,
working with youth and young persons
during the multiple aspects of the CFSR process.
It's essential to prepare your youth and young persons
for each aspect you plan to engage them in your CFSR work.
Additionally, while preparation is extremely crucial,
it's important to identify a plan
for your youth and young person's post-involvement.
So, for example, youth and young persons
are drawing on their unique lived expertise
to help move your systems forward.
This may potentially trigger secondary trauma, for example,
or feelings that need to be sorted through.
We really encourage states to identify a resource
for each youth or young person
who engages in this important work with you.
This can be a caseworker, a supervisor,
a therapist, a caregiver, et cetera.
The CB encourages states while canvassing and recruiting
to survey youth and young persons
by identifying areas of interest in the CFSR.
Not all young persons are interested in data, for example.
By doing this, you will be able to
easily identify individuals
who are willing to partner with you
in each aspect of the CFSR.
Additionally, it's important to consider
compensating your youth
for their involvement and expertise in your processes.
We really encourage you to review
the recently released APSR program instruction
on possible opportunities to do this.
Now I'd like to turn over to Beth Pierce.
-: Good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Beth Pierce.
And as Jennifer stated earlier,
I'm a member of the CFSR Unit.
I have close to 30 years of child welfare experience
at the local, state, and now at the federal level.
So we're going to get started with some polls.
These polls are similar to the polls that we had earlier,
but the focus is going to be on
the engagement of parents and caregivers.
So Tom, if you can go ahead
and put up the first poll, that'd be great.
So our first poll is,
"How well do you feel your state
is engaging parents and caregivers
during statewide assessment development activities?"
Tom: All right, Beth, we're going to leave this open
for just a little bit longer,
let folks get their votes in.
-: Great, thank you.
I know you all may have poll fatigue,
but just bear with us.
We only have two more to go, two more questions.
We appreciate your input.
Tom: Okay, we're going to close this out
and let folks see the results.
-: Okay.
So it looks like there's some engagement.
Similar to the polls that we saw earlier,
there is some engagement going on,
but some areas that we can kind of work on.
Okay, we can put the next poll up.
And our next poll question is going to be,
"How well do you feel your state
is engaging parents and caregivers
during case review interviews and stakeholder interviews?"
Tom: And again, we're going to leave this up
for a little bit.
Get those last votes in.
Okay.
So let's take a look at the results.
-: Same as the last one.
There's some engagement going on.
So we appreciate that.
Now, this is the last poll question.
So thank you all for hanging in there with us.
"How well do you feel your state
is engaging parents and caregivers
during the PIP development
and state policy and program service development?"
-: All right, and for this last question,
we'll just leave it open again.
Get those last votes in.
Thanks everybody.
We appreciate it.
All right.
There you go.
-: Okay, so this one is a little bit,
the states are, they're struggling a little bit more.
So, that's an area that needs a little bit of assistance.
So thank you for participating in the poll.
We appreciate your input.
Okay, we can move to the next slide.
All right, so early in the presentation,
Jim spoke about the benefits
youth voice has to organizations
as well as to young persons with lived experience.
Now we're going to pivot a bit to some benefits
parent/caregiver voice has to organizations
as well as to the parents and caregivers themselves.
So what we know is when agencies actively involve
parent and caregiver voice
and make them key partners in decision-making,
the obvious benefit is improved child welfare outcomes.
We know when parent and caregiver voices are heard,
organizations can effectively design and deliver services
that best meet the needs of children and families.
And when those needs are being adequately addressed,
it leads parents and caregivers
to improve their parental protective capacities.
Now, on a macro level, engaging parents and caregivers
leads to improved policy perspectives,
which can then empower parents and caregivers
to take initiative and build accountability.
Finally, actively involving parent/caregiver voice
will drive sustained collaboration
of a broad range of stakeholders
and build long-term strengths, skills, and capacity
of parents and caregivers to engage with other systems.
Earlier, we spoke about the benefits
youth voice has to organizations.
I'm sorry, I was going back to the first slide.
But just to let you know,
what we'd like to see is we'd like to see
our parents build from their participation in child welfare.
We'd like to see them utilize the skills
that they've learned during their involvement
with the child welfare system
and take those outside of the system.
And hopefully they'll be able to build on those experiences.
And now one final note that I'd like to make
is to remember that those with lived experience
are solid partners in our system.
And as Jim mentioned earlier,
their time and experiences are valuable.
Therefore, it's really important that we find ways
to discuss and compensate them for their time.
Next slide.
Now that we've discussed the benefits
of parent and caregiver voice,
we're going to move on to
how to operationalize their voices in the CFSR.
So first we want to identify parent groups or associations
within the jurisdiction.
While there are many national efforts around advocacy,
those grassroots efforts are most likely done
at the local level.
Therefore, it's important to look to
your local jurisdictions for parent groups
or parent advisory councils
that are representative of the community.
Second, we want to offer a variety of opportunities
to include parent/caregiver voice
throughout the CFSR continuum.
Inviting parents and caregivers to focus groups
or to different agency functions are options.
You can also utilize surveys
to garner parent and caregiver voice.
And clearly this is not an exhaustive list
and there are many other ways
to offer parent and caregiver opportunities
to have their voices included.
But we just wanted to share a few.
Third, we want to ensure that
we're engaging parents and caregivers in ways
that are respectful of their lives and circumstances.
Some ways we can do this
is by meeting parents in the community
or having virtual meetings,
which I'm sure we're doing a lot of that now.
We also want to ensure that we close that feedback loop.
We want to let parents and caregivers know
what happened to their feedback
and not allow that to be a loose end.
They provide feedback to us, they give input,
and not knowing where that goes
can sometimes hinder them from participating again.
Next slide.
Next, we're going to discuss some of the considerations
when engaging youth, parents, and caregivers.
First and foremost, we need to create an environment
that supports inclusivity.
While we value the voices
of all those who step up and volunteer for groups,
you need to be very intentional in your efforts
to reach those voices that are not often included
and ensure you're not relying on
the same group of volunteers.
We know that we come across
some parents or caregivers or youth who are very involved,
who always step up to the plate,
but we want to be very aware and very cognizant
of the need to include those who don't always step up
or who are not likely to be those
who we would seek feedback from.
That means that we need to be proactive
with planning engagement activities,
and ensuring you think about how you'll include
the voices of those with lived experience
and how you'll support their perspectives.
Another consideration
is locating people with lived experience.
Those with lived experiences
bring a unique perspective that is critical.
We don't want to be in the habit
of speaking on their behalf.
We want them to speak for themselves.
States can do this by using their data
to determine what the population looks like
and use this information to inform recruitment efforts.
It's also important to think about
how to overcome the obstacles and barriers that may come up.
Whenever you engage a broad range of perspectives,
undoubtedly obstacles and barriers will arise.
Therefore, it's important to be prepared
to answer whatever issues come up.
It goes back to meeting
persons with lived experiences where they are
and being creative and innovative in your approaches.
Next slide.
Okay, so with this, we're going to focus on some evidence
states can look for to determine if they're collaborating.
So, when you're thinking about this,
does your state work to engage a broad group of Tribes,
internal and external partners, and stakeholders,
including youth and young persons with lived experience
in the development and ongoing analysis of the PIP
and new statewide assessment?
And this is one of the questions
that we touched on earlier in the poll.
Another one is do internal and external partners
convey a shared ownership
of the statewide assessment and PIP process,
including development?
Does your state have established standing meetings
that are regularly attended by
states, partners, and stakeholders?
And is participation in outcomes of the meeting tracked?
Lastly, is responsibility and authority
assigned to key staff who will communicate
about the CFSR process internally and externally,
and ensure that this is done on a regular basis?
Now, we understand that there may be other ways
to determine if collaboration is occurring,
and if you are employing any other mechanisms
to ensure collaboration is happening,
you can feel free to put that in the chat.
We would really love to know about those.
Next slide.
This graphic depicts the CSFR Round 4 process.
And I'm going to just quickly run through
each of the layers of the graphic.
As you look at this graphic,
the first thing that I'd like to point out is data evidence
is reflected at the core.
And this is done intentionally,
and it's done to highlight
the central nature of data to all of the processes shown.
And anybody who knows me or is familiar with me,
I like to use analogies.
So similar to how the nucleus
provides critical information to the cell,
data evidence, such as data profiles, context data,
agency and court data, as well as CQI case data,
provides critical information needed
for systems to flow properly.
And I understand that these are just starting points,
and obviously there are more out there
than just those items that I mentioned.
So I'm just giving you some ideas
of some of the data that you can pull,
but clearly I'm sure that there are other items
that can be included in that data.
Next, there's Safety, Permanency, and Well-Being,
which are the three overarching domains shown.
And as you are aware, the seven outcomes --
Safety 1 and 2,
Permanency 1 and 2,
Well-Being 1, 2, and 3 --
they all fall under these three domains.
And moving on to layer three,
which reflects the four phases of the CFSR,
the first phase being the statewide assessment,
followed by the CFSR onsite review, the CFSR Final Report,
and finally, the Program Improvement Plan, or PIP.
Although there are four phases to this process,
as you can see, it's a continuous process
that requires root cause analysis throughout.
So this is an ongoing process.
Next, we have the Annual
Progress and Services Report, or the APSR.
And as reflected in the title, it's updated annually,
and the Child and Family Services Plan, or the CFSP,
which is updated every 5 years.
States are expected to have
a coordinated approach to improvement,
which includes integrating the PIP with the CFSR and APSR
and any other service reports.
The last layer reflects
the core of our discussion today, which is engagement.
And I believe Jennifer touched on that in her introduction
when she said that we're looking at engagement
and we're looking at it to be broader and deeper in scope.
So, engagement with parents,
children, parents, caregivers, the legal-judicial community,
other stakeholders, Tribes, and service providers
encompass all the layers,
and it's a vital piece of the CFSR.
And as I think we discussed a little bit earlier,
the benefits of meaningful engagement
at both the agency level
and individual level are invaluable,
and it cannot be done effectively
without that meaningful engagement.
Okay, next slide.
Okay, well, that does it for me.
I appreciate you all,
your attention during my presentation.
And now I'm going to hand it over
to Mary-Kate Myer and Shailiegh Piepmeier,
who are going to delve into the technical assistance available
from the Capacity Building Center for States.
Thank you guys.
-: Thank you so much, Beth.
So, as Beth shared,
we're going to kind of move into the TA [technical assistance] model.
But before we do, I wanted to introduce myself.
So, I'm Shailiegh Piepmeier.
My pronouns are "she" and "her."
So I have more than 10 years
of personal and professional experience.
So I'm kind of a dual hat-wearer today.
I'm a young adult consultant
on behalf of the Center for States,
and then I'm also a youth support lead
on the Division X technical assistance team and project.
So both of these are resources available
through the Children's Bureau
to support your family and youth engagement efforts.
So Mary-Kate and I are going to talk about these resources,
but we are going start with the shared model
for engaging people with lived experience and expertise.
So you might find the information helpful
in thinking through your own approach.
And so we are also going to talk about,
or talk through, some of the people
who are involved in supporting some of this work.
So I'm going to go on and pass it
to my co-facilitator today, Mary-Kate.
-: Hi, everyone.
Thank you so much for being here today.
My name is Mary-Kate Myers and I utilize the pronouns,
"she," "her," "they," "them."
I am a youth support lead
with the Division X Technical Assistance Project
and have 15 years of combined
lived and professional experience
within the child welfare system.
I'm currently deployed regionally
and I'm excited to see how the technical assistance
will guide states, Tribes, and territories
to connect to more meaningful engagement
with people with lived experience.
Presented on this slide is the technical assistance model
for lived expertise engagement
through the Capacity Building Center for States
and Division X Technical Assistance Project.
Both Capacity Building Center for States
and Division X teams utilize this model
for lived expertise engagement.
These two TA entities engage a pool
of expert consultants with lived expertise.
The model here provides an at-a-glance framework
for how these two TA resources
engage people with lived experience.
In the center of the circle,
you can find the different engagement approaches,
which can vary and depend on the type of activity
and outcome that we're setting out to achieve.
At the foundational level,
we may engage people with lived experience
to inform a wide audience
about an issue, practice, or policy,
which could include participating on a panel
or a speaking engagement.
At the next level, people with lived experience
might be engaged to consult.
They might be reviewing policies and procedures
as well as giving their feedback on something
that is being developed to go out to the field.
At the next level, people with lived experience
may be involved directly with the work
to develop a scope of work, a plan,
or a design of a specific project.
Compared to just providing feedback,
they're working together and helping shape the body of work.
Moving on to the next level, collaboration.
This is shoulder-to-shoulder partnership,
and this looks like
co-leading an effort or a co-partnership.
And at the highest level, they are empowered in some way.
There may be shared decision-making,
folks may be leading work groups,
leading product development, or developing newsletters.
Around the outside of this main circle
is the support framework.
This cuts across all of the engagement approaches.
We'll spend time preparing people with lived experience,
which can look like giving them materials
and sharing knowledge and skills
before an event or a meeting.
Next, we can provide them with support, such as coaching,
providing opportunities to practice and hone skills,
creating a safe space,
and providing authentic and meaningful connection.
An important part of this process
is debriefing the work together.
Now, this is moreso focused about the process,
what worked, what didn't work, and what can be improved.
Next, we can evaluate.
Did we achieve what we set out to,
and were there things that we can learn?
Finally, we can celebrate the time together.
This is a really important piece
in really bringing it all together.
We can celebrate personal and professional growth,
milestones reached, and skills developed.
It's important to note that none of this process is linear.
It's really an ongoing cyclical cycle
and can move back and forward.
I'll pass it over to Shailiegh
to go over a little more about
the infrastructure and supports being put in place
as well as some key principles.
-: Thanks, Mary-Kate.
So on the left side of the screen,
you'll see kind of the infrastructural and resource supports
that are put in place.
So the frequent communication and check-ins,
having the youth and families that are involved
making sure that they're competitively compensated.
Making sure there's logistical supports
in that peer-to-peer learning environment,
and making sure that it's safe and authentic.
The mutually exploring expectations
and then coaching, training, and professional development.
And that's an ongoing aspect.
And then having that bidirectional feedback.
So making sure that
the collaboration and mutuality is bidirectional.
And then we've got this right side of the circle
that you see here.
That's more of the key principles in practice behavior.
So more around the principles of our work
and how we approach it.
So we want to be responsive to people's needs
as well as being reciprocal
and having that kind of reciprocal relationship,
rather than transactional.
So, alternatively, having it be transformational
and promoting that healing center-type approach,
the trauma-informed and responsive type care,
making sure it's person-centered,
that it's impartial and objective.
So being respectful and inclusive.
And so going down this list here, really being sure
that it's open, transparent, and trust-building.
So again, that safe space.
Strength-based and trauma-informed,
again with the healing center-type approaches.
Engaging early and often,
so it's not that tail end or the feedback versus,
it's really that collaboration
and engaging them early and often.
And then that continuous quality improvement.
So, CQI efforts, quality assurance type things.
So we can move on to that next slide.
All right.
So let's talk about the Center for States' services.
So the Center for States
has four primary areas of services.
It's tailored service.
So, supporting peer groups,
developing and disseminating publications,
tools, and learning experiences
on a variety of child welfare topics.
And providing access to
national child welfare expertise,
including young adults and families
with lived experience and expertise in child welfare.
So I wanted to know, as you guys have ongoing discussions
with your Regional Offices and your specialists
and your Child and Family Services Review leads,
we really encourage you to discuss ways
to have the Center for States
and how they may be engaged in
assisting and building your capacity
to engage those with lived expertise,
and then your Regional Office specialists
and your CFSR leads can really help facilitate a call
with your Regional liaison within the Center for States
to answer any of those questions that you may be having,
or that you could filter through.
Next slide please.
So this is a fun one.
These are some photos from the young adult consultants
and the family consultants on the Center for States side.
So really on behalf of the Children's Bureau,
the Capacity Building Center for States,
we call it for short the Center,
really provides support to states and jurisdictions
to strengthen, implement, and sustain
effective child welfare practice,
and achieve better outcomes
for children, youth, and families.
So the Center recognizes youth and family engagement
as an integral part of the success
and sustained organizational and system change
in child welfare.
And we've heard that from Jim and Beth.
And so to this end, really is incorporating that parent,
the caregiver, and the youth voice
in every aspect of its service delivery.
And so mentioning that community and the partnership
and improving those kinds of outcomes
is really the end goal here.
And so when thinking about this
and building that capacity for the states
and Tribes and jurisdictions,
the Center is recruiting and training
and supporting these pools of highly skilled
family and young adults.
And in many cases, the Center is utilizing
family and young adult consultants,
or we call them YACs, too,
to really help build the capacity
for states and jurisdictions
to meaningfully engage youth and families in this way.
And so, excuse me,
the Center's family consultants
are experienced in leading family empowerment efforts
in representing that family voice
at the state and national levels.
And so they include the biological parents,
those relative caregivers,
and foster parents with personal and professional experience
in the child welfare systems.
And Beth really shared a lot about this earlier.
And then young adult consultants,
all of whom are between that 18- and 26-year age range,
have that lived experience in the foster care system.
So in addition to that and the experience that they bring,
they have that proficiency in child welfare topic areas
that kind of include but may not be limited to
those things like youth engagement,
youth development, independent living services,
extended foster care, extended federal foster care,
congregate care, or things like
the National Youth in Transition Database,
maintaining family and sibling connections,
and even developing youth advisory boards.
So both the Center's family consultants
and young adult consultants
share and train others to share
really their lived experiences
in ways that can inform and improve
those child welfare policies and practice.
So both family consultants and YACs
can have those experiences providing analysis,
the recommendations, and the feedback
around, oh, I guess, and training,
to the child welfare field.
And so they lend their lived experience
and professional expertise to really respond to
those kinds of needs of the jurisdictions
and making sure that it's tailored specific to
whatever that exploration is or the end goal is.
And so family consultants and YACs
are competitively compensated.
So, Beth mentioned this,
I believe Jen mentioned this as well
when talking about young persons, but it's important
that they are competitively compensated
for their time and their effort and participation
in these projects and consultation.
And then the Center provides also
that ongoing training to support
any further developed skills that's happening and going on.
So, next slide, please.
I'm going to pass on over to Mary-Kate
to talk a little bit more about
the Division X Technical Assistance
and what that brings.
-: Thanks so much, Shailiegh.
On behalf of the Children's Bureau
and the Division X Technical Assistance Project,
we deliver time-limited, targeted training
and technical assistance
to state, territorial, and Tribal
IV-E child welfare agencies
to build their capacity and make sustainable changes
to improve policy and practice
that ultimately lead to better outcomes
for youth and young adults
in and transitioning from foster care.
The Division X TA team will leverage
its expertise and partnerships with youth and young adults
to enhance knowledge, skills,
and apply best and promising youth center practice
to advance equity and include
youth and young adult voice in all aspects of child welfare.
Similar to the service array available at the Center,
the Division X TA team will be hosting
national and Regional peer calls,
offering tools and resources, universal events,
and targeted assistance projects,
all with the aim of improving services
to youth and young adults.
Both the Division X project and the Center for States
are executed on behalf of the Children's Bureau,
provides dedicated coordinator,
peer support, and coaching,
and focuses on equity, inclusion, and diversity.
Capacity Building Center for States' TA
is a multi-year opportunity and provides capacity building
across the child welfare continuum.
Division X TA is time-limited
and has a targeted focus
on youth-centered capacity building.
The Division X TA team is also led by
a team with lived expertise.
And I will pass this over to Christine.
-: Thank you, Mary-Kate.
Hi everybody,
I'm Christine Kiesel, and my title is
Child Welfare Specialist for Legal and Judicial Issues.
I'm a contractor to the Children's Bureau
and come to this position
with over 25 years of experience in child welfare,
having represented parents, children.
I sat on the bench as a quasi-judicial officer,
overseeing a designated permanency part,
and I served as the CIP Director for the State of New York.
And I'm really happy to talk with you today
about legal and judicial integration into CFSR Round 4.
Next slide, please.
So the purpose of this segment of the presentation
is to provide support to state child welfare agencies
and state CIPs, that's Court Improvement Programs,
in their efforts to engage with lawyers, judges,
and other court personnel throughout the CFSR.
Next slide, please.
We've got some identified goals
for the legal and judicial systems
and their engagement for Round 4.
So we want lawyers, judges, CIPs,
and court personnel involved early and throughout the CFSR,
beginning with the release of the statewide data indicators
and the preparation of the statewide assessment.
That's our first goal.
Secondly, we want to make sure that lawyers and judges
are educated about the CFSR
and the critical role that they play
in achieving positive outcomes for families.
And thirdly, we want to make sure
that states are supported
in obtaining legal and judicial system integration
throughout the process.
And I'm going to pause there for a minute
and just explain to you that when I refer to states,
it's akin to the child welfare system at large.
When I want to refer to
the child welfare agency specifically,
I will say the agency or the child welfare agency.
But when I say the state,
I'm talking about the broader state
and everybody that contributes to the outcomes
for children and families.
Next slide, please.
So we want to talk about compliance versus engagement.
And I was on a call recently when somebody asked,
"Why would the legal and judicial systems
want to do this work?"
And somebody responded quickly before I could and said,
"Because they have to."
And while that's true for the CIPs,
it's not true for the broader system partners.
So we would do really well to support
legal and judicial systems' engagement in this work
by demonstrating the value of this work
to their own areas of interest.
And this is not something that's a pro forma activity.
The legal and judicial system partners
are critical to the success
of the state's child welfare system.
And as such, we want partners in the CFSR
who are engaged in the process,
not just because there's a mandate,
because they really see the added value
of their participation to the process.
Everyone at the table should clearly understand
that all parties contribute
to the functioning of the child welfare system
and all parties have to work toward solutions
in order to see improvements in that functioning
that will benefit those outcomes for children and families.
Having said that, it's still important
to look at the foundations that outline compliance.
Next slide, please.
So, this is the Social Security Act, Section 422(b)(13),
and I know this is not a new requirement.
I know the agencies and CIPs
are very well aware of this provision.
However, the emphasis of this provision has shifted.
In the past, it wasn't viewed
with the same level of importance
that was placed on it beginning in Round 3,
and is continuing into this round.
It's really the norm to find out
that the CIP has been at least engaged
in some aspects of the CFSR.
In fact, data from the CIPs' 2019 self-assessment
demonstrates that 96% of CIPs
were involved in some way in CFSR Round 3.
92% indicated they made suggestions for inclusion
of strategies within the PIP and activities,
and 77% of those suggestions
were included in Program Improvement Plans.
And that is great.
That's great for CIP engagement.
But the question is, is CIP engagement alone
enough to satisfy the requirement
to demonstrate collaboration with the courts?
And I'm going to say, no, it's not.
And it's not because CIP
is only one representative of the court system structure.
They are not the entire court system structure.
So it will be critically important
to know and understand the court structure.
What is that leadership structure?
How are policy decisions made?
Does CIP have access to the chief justice
or other policymakers?
Some CIPs have very direct access.
Others have a level of hierarchy
where they don't have independent access.
So what kind of authority does the CIP have
to convene judges for meetings, for focus groups,
for pilots or implementation zone projects?
It's very important to know all of that,
and that should be explored up front
to understand the amount of effort it will be for the CIP
to secure the engagement of judges
and whether the structure of the court system
includes relationships with attorneys.
Most CIPs don't have independent authority
to commit the resources of the AOC,
Administrative Offices of the Courts,
and having high-level decision-makers
within the court structure,
as well as frontline professionals,
will be very important to the process.
The same exploration of that needs to be done
regarding the CIP's relationship with the attorney groups.
Do they have the authority?
Do they have the influence to convene them?
Who should be at the table
to support the voice of attorneys for parents and children?
This work is really imperative
to make sure the right people are at the table.
And ideally, this exploration is done early
and by the time the statewide data indicators are released.
From the 2019 self-assessment data again,
43% of the CIPs reported being involved
in the statewide assessment in Round 3.
So we're called on to improve upon that
in a way that includes more CIPs,
but also includes the voices of lawyers for children,
lawyers for parents, judges, and court administrators.
The work to get the broader system participation
needs to be a joint effort
and not an expectation that's solely placed on the CIP.
Next slide, please.
Having said all of that, the CIPs have requirements
to fulfill regarding the CFSR as well.
So here's what some of their obligations are.
They have a concomitant obligation
under the Social Security Act
that you see there in the first bullet.
And then it defines
what meaningful, ongoing collaboration means.
And then the last thing is that state courts
must also commit to participating in all stages of
the child welfare program planning and improvement efforts,
including the CFSP, APSR, CFSR,
and Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Review processes
within required timeframes.
And that's in the program instruction
for the Court Improvement Programs.
So the requirement for CIPs to engage,
and we're asking them to do more,
but ultimately, they shouldn't be expected to do this alone.
So it has to be a joint effort
between the agencies and the Court Improvement Programs.
And there's no wrong way to start this collaborative work,
because, we just saw, there's a joint requirement.
The initial reach-out may come from the agency
or from the CIP or a representative of the CIP,
or a lead judge, perhaps.
But let's get back to the question
that started us down this road
thinking about compliance versus engagement.
Why would lawyers and judges want to come to the table
to examine the functioning
of the state's child welfare system?
What's in it for them?
Next slide, please.
And this is a little more about the CIP.
Again, they're representative,
well, we can go back one.
Yes, thank you.
Again, making sure that we know
that CIP is one representative of the system,
and we want all of these other entities
to be integrated throughout.
And what do we mean by broad and meaningful integration?
We need to work through this state by state.
So we can't just say, "And this is how it looks."
So it's going to look different
depending on those structures that we talked about
and how everybody is situated
in order to convene people and engage people.
And we know that CIP
usually has a good ability to convene,
and this is a new level of inclusion
for a lot of the lawyers, a lot of the judges.
So we have to help everybody to really think through
their inclusion in this process.
Okay, next slide.
So while those statutes and instructions
are really important, they're not going to result
in the level of integration that we want to see
between legal and judicial systems
and child welfare agencies, right?
Just because we told them you have to
doesn't mean that it's going to happen.
Everyone really needs to see
the value of their participation.
The messaging is critically important here.
And that main message is that the CFSRs
are an examination of the entire child welfare system,
not just the child welfare agency.
So that's critically important
and should come from everybody's lips
and can come from all different angles.
Agency, CIP, court and legal leaders.
There's no wrong door for getting that message out.
Next slide, please.
So let's talk about why they might want to do it
and some of these critical pieces
for understanding and getting people engaged.
So we're going to talk about
different areas of intersection
of the legal, judicial, and child welfare agency interests
that are relevant to the CFSR.
And first is the data of interest.
So the CFSR examined systems data
that is relevant and of interest to judges and lawyers.
The process for examining data
helps to frame areas in need of improvement.
It also can provide context
for some of the work already going on
within the state court system structure
and, through the CIPs, both at the state and the local level.
So here's an example here.
It comes from the Children's Bureau
IM [Information Memorandum] on Permanency from 2021.
And it talks about the AFCARS data on exits
for children and youth entering care.
Over 85% of children and youth
will eventually achieve permanency
through reunification, guardianship, or adoption.
After 4 to 5 years,
less than 50% will return to their families of origin
through reunification.
So that's something that's of interest
to lawyers, to judges,
to understand the operational aspect of their system,
and to start thinking about
what that means for them and for their practice.
Next slide, please.
Thank you.
The CFSR is linked with legal requirements.
The existing laws that drive practice within the courtroom
have elements that are examined in the CFSRs.
The above quote is from that same Permanency IM
and reflects an example
of the examination of concerted efforts to prevent removal
that drives practice and hearings
to reflect on reasonable efforts
and the quality of discussion that leads to those findings.
So what's in it for them?
Understanding these findings in these areas
can help with direct advocacy
and inquiry from the bench
that's relevant to supporting improvement
in practices within the agencies,
which is what ASFA requires,
that oversight responsibility.
So there's that connection there.
Next slide, please.
Additionally, legal and judicial practice
intersects with the CFSRs.
This is, again, another opportunity to point out
that the CFSR is an examination
of an entire child welfare system
and all of the points of intersection
that exist beyond the child welfare agency
and how the reviews look at legal and judicial practice,
because they do.
So here's an example of areas
that are examined by the CFSRs,
the timeliness of hearings that affect permanency goals,
the appropriateness of permanency goals,
the effectiveness of notification,
and opportunities to be heard
for caregivers and foster parents,
and the effectiveness and availability
of these array of services made available to families.
So, those are all pointed out
in a resource we'll talk about later,
which is the Round 4 CFSR Fact Sheet.
But again,
it brings the CFSRs into focus
for how it's relevant to the legal and judicial communities.
And I would think when talking about what's in it for them,
that legal and judicial system professionals
will want to be engaged in a process
that examines their practices
and also be a part of the solutions
to areas needing improvement.
Next slide, please.
So how does engagement look?
As I said earlier,
it's going to look different in each state,
because the structures to support these systems
are different from state to state.
Let me give you some suggestions for getting started.
First is to examine the collaborative structures
that already exist within the state
to see if there are points of leverage.
But be careful.
While we can't say what integration will look like,
we can say with a lot of confidence
what it shouldn't look like.
So, a large gathering of stakeholders
representing multiple roles
where the agency obtains feedback on ideas
that have already been generated,
where data's already been gathered and analyzed,
and the feedback ends up being more of a compliance exercise
than an exercise in engagement
is not the type of engagement
that we're talking about in this round.
Does your state have statewide oversight
or support organizations for attorneys for children,
and attorneys for parents, GALs [Guardians ad Litem],
the leaders of which you can connect with
to figure out how to obtain participation
of a broad and diverse array of these individuals?
Having these pockets of influence
gives the state a clear avenue
for pursuing engagement with the individuals of interest.
It doesn't mean that absent these systems,
the efforts will be any more or less effective.
They will simply be different,
and different avenues need to be pursued.
Next slide, please.
So once a broad array
of legal and judicial system professionals
have been identified who have a diverse realm of experience
and effort has been made to design processes
that allow for integration into all of CFSR processes,
we need to move forward and we need to identify
what is the role of each of those stakeholders,
and be really clear about that.
So let's talk about the statewide assessment.
What is the role?
Members of the legal and judicial communities
can help develop the statewide assessment
by providing data and information
on relevant and/or judicial issues,
legal and/or judicial issues,
and/or sharing their experiences.
For the onsite portion of the CFSRs,
can representatives from these groups serve as reviewers
in addition to providing input
during stakeholder interviews?
For stakeholder interviews,
we must ensure that the voices are representative
of the state and the populations we serve,
and that there's sufficient numbers of participants
to ensure meaningful dialogue can be had
to examine statewide functioning.
So these suggestions build on the Round 3 work
that integrated these systems more deeply in the past
and the development and the implementation
of the Program Improvement Plans.
And again, we're looking now for participation
in all aspects of the Child and Family Services Review.
Next slide, please.
Another question that I'm asked
is why we're talking about
engaging legal and judicial communities
earlier in the process than we have in other rounds.
What's the point?
Well, we're doing this for a number of reasons
that relate to each other.
This round is different in that very targeted attention
to statewide data and information
is expected to happen at the statewide assessment phase,
which will serve as a foundation for PIP development.
From that stance alone,
it stands to reason that system partners
would also need to be involved
in that statewide look at the system
prior to the development of the statewide assessment.
In addition, there was great success
in involving the legal and judicial communities in Round 3
that can be expanded on
with more targeted focus and attention
to the importance of their involvement.
So let me now share with you
some of the data from Round 3 that I collected
regarding the legal and judicial involvement
in that process.
Next slide, please.
This slide shows how many states
had at least one strategy
that had legal and judicial practice changes.
So all states had a strategy,
and there was a variation in the types of strategies.
So there were 147 total strategies in the Round 3 PIPs,
with 552 corresponding activities
that were legal-judicial related,
which is an average of 3.8.
Next slide, please.
This just shows the diversity of those strategies
among the outcomes.
I think it's important to show
that these strategies were present in some form
in every single outcome.
So when we're thinking about
where does the legal and judicial communities
and those professionals fit,
we need to remember that they really do fit everywhere.
Some may be more obvious than other places,
but according to this, states found places
for legal and judicial participation
throughout the outcomes of interest.
Next slide, please.
This slide represents the data
that shows the percentage of strategies
that involve legal-judicial practice change
and CIP systems change efforts.
Some of the strategies only required
agency efforts with CIP support
to do things like train the lawyers
and train the judges.
So what we see here.
Well, let me just say this.
So this was a great start.
We'd like to see this strengthened in Round 4.
And the questions that are often asked
and why we're focusing on legal-judicial practice change
is if you were working with me in Round 3,
you heard me asking this.
So what are the lawyers doing differently?
What are the judges doing differently?
And so that's why we're focused on practice change,
because we think we need to get to that level of detail
with these strategies in order to see system improvements.
So what this shows is 33% of the strategies
required judicial practice change,
32% required lawyers to improve the system,
And 93% required efforts of the CIP to improve the system.
So we didn't disaggregate the attorneys.
My experience from Round 3 says that
the majority of these attorneys' practice change
was agency attorneys.
There weren't as many lawyers for parents
or lawyers for children involved in these processes.
And this is an area to build on in Round 4.
We want to see more lawyers of all kinds
involved in the process
and thinking through systemic improvements,
as well as improvements in their own individual practices.
We want more judges and we want to see more strategies
that will result in improved practices
of lawyers and judges.
And while it's fantastic to see
huge percentages of CIP efforts in PIP strategies,
we have to remind ourselves that they are a limited resource
and that they're only one part of the system.
So they're necessary, but not alone sufficient.
Next slide, please.
This slide shows the number of times
PIPs demonstrated legal and judicial and CIP involvement
in the development of the PIPs.
And I think this might actually be
a little higher for CIP and for judges,
but again, the legal part there
were mostly agency attorneys.
Next slide, please.
So there's going to be CB support
for legal and judicial engagement in Round 4.
There's going to be joint letters
to the chief justices and agency directors.
There's going to be follow-up meetings
with chief justices and agency directors,
supports for developing legal and judicial engagement plans
at CIP multidisciplinary taskforce meetings.
And there's going to be ongoing education
about the key roles of legal, judicial,
and court representation in the CFSRs.
Next slide, please.
These letters are going out
from Associate Commissioner Schomburg.
Having both the chief justice and the agency director
in the "to" field on the letter is deliberate
so that the messaging is sent
both to chief justice and agency director at the same time.
These letters are going out
based on the year that you're involved
in the CFSR within the round.
Next slide, please.
Next is meetings with CIP multidisciplinary task force.
There's a desire to engage multiple groups
of these legal and judicial roles at one time.
And this seemed like a logical place to do that.
May or may not include
the chief justice and the agency director.
If not, they'll have a meeting at a separate time.
But these are the meetings where CB will support
the messaging of the importance
of the legal and judicial system involvement.
And you'll have support for that
throughout the planning and execution of these meetings.
And we'll also address -- next slide, please --
the requirement that is on the CIPs
in their upcoming self-assessments
to have a state plan for legal and judicial engagement.
So during these meetings
where the messaging is also happening,
will also be an opportunity
for all the system partners to think about
how can we best ensure that we've got a broad array
of lawyers and judges
and court system administrators involved,
and in what way throughout the entirety of the CFSRs?
Next slide, please.
We have some reference materials and maybe somebody can pop.
I know we put it in the beginning,
but just so that it's accessible in the chat now,
of the resource document that we developed for you.
We have links in there for --
there's a fact sheet for legal and judicial communities
that can help with these conversations.
There's a Round 3 report for legal and judicial communities
that really examined some of the data
that I just showed you,
some other data about areas of interest to those groups,
and strategies and specific examples from states
about what they were doing in Round 3 relative to the CFSRs.
So that's a good document.
And then from that report,
we've developed some spotlight series documents
that are kind of shorter briefs in segments,
2-pagers or so, in four different areas
that can help have conversations
in specific areas within the report
without having to wade through the density of the report
if you need to highlight something
in a shorter period of time.
Those are being finalized right now,
but I wanted to reference them to you
so that you know that they're coming
and you look out for them.
Next slide, please.
Okay.
Just like you heard about the technical assistance
from the Capacity Building Center for States,
there's also technical assistance available
from the Capacity Building Center for Courts.
The CBCC, as we like to call them,
is funded by the Children's Bureau to work with the CIPs
and support their participation
in the CFSRs, and by extension,
the legal and judicial communities'
participation in the CFSR.
And they have a liaison structure
that is in direct contact with the CIP directors,
and they have a relationship
and they will be meeting individually
to talk about the needs of the CIP going forward.
And some of the specific examples of Center support,
or CBCC support, for CFSR Round 4
is around engaging the legal and judicial stakeholders.
They can explore creative approaches
to incentivizing stakeholders to engage
and concrete ways that they can contribute.
They will assist with gathering court data
to enhance the process of the statewide assessments,
as well as supporting the CIP
and the other legal and judicial partners
in reviewing CFSR data profiles.
Okay, I know I went really fast.
That was intentional so that we had some time at the end
to review some of the questions
that you've put in the question-and-answer.
And I'm going to ask all my other panelists
to come on your video.
And we'll ask our helpers to ask the questions.
-: Okay.
The first question is going back to
the engaging those with lived experience,
fully engaging those with lived experiences in their case,
stakeholder reviews and interviews, and PIP activities.
And so I don't know who would like to answer that,
if there are current examples, or is the ability for
states to have that dialogue on an ongoing basis, perhaps,
with the Capacity Building Center.
I don't know who would like to take that one.
-: Patrice, I think that's a good question.
I'm not sure that we have compiled examples at this point,
but this would be a good question for the listserv,
just to kind of get that out there.
That might be a good question to pose to others
if they've had any kind of examples that they could share
about including and engaging
young people with lived experience,
and parents and caregivers.
That would be a good opportunity,
but definitely we'll be on the lookout for any examples.
And if we can come up with some examples
that are really good examples of engagement,
we can try to share that with the Regional Offices
and get that information to you.
-: Great.
Okay.
The next question is,
"Are there samples of surveys
that gather information and perspective from young people
where the wording is youth-friendly?"
-: So, I'm just going to step in here
because I see that we only have a couple of minutes
and there are a number of questions
that are basically asking for resources
that can support some of the recommendations
we were making about broader and deeper engagement.
And we love those questions.
And this is what we can commit to you.
First of all, I think that the presentation
that Mary-Kate and Shailiegh provided
gives some really good suggestions
about some opportunities
that will be available very soon, if not already,
to sort of work with the young adult leaders
who might have some insights
to answer some of those questions.
So I encourage you to take advantage of those opportunities
and to reach out to your Regional Offices
for support in how to do so.
Secondly,
we are continuing to develop and push out
resources that address some of these questions
and will address others that we haven't thought of.
So please be on the lookout for that.
Thirdly, we are hoping that,
to the extent that we want to integrate
this kind of engagement and broad consideration
of all of the folks and people in the communities
who interact with the child welfare systems,
just as we're trying to do that with this presentation here,
I think it's very appropriate
to return to some of these questions in future meetings
when we talk further about the statewide assessment
and systemic factors and the OSRI,
all opportunities that we hope you will use to conduct
some of the kinds of engagement activities
that we described today.
So, I assure you, we are documenting your questions.
We will get back.
We will make sure that we have answers for them
or ways to direct you to get answers.
And we are happy to entertain similar questions
in the follow-up sessions.
But for now, I do want to be respectful of your time
and wrap up a little bit,
but just take a moment to thank each of our panelists
for an extraordinarily effective presentation
that covered a wide range of information
in a tight timeframe really effectively.
And thank you.
And thanks to all of you for signing on
and for participating with us this afternoon.
Tom?
Tom: Thanks, Jennifer.
And I tell you what, we're going to leave this webinar open
just for a moment.
Our panelists, we thank you so much,
but we did want to make sure.
There are a couple people in the chat
who were looking for the documents
to get re-posted again for a third time.
And it has been posted.
So for the documents that have been referenced,
I encourage anybody who is in the chat
to download those right now, before we close the webinar.
So, if you are pressed for time,
as it is 3:30 here on the East Coast,
we thank you much for your time, but you're free to go.
The same thing for our panelists.
But just for everybody in the chat
who is looking to download those documents,
I'm going to leave this open for just a few more minutes.
So thank you everybody.
We appreciate your time and we will talk to you next time.
-: Thanks very much.
Bye everyone.