1. Work Group 3 Seamless System of Placement Options: Community Partnership Governor’s Action Group for Safe Children Work Group 3 Seamless System of Placement Options: Community Partnership Draft for discussion 7-24-02

2. 2 A mutually beneficial and well-defined relationship entered into by two or more organizations to achieve common goals. Collaboration

3. 3 Collaboration Includes:  A commitment to mutual relationships and goals.  A jointly developed structure and shared responsibility.  Mutual authority and accountability for success.  Sharing of resources and rewards.

4. 4 Community Collaboratives Tangible ways of stretching available resources. Raise visibility on local issues. Assist communities in setting priorities for the allocation of resources. Unleash new talents and resources to address old problems.

5. 5 Findings 1. 1.Collaboratives are creative problem-solving tools for local communities, utilizing resources and personnel. Significant, sustained commitment. Rewards are systemic civic and community change in specific policy areas.

6. 6 Findings 2. No statewide effort of collaboration to prevent and reduce out-of-home placement; primarily initiated by foundations in a few cities around the nation.

7. 7 Findings 3. Each of the Clark Foundation Community Partnerships for Protecting Children (CPPC) sites met or exceeded the indicators of progress for Phase I.

8. 8 Findings Phase II Challenges:   Sustaining/improving efforts.   Developing/implementing tracking and monitoring system on outcomes.   Improving quality/scope within target communities before rollout to other communities.

9. 9 Findings 4. The Iowa Director of Human Services, Jessie Rasmussen, cites several roll-out considerations and obstacles.

10. 10 Rollout Considerations  Number of sites should be balanced to maintain integrity of the initiative.  Technical assistance needs and capacity should match.

11. 11 Obstacles to Expansion Levels of understanding Lack of resources Approach to change

12. 12 5. Family to Family evaluation of program impact showed the most consistent finding as being the reduction in the number of placements experienced by children in care. Findings

13. 13 Findings 6. Two changes in patterns of permanent placements occurred in Family to Family sites: Sites that expanded use of kinship care increasingly placed children in the guardianship of relatives when they left custody. Some sites improved reunification rates.

14. 14 Findings 7. No one central source of information or single contact point for information on faith-based organizations and their services to support out of home placements.

15. 15 Findings 8. In Family Connection collaboratives, resources invested by the General Assembly ($50,000 for most counties) are being more than matched by local or external investments in a majority of the communities.

16. 16 Findings 9. Georgia’s Child Protective Service Task Force saw the need for a comprehensive, community-based system that connects families with service providers, the faith community, schools, courts and others concerned about the well being of children.

17. 17 Excerpt “The State should build on existing efforts such as Family Connection and coordinate all state resources more effectively in partnership with communities. Phasing in of the new coordinated system should begin with several counties that demonstrate high need and/or readiness.”

18. 18 Proposed Recommendations 1.Investigate and review national models of collaboration specifically related to child welfare reform, such as the Decategorization Program in Iowa and the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation sites. Transfer knowledge and lessons learned to communities in Georgia for possible replication.

19. 19 2. Develop a strategy with major faith-based organizations to enhance the involvement of the faith-based community in local and state-level collaborative efforts around the issue of child protective services. Proposed Recommendations

20. 20 3. Building on the existing network of county collaboratives, create a process to communicate local priorities, best practice, and policy barriers to state partners to influence state policy and decisions. Conversely, develop a strategy to connect major policy initiatives at the state level to communities who are demonstrating results in related priority areas. Proposed Recommendations

21. 21 4. Evaluate initiatives across Georgia’s communities, specifically related to out-of- home placements that have been successful for replication to other communities who have an interest in similar collaborative work and strategies. Proposed Recommendations

22. 22 5. Determine and support a statewide vehicle to direct the development, implementation, and capacity-building of local collaboratives with built-in measures of accountability and monitoring. Proposed Recommendations

23. 23 Establish through a Memorandum of Agreement or interagency agreements, a similar model of collaboration at the state- level which will support local decision- making, address barriers to collaboration experienced by communities, and will promote state priority initiatives such as child welfare in communities through resources and technical assistance. Proposed Recommendations

24. 24 6. Add an “out of home placement” benchmark to the set of indicators used by Family Connection to measure the well-being of children in Georgia. Use the current process of the Family Connection Partnership in reviewing the 26 benchmarks which communities follow in determining results. Proposed Recommendations