• Home

MAJOR ASSIGNMENT! SMALL TIME FRAME! NO PLAGARISM!

This assignment is a continuation of a previous assignment which is attached. Please review the previous assignment and complete this assignment based of the first.

9-10 pgs. Not including reference and appendix. APA format. 10-15 new additional resources. Complete assignment and complete the attached appendix per each section. Some references have been provided attached.

SWOT Analysis – Describe the organization’s internal strengths and weaknesses, its opportunities for growth and improvement, and the threats the external environment presents to its survival. (See Appendix C)

Introduction– What is a SWOT Analysis

SWOT Analysis – Presented in narrative format. Diagram placed in appendix

Integrated discussion of the SWOT Analysis primary emergent themes you will focus on 60

Strengths

Weaknesses

Threats

Opportunities

Problem, Challenge or Opportunity

History of the problem – Emergence

Past Attempts to solve the problem, challenge or address the opportunity

Literature review (3 peer reviewed articles) related to the specific problem, challenge or opportunity

Solution & Vision for Change – Propose a theoretically or model-based solution for change within the context of factors or pressures that support the status quo (restraining forces) and those pressures that support change in the desired direction (driving forces). (See Appendix D and E)

Describe key elements of proposed change based on literature review

Discuss macro – theoretical/model basis of proposed change (based on literature review)

History of theory/model development

Key proponents of theory/model

Seminal message/ focus of theory/model

Clear and thorough connection between the theory/model base and proposed change

Vision statement (Essential elements after the change – what will the difference look like?)

Systems, Roles, and Allies or Adversaries– Systems, Roles, and Allies or Adversaries Analysis Chart – Presented in narrative format. Diagram placed in appendix

Identify individuals and their organizational roles and if they are sponsor, agent, target and if they are allies or adversaries

ID Force Field Analysis Chart – Presented in narrative format. Diagram placed in appendix

Identify Internal Driving Force

Identify Environmental Driving Force

Identify Internal Restraining Force

Identify Environmental Restraining Force

Identify Benefits to target and if allies or adversaries

Identify losses to target and if allies or adversaries

Implementation Strategy – focus on the implementation plan for the change, including strategies arising from the force field analysis; and proposes an evaluation plan for ensuring the change is sustained. (See Appendix F)

Detailed, integrated discussion of change effort and the strategy for increasing the driving forces and diminishing the restraining forces; including all roles, benefits, losses, etc.

Description of plan for enhancing driving forces

Engaging allies in strategy

Utilizing sponsor and agent (or others) in strategy

Description of plan for influencing and containing resistant forces

Engaging or minimizing adversaries in strategy

Incorporation of benefits and losses to target group/others in strategy

Evaluation Plan

Introduction – Identify outcome. Specify timeline, target population,

How will you measure outcomes

How will you use outcomes (plan for continuous assessment of change)

Composition

Appendixes

References

Appendix C: SWOT Analysis

Appendix D: Systems, Roles, and Allies or Adversaries Analysts Chart

Stakeholder, Roles, Allies and Adversaries

Whose support is needed

Readiness

Capacity

Stakeholder

Role

Ally

Adversary

Must actively champion

Has little influence

Is ready to champion

Adamantly opposes

Going along with the majority

Has the skills and argument to be a champion

Niesha

Assist. Director

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Target Benefits and Losses Chart

Negative Outcomes

of Not Making the Change

Benefits/Positive Outcomes

of Making the Change

Appendix E: Force Field Analysis Chart

Impact Score

Forces for change

Recommended Change

Forces Against Change

Impact Score

Total

Total

Impact Score

3 High Impact

2 Medium Impact

1 Low Impact

0 No Impact

MAJOR ASSIGNMENT! SMALL TIME FRAME! NO PLAGARISM!

June 30, 2019 Page 2

2020 Annual Progress and Services Report

I. Table of Contents

Contents

SECTION I: MARYLAND’S CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM ………………………………………………………………………….. 8

INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8

COLLABORATIONS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13

SECTION III: UPDATE ON ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE / UPDATE TO PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENT

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22

GOALS & OBJECTIVES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 22

SYSTEMIC FACTORS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 62

SECTION IV: UPDATE ON SERVICE DESCRIPTION ……………………………………………………………………………… 95

PROMOTING SAFE AND STABLE FAMILIES (PSSF) ……………………………………………………………………… 95

Family Reunification Services ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 95

Adoption Promotion and Support Services …………………………………………………………………………………………… 96

Family Preservation and Family Support Services ………………………………………………………………………………… 96

Service Array …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 105

SERVICES FOR CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF FIVE …………………………………………………………………… 125

SECTION V: PROGRAM SUPPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 130

SECTION VI: CONSULTATION & COLLABORATION BETWEEN STATES AND TRIBES …………………….. 130

SECTION VII: ADOPTION AND LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP INCENTIVE PAYMENTS ……………………………. 133

SECTION VIII: CHILD WELFARE WAIVER IV-E DEMONSTRATION ACTIVITIES ………………………………. 133

SECTION IX: QUALITY ASSURANCE ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 139

SECTION X: CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT ACT (CAPTA) STATE PLAN ……………… 141

SECTION XI: JOHN H. CHAFEE FOSTER CARE PROGRAM FOR SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION TO

ADULTHOOD ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 154

SECTION XIII: Statistical and Supporting Information ………………………………………………………………………………. 180

CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES WORKFORCE……………………………………………………………………………….. 180

JUVENILE JUSTICE TRANSFERS …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 182

EDUCATION & TRAINING VOUCHER PROGRAM ………………………………………………………………………….. 183

MARYLAND STATE TUITION WAIVER ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 186

INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTIONS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 189

MONTHLY CASEWORKER VISIT DATA …………………………………………………………………………………………. 189

SECTION XIV: CARE COORDINATION ORGANIZATIONS …………………………………………………………………. 191

June 30, 2019 Page 3

2020 Annual Progress and Services Report

SECTION XVI: APPENDICES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 202

June 30, 2019 Page 4

2020 Annual Progress and Services Report

ACRONYMS

ACF – Administration for Children and Families

ADHD – Attention- Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

AFCARS – Adoption and Foster Care Analysis Reporting System

AFS – Automated Fiscal Systems

APD – Advance Planning Documents

APPLA – Another Planned Permanency Living Arrangement

APSR – Annual Program Services Review

AR – Alternative Response

ARC – American Red Cross

ASCRS – Adoption Search, Contact and Reunion Services

ASFA – Adoption and Safe Family Act

AWOL – Away Without Leave

BSFT – Brief Strategic Family Therapy

CANS – Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths

CA/N – Child Abuse / Neglect

CANS-F – Child and Adolescent Needs and Strength-Family

CAPTA – Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act

CASA – Court Appointed Special Advocates

CB – Children’s Bureau

CBCAP – Community-Based Child Abuse and Prevention

CCIF – Children’s Cabinet Interagency Fund

CCWIS – Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System

CCO – Coordination Organization

CFSR – Child and Family Services Review

CFP – Casey Family Programs

CFSP – Child and Family Services Plan

CIHS – Consolidated In-Home Services

CINA – Children in Need Of Assistance

CIP – Continuous Improvement Plan

CIS – Client Information System

CJAMS –Maryland Child, Juvenile and Adult Management System

CME – Care Management Entities

CQI – Continuous Quality Improvement

CRBC – Citizens Review Board for Children

CRC – Children’s Research Center

CSA – Core Service Agencies

COOP – Continuity of Operations Plan

CPS – Child Protective Services

CSOMS – Children’s Services Outcome Measurement System

CSTVI – The Child Sex Trafficking Victims Initiative

CWA – Child Welfare Academy

CY – Calendar Year

June 30, 2019 Page 5

2020 Annual Progress and Services Report

DDA – Developmental Disabilities Administration

DEN – Drug-Exposed Newborn

DHMH – Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

DHS – The Maryland Department of Human Services

DJJ – Department of Juvenile Justice

DJS – Department of Juvenile Services

DOB – Date of Birth

EBP – Evidence-Based Practice

ECE – Early care and education

ECMHC – Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation

EFT – Electronic Funds Transfers

EHR – Electronic Health Record

EP – Emergency Preparation

ESOL – English for Speakers of Other Languages

EPSDT – Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment Program

ESF – Emergency Support Function

ESSA – Every Student Succeeds Act

FASD Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder

FAST – Family Advocacy and Support Tool

FC2S – Foster Care to Success

FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency

FBI-CJIS – Federal Bureau of Investigation Reports

FFT – Functional Family Therapy

FCCIP – Foster Care Court Improvement Project

FCP – Family Centered Practice

FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIM- Family Involvement Meetings

FPL – Federal Poverty Level

FMIS – Financial Management Information System

FSC – Family Support Center

GAP – Guardianship Assistance Program

GAPMA – Guardianship Assistance Program Medical Assistance

GEAR – Growth, Empowerment, Advancement, Recognition

GED – General Educational Development

GOC – Governor’s Office for Children

GOCCP – Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention

IAR – Institute of Applied Research

ICPC – Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children

ICAMA – Interstate Compact on Adoption and Medical Assistance

IDEA – State Interagency Coordinating Council for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

IEP – Individualized Education Programs

IFPS – Inter-Agency Family Preservation Services

ILC – Independent Living Coordinator

IR – Investigative Response

June 30, 2019 Page 6

2020 Annual Progress and Services Report

LDSS – Local Department of Social Services

LEA – Lead Education Agency

LGBTQ – Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender, Questioning

LIFT – Launching Individual Futures Together

MAF – Mission Asset Fund

MD THINK – Maryland’s Total Human Services Information Network

MEMA – Maryland Emergency Management Agency

MEPP – Maryland Emergency Preparedness Program

MFRA – Maryland Family Risk Assessment

MATCH – Making All The Children Healthy

MD CHESSIE – Maryland’s Children Electronic Social Services Information Exchange

MCO – Managed Care Organizations

MD-CJIS – Maryland Criminal Justice Information System

MDH/DDA – Maryland Department of Health / Developmental Disabilities Administration

MD THINK – Maryland’s Total Human Services Information Network

MFN – Maryland Family Network, Incorporated

MHA – Mental Health Access

MHEC – Maryland Higher Education Commission

MI – Motivational Interviewing

MOU – Memorandum of Understanding

MRPA – Maryland Resource Parent Association

MSDE – Maryland State Department of Education

MST – Multi-Systemic Therapy

MTFC – Multi-Dimensional Treatment Foster Care

NCANDS – National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System

NCHCW – National Center on Housing and Child Welfare

NCSACW – National Center on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare

NGO – Non-Government Organizations

NRCPRFC- National Resource Center for Permanency and Family Connections

NRCCWDT – National Resource Center for Child Welfare Data and Technology

NYTD – The National Youth in Transition Database

OAG – Office of the Attorney General

OEO – Office of Emergency Operations

OOH – Out-of-Home

OHP – Out-of-Home Placement

OISC – Outcomes and Improvement Steering Committee

OLM – Office of Licensing and Monitoring

OLS – Office of Legislative Services

OFA – Orphan Foundation of America

PAC – Providers Advisory Council

PCP – Primary Care Physician

PIP – Program Improvement Plan

PSSF – Promoting Safe and Stable Families

QA – Quality Assurance

June 30, 2019 Page 7

2020 Annual Progress and Services Report

RFP – Request for Proposal

RTC- Residential Treatment Center

RTT-ELC – Race-to-the-Top Early Learning Challenge

SACWIS – Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System Assessment Reviews

SAFE – Structured Analysis Family Evaluation

SAMHSA – Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

SARGE – State Automated Child Welfare Information System Review Guide

SCCAN – State Council on Child Abuse and Neglect

SCYFIS – State Children, Youth and Family Information System

SDM – Structure Decision Making

SED – Serious Emotional Disturbance

SEFEL – Social Emotional Foundations of Early Learning

SEN – Substance Exposed Newborn

SFC-I – Services to Families with Children-Intake

SILA – Semi Independent Living Arrangements

SMO – Shelter Management/Operations

SOCTI – System of Care Training Institute

SoS – Signs of Safety

SROP – State Response Operations Plan

SSA – Social Services Administration

SSI – Supplemental Security Income

SSTS – Social Services Time Study

SUD – Substance Use Disorder

SYAB – State Youth Advisory Board

US DOJ, FBI, CJIS – United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice

Information System

TANF – Temporary Assistance to Needy Families

TAY – Transition Age Youth

TFCBT – Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

TOL – Transfer of Learning

TPR – Termination of Parental Rights

UMB – University of Maryland, Baltimore

UMBSSW – University of Maryland, Baltimore School of Social Work

VPA – Voluntary Placement Agreement

VPN – Virtual Private Network

WIC – Women, Infants and Children

WWF – Wireless Web Form

June 30, 2019 Page 8

2020 Annual Progress and Services Report

SECTION I: MARYLAND’S CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM

INTRODUCTION

The Maryland Department of Human Services (DHS) is designated by the Governor as the agency to administer the

Social Services Block Grant (Title XX), Title IV-B and Title IV-E Programs. DHS administers the IV-B, subpart

two, Promoting Safe and Stable Families plan and oversees services provided by the twenty-four 24 Local

Departments of Social Services and those purchased through community service providers. The Department of

Human Services, Social Services Administration (DHS/SSA) under the Executive Director, has primary

responsibility for the social service components of the Title IV-E plan and programs that include: A) Chafee Foster

Care Independence Program, B) the Title IV-B plan and programs for children and their families funded through the

Social Services Block Grant, and C) the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA).

DHS/SSA envisions a Maryland where Families Blossom by strengthening families so that children are safe,

healthy, resilient, and are able to grow and thrive. Maryland began this journey in 2007 with the launch of the Place

Matters Initiative which led to the provision of family-centered, child-focused, community-based services that

promote safety, family strengthening, and permanence for children and families in the child welfare system. The

primary success of Place Matters is evidenced by the decreased number of children in Out-of-Home care (5,960 in

SFY2013 to 4,765 in SFY2018; see figure 1). Since the start of these efforts in 2007, Maryland decreased the

number of children in Out-of-Home care by 53% (from 10,330 in SFY2007 to 4,765 in SFY2018) while the

proportion of youth in group home placements declined from 19% in SFY2007 to 11% in SFY2018. This percentage

of group homes has remained relatively steady at 10% in SFY2013 to 11% in SFY2018, even as the number of

children in group homes decreased from 599 (SFY2013) to 520 (SFY2018; Figure 2). The number of children in

family homes has increased slightly from 72% in SFY2013 to 74% in SFY2018, even as the number of children has

decreased from 4,281 (SFY2013) to 3,504 (SFY2018; Figure 3).

Overall, Maryland has increased the number of youth exiting from Out-of-Home as a result of the success of Place

Matters and the implementation of the Families Blossom initiatives. Exits to Guardianship decreased from 669 in

SFY2013 to 438 in SFY 2018 (Figure 6). Youth exiting due to Adoption was at 372 in SFY2013, with a low of 295

in SFY2015 to 372 in SFY2018 (Figure 4). The number of children reunifying went from a high of 1,526 in

SFY2013 to 1,218 in SFY2018 indicating that more children are returning to their biological parent(s) than being

adopted or going to guardianship.

June 30, 2019 Page 9

2020 Annual Progress and Services Report

Figure 1

Figure 2

5,960

5,339

4,837 4,709 4,661 4,765

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

SFY 2013 SFY 2014 SFY 2015 SFY 2016 SFY 2017 SFY 2018

Children in Out-of-Home Care

SFY2013 – 2018

599

495
531 537

480
520

10%
9%

11% 11%
10% 11%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

% of GH # of GH
Children in Group Homes

June 30, 2019 Page 10

2020 Annual Progress and Services Report

Figure 3

Figure 4

4,281

3,748
3,440 3,378 3,348

3,504

72%

70% 71% 72% 72%
74%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500
% of FH

# of FH Children in Family Homes

372

346

295

349

320

373

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

SFY 2013 SFY 2014 SFY 2015 SFY 2016 SFY 2017 SFY 2018

Exits from Out-of-Home Care – Adoption

June 30, 2019 Page 11

2020 Annual Progress and Services Report

Figure 5

Figure 6

Data Source in Figures 1 – 6: MD CHESSIE

1,526

1,254

1,061

1,242
1,321

1,218

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

SFY 2013 SFY 2014 SFY 2015 SFY 2016 SFY 2017 SFY 2018

Permanency Efforts

Number of Children Reunified

669 668

507
468 472

438

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

SFY 2013 SFY 2014 SFY 2015 SFY 2016 SFY 2017 SFY 2018

Exits from Out-of-Home Care – Guardianship

June 30, 2019 Page 12

2020 Annual Progress and Services Report

DHS/SSA’s Families Blossom (Maryland’s Title IV-E Waiver Demonstration Project), builds upon Maryland’s

previous successful improvement efforts (Place Matters, Alternative Response, and Family Centered-Practice) to

operationalize a comprehensive, Integrated Practice Model, by implementing and effectively utilizing

comprehensive assessments and thereby expanding the existing service array. These efforts include, infusing trauma

responsive, strength-based, family-centered and youth-guided principles within and across the child welfare

continuum. In aligning these efforts with meaningful utilization of Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths

(CANS), Child and Adolescent Needs and Strength-Family (CANS-F), other assessment data in case planning and

decision-making, the implementation and testing a range of evidence-based interventions available across the state

and promising practices within identified jurisdictions, the State of Maryland will be able to:

● Improve well-being across the family unit

● Keep children and youth in their homes

● Ensure children and youth in Out-of-Home care have shorter lengths of stay, are placed in less restrictive

placements and do not re-enter Out-of-Home Placement

Maryland continues to grow and enhance its child welfare system and practice, integrating trauma responsive

practice into daily work across the continuum (see Figure 7, Maryland’s Continuum of Care), enhance and grow

community-based services and evidence-based practices for children and families and implement comprehensive

assessments to continue to shape future practice and improve children’s and families’ safety, permanence and well-

being.

June 30, 2019 Page 13

2020 Annual Progress and Services Report

Figure 7

CHILD WELFARE CONTINUUM OF CARE

SECTION II: GENERAL INFORMATION

COLLABORATIONS

Maryland developed collaborations with State and County agencies, stakeholders, nonprofits, community

organizations and the courts to review and improve outcomes for children. Through these partnerships DHS/SSA

engaged in meaningful discussions that have shaped the development of services and policy. These partnerships will

support the implementation and ongoing evaluation of the goals, objectives and measures established to ensure the

safety, permanency, and well-being of children in the child welfare system. (For collaborations specific to goals and

objectives, please review the Update on Assessment of Performance/Update to Plan for Improvement, Goals and

Objectives.)

Child Protective

Services (CPS)

Response

In-Home

Services

Out-of-Home

Services Adoption

 Screening – CPS

(Alternative and

Investigative

Responses),

Information and

Referral (I&R), Non-

CPS

 CPS Background

Checks

 Services to

Families with

Children, Intake

 Family

Preservation

Services

 Interagency

Family

Preservation

 Kinship

Navigator

 Out-of-Home Placement

 Ready By 21 (Transitional

Youth Services)

 Guardianship Assistance

Program

 Placement Services and

Interagency Initiatives

(Resource Homes, Out-of-

State Placements,

Education/Health,

Interstate Compact for the

Placement of Children,

Placement Support

Services)

 Adoption

Assistance

Program

 Mutual Consent

Voluntary

Adoption Registry

 Adoption Search,

Contact and

Reunion Services

Safety Well-Being Permanency

June 30, 2019 Page 14

2020 Annual Progress and Services Report

Strengths

DHS/SSA’s partners are active partners in projects, initiatives, and discussions to move the Department forward in

developing and monitoring better outcomes for children. Many of the organizations are represented on more than

one committee or initiative, thus giving a linkage to the whole child welfare system, rather than viewing the

outcomes from a single program or agency.

The strength of DHS/SSA’s collaborations is the direct contact with DHS/SSA’s partners. The partners are able to

give direct feedback and comment on data and evaluations regarding programs and policies for revision,

development, and outcomes through meetings and discussions.

DHS/SSA also meets regularly face-to-face with local Directors and Assistant Directors of the Local Departments of

Social Services, which are also DHS/SSA’s stakeholders. Review of policies and practices are regular with

opportunities for comment during the drafting of policies and when requested. DHS/SSA also gives LDSS

opportunities to comment on draft policy, thus enabling DHS/SSA to review any noted impacts on the LDSS.

One of the many stakeholder groups in Maryland who DHS/SSA works with closely is the Governor’s Office of

Crime Control and Prevention (GOCCP). Among other initiatives, GOCCP chairs the Children’s Justice Act

Committee (CJAC) that is required by federal regulations at 45 CFR 1357.16. CJAC members have opportunities to

inform the work of DHS/SSA through attendance at various meetings such as quarterly DHS/SSA Advisory Board

meetings, Child Protective Services/Family Preservation monthly workgroup meetings, and CJAC quarterly

meetings. Over the past five years DHS/SSA has collaborated with CJAC around the issues and needs of the local

child advocacy centers (CACs). Consistency in caseworker practice and service provision for sex trafficking victims

has been a point of emphasis based on feedback from local departments and Maryland’s Children’s Alliance who is

the representative body of local CACs. A CAC “best practices” final draft has been completed which will outline the

protocols for all CAC multi-disciplinary team members. Improved collaboration between CAC members is

necessary in order to positively impact the safety of Maryland’s children.

Concerns

DHS/SSA continues to strengthen narratives to support the data. The implementation structure put in place, as noted

in the Overview, has increased opportunities to clarify the stories behind the data and to ensure the collective work

of the teams move Maryland’s children to safety, permanency, and well-being.

Capacity Building Center for States

In the last two years of DHS/SSA’s five-year plan work was initiated with the Capacity Center for States related to

strengthening and enhancing engagement efforts with youth, families, and resources parents. The goal is to improve

the ability to have voices with lived experiences at the table to be part of the decision making around practices,

policies and services. DHS/SSA believes that the outcomes identified in the five-year plan (Improve the safety for

all infants, children, and youth in child welfare, Achieve permanency for all infants, children, and youth in foster

care, Strengthen the well-being of infants, children, and youth in foster care) will improve with lived experience at

the table helping to drive the identification of practices, polices, and services that will best meet their needs. An

annual state assessment was completed, which resulted in recommendations for three co-created capacity building

projects: enhancing family engagement, improving resource parent engagement through problem exploration, and

strengthening local and state youth advisory boards (YABs). Stakeholder groups have been identified for each area

and have been meeting regularly. Work plans are developed and discussions have begun around problem

June 30, 2019 Page 15

2020 Annual Progress and Services Report

identification and root cause analysis leading to a Theory of Change. In addition, the stakeholder groups are

working on connecting this work to the development of DHS/SSA’s CFSR PIP and CFSP related to strategies to

address authentic partnerships with families, youth, and resource parents to ensure continuity of the work. This work

supports DHS/SSA’s goal to achieve permanency for all infants, children, and youth in foster care. A description of

each project with a status summary is provided below.

Family Engagement

The family engagement project is an intensive project and includes an evaluation component. The Center and

DHS/SSA identified family engagement as an area for improvement related to delays in achieving timely

permanency. DHS/SSA also identified an additional concern related to the engagement of families during family

involvement meetings. Both of these concerns were also raised as part of DHS/SSA’s PIP pilot with a key theme of

authentic partnership being identified as a common root cause. The DHS/SSA organizational culture values healthy

and equitable relationships with families; therefore, the co-created work plan was designed to improve staff

engagement of families involved with the child welfare system. The desired long-term outcomes of the project are to

increase timely permanency outcomes by improving staff engagement skills and to pilot a parent partner navigator

program.

The project was initially scoped to kick off in June 2018, but the actual kickoff meeting was not held until

September 2018 due to personnel changes on the Center’s team and scheduling challenges. A virtual meeting was

held in October 2018 to introduce the new personnel to the state team and to review the work plan. In November

2018, the Center team participated in a DHS/SSA-led webinar which was offered to DHS/SSA staff to share

information about their work with Maryland Coalition of Families (MCF) and to discuss the Center’s family

engagement work. In December 2018, an onsite meeting was held to begin the theory of change development

process. The Center facilitated onsite meetings in January and February 2019 to continue work on the theory of

change, initiate the family engagement problem exploration process, and begin developing an evaluation plan. As

Maryland’s PIP and CFSP was developed, this work was folded into the overall strategies related to authentic

partnership with families particularly in the areas of collaborative assessments and planning as well as providing

peer supports to facilitate navigating the system and modeling and coaching how to drive their own plans.

Resource Parent Problem Exploration

The resource parent engagement project is focused on exploring issues with resource parent engagement. The

project was scoped to support DHS/SSA’s goal of developing a better understanding of the root causes of the lack of

resource parent engagement. The long-term goal is to improve resource parent supports so that resource parents can

improve their skills in supporting birth families. The Center and DHS/SSA co-created a work plan that focuses on

deeper problem exploration and development of an action plan.

The project team has met at least monthly since September 2018 via virtual and in-person meetings. The Center’s

team provides facilitation, coaching, and consultation to support deeper problem exploration of the lack of resource

parent engagement, which includes the following: data analysis, discussion of relevant practices and processes, and

examination of the root causes of the issues. Discussions were facilitated to develop a data exploration plan that was

used to demonstrate the existence of the problem, understand the nature of the problem, examine areas of strong

practice, and answer the research questions established by the group.

June 30, 2019 Page 16

2020 Annual Progress and Services Repo

MAJOR ASSIGNMENT! SMALL TIME FRAME! NO PLAGARISM!

CRBC-FY2021-Annual-Report-Final-V2 – 1 – 1/5/2022 1:15 PM

ANNUAL REPORT

FISCAL 2021

(July 1st 2020 – June 30th 2021)

CRBC-FY2021-Annual-Report-Final-V2 – 2 – 1/5/2022 1:15 PM

Table of Contents

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3
By the CRBC State Board Chair FY2021 ………………………………………………….. 3
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… .
Executive Summary …………………………………………………………………………………… 4
By the CRBC Administrator FY2021………………………………………………………… 4
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… .
Recommendations to DHS for FY2021 …………………………………………………………. 8
Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………………………….. 10
Special Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………….. 11
SSA Response to CRBC’s FY2020 Annual Report …………………………………….. 12
From SSA Executive Director …………………………………………………………. 12
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… .
Program Description ……………………………………………………………………………….. 14
Mission ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 15
Vision ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 15
Goals …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 15
Discrimination …………………………………………………………………………………….. 15
Confidentiality ……………………………………………………………………………………. 15
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… .
FY2021 Retention, Recruition, Training and Activities ……..….………………..…..16
FY2021 Legislative Activities………….….………………………………………………….19
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… .
FY2021 Out-of-Home Placement Case Reviews ………………………………………….. 20
Targeted Review Criteria ………………………………………………………………………. 20
Case Review Findings by Permanency Plan …………………………………………….. 22
Gender Totals ………………………………………………………………………………………. 22
Ethnicity Overall ………………………………………………………………………………….. 22
Age Range by Permanency Plan …………………………………………………………….. 22
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… .
FY2021 Case Reviews by Jurisdiction/Permanecy Plan… ……………………….. …..24
Reunification …………………………………………………………………………………….. 25
Non-Relative Adoption ………………………………………………………………………. 33
APPLA ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 42
Relative Placement ……………………………………………………………………………. 51
Non-Relative Custody and Guardianship ………………………………………………. 58
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… .
FY2021 Children’s Advisory Panel for Children ……………………………………………. 65
Montgomery County Child Protection Panel …………………………………………… 65
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… .
FY2021 CRBC Review Metrics …………………………………………………………………… 67
FY2021 CRBC State Board ………………………………………………………………………… 68
FY2021 CRBC Volunteer Board Members ……………………………………………………. 69
FY2021 CRBC Staff Members ……………………………………………………………………. 71
References …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 72

CRBC-FY2021-Annual-Report-Final-V2 – 3 – 1/5/2022 1:15 PM

Introduction

Maryland’s Citizens Review Board for Children (CRBC) is comprised of volunteer citizens and
Department of Human Services (DHS) staff that provide child welfare expertise, guidance and
support to the State and Local Boards.

CRBC is charged with examining the policies, practices and procedures of Maryland’s child
protective services, evaluating and making recommendations for systemic improvement in
accordance with §5-539 and § 5-539.1 and the Federal Child Abuse and Treatment Act (CAPTA)
(Section 106 (c)).

CRBC reviews cases of children and youth in Out-of-Home Placement, monitors child welfare
programs and makes recommendations for system improvements. Although CRBC is housed
within the DHS organizational structure, it is an independent entity overseen by its State Board.

There is a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Department of Human Services (DHS),
the Social Services Administration (SSA) and CRBC that guides the work parameters by which CRBC
and DHS function regarding CRBC review of cases.

The CRBC State Board reviews and coordinates the activities of the local review boards. The board
also examines policy issues, procedures, legislation, resources and barriers relating to Out-of-Home
Placement and the permanency of children. The State Board makes recommendations to the
General Assembly around ways of improving Maryland’s child welfare system.

Since January 2021, the local Boards have conducted virtual instead of in person case reviews of
children in Out-of-Home Placement for all local department of social services and in every
jurisdiction. Individual recommendations regarding permanency, placement, safety and well-
being are sent to the local juvenile courts, the local department of social services and interested
parties involved with the child’s care.

This CRBC FY2021 Annual Report contains CRBC’s findings from our case reviews, advocacy
efforts, CPS panel activities and recommendations for systemic improvements.

On behalf of the State Board of the Maryland Citizens Review Board for Children (CRBC), it’s
staff and citizen volunteer board members, I present our Fiscal 2021 Annual Report.

Sincerely,

Nettie Anderson-Burrs
State Board Chair

CRBC-FY2021-Annual-Report-Final-V2 – 4 – 1/5/2022 1:15 PM

Executive Summary

The COVID-19 Pandemic began during the third quarter of fiscal year 2020. As a result, children,
youth and families were exposed to additional stressors. The state of emergency, mandatory
telework and stay at home orders in addition to day care and school closures, unemployment,
housing and food insecurities likely added trauma for the most vulnerable children in Maryland.

This makes it even more imperative to ensure that efforts to support and provide services are trauma
informed. The lingering effects have impacted many systems and highlighted others including the
need for a capable child welfare workforce that is supported with the necessary resources to ensure
appropriate oversight of Maryland’s most vulnerable children and families’ needs.

Demographic changes due to retirements and child welfare staff turnover likely resulting from
competitive processes impacted by hiring delays, salary, advancement opportunities, childcare and
employment flexibility impacts the quality of services and ultimately safety, well-being and permanency.

For older youth aging out of care, preparedness as they transition as emerging adults is impacted.
Expanding and investing in innovative strategies for workforce recruitment, development and
retention is necessary to support the challenging and necessary work of child welfare staff.

During fiscal year 2021, the Citizens Review Board for Children reviewed 385* cases of children and
youth in Out-of-Home Placements. Reviews are conducted per a work plan developed in coordination
with DHS and SSA with targeted review criteria based on Out-of-Home Placement permanency
plans. This report includes Out-of-Home Placement review findings and CRBC activities including
legislative advocacy and recommendations for system improvement.

Health and Education Findings for statewide reviews include:

CRBC conducted virtual reviews of local department of social services cases statewide. Reviews
included Google Meet interviews with local department staff and interested parties identified by the
local department of social services such as parents, youth, caregivers, providers, CASA, therapists
and other relevant parties to individual cases. At the time of the review local review boards requested
information and documentation regarding education and health including preventive physical, dental
and vision exams. Reviewers also considered medication reviews, treatment recommendations, health
and mental health follow up appointments and referrals recommended by medical providers.

 The local boards found that for 163 (42%) of the 385 total cases reviewed, the health needs of
the children/youth had been met.

 Approximately 167 (43%) of the children/youths were prescribed medication.
 Approximately 131 (34%) of the children/youths were prescribed psychotropic medication.
 The local boards found that there were completed medical records for 110 (29%) of the total

cases reviewed.
 The local boards agreed that 257 (67%) of the children/youth were being appropriately prepared

to meet educational goals.

CRBC-FY2021-Annual-Report-Final-V2 – 5 – 1/5/2022 1:15 PM

Demographic findings for statewide reviews include:

 245 (64%) of the children/youth were African American.
 118 (31%) of the children/youth were Caucasian.
 178 (46%) of the children/youth were male.
 207 (54%) of the children/youth were female.

CRBC conducted 139 Reunification reviews. Findings include:

 38 cases (27%) had a plan of reunification for 3 or more years.
 The local boards agreed with the placement plan for 106 (76%) of the cases reviewed.
 The local boards found that the local departments made efforts to involve the family in case planning

for 112 (81%) of the cases reviewed.
 The local boards found that service agreements were signed for 28 (20%) of the eligible cases

reviewed.
 The local boards agreed that the signed service agreements were appropriate to meet the needs

of the children/youths.

CRBC conducted 64 Adoption reviews. Findings include:

 17 (27%) of the 64 cases had a plan of adoption for 3 or more years.
 The local boards agreed with the placement plan for 61 (95%) of the cases reviewed.
 The local boards identified the following barriers preventing the adoption process or preventing

progress in the child’s case:

 Pre-adoptive resources not identified.
 Child in pre-adoptive home, but adoption not finalized.
 Efforts not made to move towards finalization.
 Child does not consent.
 Appeal by birth parents.
 Other court related barrier.

CRBC conducted 160 (APPLA) Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement reviews. APPLA is
the least desired permanency plan and should only be considered when all other permanency
options have been thoroughly explored and ruled out. APPLA is often synonymous with long term
foster care. Many youths with a permanency planning goal of APPLA remain in care until their case
is closed when they age out of the foster care system. Findings include:

 51 (32%) of the 160 cases had a plan of APPLA for 3 or more years.
 The local boards agreed with the permanency plan of APPLA in 99% of the 160 cases

statewide. 158 of the cases reviewed with a permanency plan of APPLA were youth between
the ages of 17-20.

 A permanent connection is an identified person that a youth can rely on for assistance with
support, advice and guidance as they deal with the day-to-day life circumstances that
adulthood can bring about on a regular basis. The local boards agreed that for 149 (93%) of

CRBC-FY2021-Annual-Report-Final-V2 – 6 – 1/5/2022 1:15 PM

the 160 cases of youth with a permanency planning goal of APPLA that a permanent
connection had been identified, and the local boards agreed that the identified permanent
connections were appropriate for 146 (91%) of the 160 cases.

Barriers/Issues

The local boards identified the following barriers to permanency/issues:

 No service agreement with parents
 No current safety or risk assessment
 Lack of concurrent planning
 Lack of follow-up (general)
 Youth placed outside of home jurisdiction
 Youth has not been assessed for mental health concerns
 Issues related to substance abuse
 Other service resource barrier
 Other physical health barrier
 Youth refuses mental health treatment including therapy
 Other placement barrier
 Other child/youth related barrier
 Non-compliance with service agreement
 Child has behavior problems in the home
 Youth non-compliant with medication
 Youth engages in risky behavior

Ready By 21 (Transitioning Youth)

Age of Youth (14 years and older all permanency plans = 256 cases)

 80 (31%) of the 256 youths reviewed were between 14-16 years old.
 79 (31%) of the 256 youths reviewed were between 17-19 years old.
 104 (41%) of the 256 youths reviewed were 20 years old.

Independent Living skills (256 cases)

 The local boards agreed that 97 (38%) of the 256 eligible youths were receiving
appropriate services to prepare for independent living.

Employment (256 cases)

 The local boards found that 85 (33%) of the 256 eligible youths were employed or
participating in paid or unpaid work experience.

 The local boards agreed that 106 (41%) of the 256 eligible youths were being appropriately
prepared to meet employment goals.

CRBC-FY2021-Annual-Report-Final-V2 – 7 – 1/5/2022 1:15 PM

Housing (98 cases)

Transitioning Youth (20 and over with a permanency plan of APPLA or exiting care to independence
within a year of the date of review).

 The local boards found that 55 (56%) of the 98 youths had a housing plan specified.
 The local boards agreed that 61 (62%) of the 98 youths were being appropriately

prepared for transitioning out of care.

Concurrent Planning

Concurrent planning is an approach that seeks to eliminate delays in attaining permanent families
for children in foster care. In concurrent planning, an alternative permanency plan or goal is
pursued at the same time rather than being pursued after reunification has been ruled out. The
Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 provided for legal sanctioning of concurrent
planning in states by requiring that agencies make reasonable efforts to find permanent families
for children in foster care should reunification fail and stating that efforts could be made
concurrently with reunification attempts.

At least 21 states have linked concurrent planning to positive results including reduced time to
permanency and establishing appropriate permanency goals, enhanced reunification or adoption
efforts by engaging parents and reduced time to adoption finalization over the course of two
review cycles of the Federal Child and Family Services Review (Child Welfare Information
Gateway, Issue Brief 2012, Children’s Bureau/ACYF). DHS/SSA Policy Directive#13-2, dated
October 12, 2012 was developed as a result of Maryland reviewing case planning policy including
best practices and concurrent planning as part of Maryland’s performance improvement plan.

CRBC supports concurrent planning when used in accordance with state policy to achieve goals of
promoting safety, well-being and permanency for children in out of home placement, reducing the
number of placements in foster care and maintaining continuity of relationships with family,
friends and community resources for children in out-of-home care.

According to SSA Policy Directive #13-2 a concurrent plan is required when the plan is
reunification with parent or legal guardian, placement with a relative for adoption or custody and
guardianship, and guardianship or adoption by a non-relative (prior to termination of parental
rights).

The local boards found the following in statewide reviews:

 A total of 33 (8%) of the 385 cases had a concurrent permanency plan identified by the local
juvenile courts.

 The local boards found that for 80 (21%) of the 385 cases the local department was engaged in
concurrent planning.

* Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Governor of Maryland issuing a mandatory teleworking order effective March 13th 2020, case
reviews were suspended through 2nd quarter FY2021, which impacted the number of cases reviewed.

CRBC-FY2021-Annual-Report-Final-V2 – 8 – 1/5/2022 1:15 PM

CRBC Recommendations to the Department of Human Services

1. Review and develop policies and practices to ensure that they are trauma informed policies.

2. Ensure consistency in the availability and delivery of services to children and youth involved with
child welfare statewide by identifying resource needs and gaps to address lack of access.

3. Develop a system to track and monitor health including mental health of children and youth in
out-of-home placement.

4. Identify gaps and areas needing improvement in the child welfare workforce. Increase efforts to
improve workforce development in order to attain and maintain a highly experienced and skilled
workforce to include transfer of knowledge. Develop and implement measures to retain child
welfare staff by considering case and workloads, staff development and training, quality of
supervision and competitive compensation.

5. Coordination of services across Public Agencies such as Primary Care, Behavioral Health,
Medicaid, Juvenile Criminal Systems, Education, and Public Assistance in an effort to improve
health and eduction needs being met and outcomes for children in Out-of-Home Placement.

6. Ensure adequate in state resources to provide services to children and youth with intensive
needs. Children with serious behavioral, emotional, and medical needs that require additional
structure not provided in family or other group settings in state, should receive appropriate
services and level of support for their own safety and the safety of others and to help improve
outcomes.

7. Ensure that concurrent planning occurs to increase the likelihood of establishing the appropriate
permanency plan or goal and achieve permanency without undue delay.

8. Explore other permanency options at least every 6 months for children and youth with a
permanency plan of APPLA.

9. Increase the number of relative/kin placement and permanency resources.

10. Explore adoption counseling for children and youth that have not consented to adoption.

11. Transitional planning should begin for youth at 14 to include housing, education,
employment, and mentoring. Plans should be developed by the youth with the assistance of the
Department of Social Services worker and others identified by the youth for support.
Engagement of the youth and individuals identified by the youth is important. The plan
should build on the youth’s strengths and support their needs. While it is important to
understand and meet legislative requirements for youth transitional plans, it is crucial that child
welfare professionals working with youth view transitional planning as a process that unfolds
over time and through close youth engagement rather than as a checklist of items

CRBC-FY2021-Annual-Report-Final-V2 – 9 – 1/5/2022 1:15 PM

to accomplish. 1

12. Ensure that youth 14 and older begin to prepare for self-sufficiency by providing resources
and opportunities for consistent independent living skills for youth statewide.

13. Ensure that youth are engaged in opportunities to use independent living skills obtained prior to
transitioning out of care.

14. Identify housing resources and funding to address the lack of affordable housing options
available for aging out youth.

15. Ensure that a specific housing plan is identified for older youth transitioning out of care at least 6
months prior to the anticipated date of discharge or youth’s 21st birthday.

16. Increase opportunities for community partnerships to connect, to use life/independent skills, to
gain employment experience and to improve affordable housing options for older youth exiting
care.

1Child Welfare Information Gateway https://www.childwelfare.gov

CRBC-FY2021-Annual-Report-Final-V2 – 10 – 1/5/2022 1:15 PM

Acknowledgements

CRBC would like to acknowledge the commitment, dedication, passion, and service of all stakeholders
on behalf of Maryland’s most vulnerable children including:

 CRBC Governor Appointed members for their tireless efforts on behalf of Maryland’s most
vulnerable children and youth. CRBC volunteers have been dedicated and committed to the
mission, vision and goals of CRBC, successfully transitioning from conducting in person to 385
virtual case reviews and interviews, providing individual case advocacy.

 The Department of Human Services (DHS)

 The Social Services Administration (SSA)

 The Local Departments of Social Services (LDSS), Baltimore County & Montgomery County
(DHHS)

 The State Council on Child Abuse and Neglect (SCCAN)

 The State Child Fatality Review Team (SCFRT)

 The Coalition to Protect Maryland’s Children (CPMC)

 Maryland CASA Association

 The Local Juvenile Courts of Maryland

 All Community Partners who strive to improve outcomes for children and youth involved with child
welfare

CRBC-FY2021-Annual-Report-Final-V2 – 11 – 1/5/2022 1:15 PM

Special Acknowledgements

CRBC would like to thank the following for their leadership, service, attention and efforts to promote
safety and well-being for children and youth:

 Delegate CT Wilson for sponsoring bills during the legislative session that promote well-being and
the prevention of maltreatment including the prevention of child sexual abuse.

 Claudia Remington, SCCAN Executive Director for her advocacy regarding safety, well-being and
prevention of child maltreatment, for promoting and supporting ACES education.

 Wendy Lane, MD MPH for her advocacy and supporting recommendations for improvements in
health care for children involved with the child welfare system.

 Pat Cronin, Executive Director of The Family Tree, Board and Staff for providing ACES training and
community education and for promoting safety, well-being, child protection and prevention of
child maltreatment.

CRBC-FY2021-Annual-Report-Final-V2 – 12 – 1/5/2022 1:15 PM

SSA Response to the CRBC FY2020 Annual Report
(Reprinted for inclusion in Annual Report)

June 21, 2021,

Nettie Anderson-Burrs, Chairperson
Citizens Review Board for Children
1100 Eastern Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21221

Dear Ms. Anderson-Burrs:

The Maryland Department of Human Services, Social Services Administration (DHS/SSA) greatly
appreciates the work of the Citizens Review Board for Children (CRBC). The CRBC annual report
contains significant analytics and qualitative data useful to inform practice improvement and service
innovation to enhance outcomes for Maryland’s children, youth and families.

The CRBC recommendations to review and develop policies and practices to ensure they are trauma
informed, expand our service array, particularly for youth with multifaceted needs are being
addressed within our implementation team structure. Through the implementation structure, we are
enhancing our concurrent planning strategies, coordination of services and workforce development
activities to integrate our Youth Transition Planning (YTP). The case reviews the CRBC utilizes to offer
recommendations makes the process invaluable for all.

To specifically address the needs of the older youth population, DHS/SSA is expanding efforts to
improve and implement a YTP process that embraces authentic youth engagement and youth-driven
plans. DHS/SSA and transitional independent living providers collaborate quarterly to discuss the
needs of youth and young adults prior to emancipation to ensure the continuity of experiential
learning activities and life skills that lead to successful independence. In addition, SSA has created a
workgroup consisting of DHS, services partners and technical assistance partners to draft educational
and training strategies for youth and our workforce as youth move through the transitional planning
process.

Youth engagement is continually pursued in activities to include the development of Youth
Transitional Planning. Youth input and feedback is essential and quite innovative. Among the various
forums that promotes authentic youth voice, include but are not limited to local Youth Advisory
Boards, State Youth Advisory Board, Family Team Decision Making Meetings, and Local Independent
Living Work Groups. Most recently, over 75 youth participated in a Pandemic Relief Virtual Listening
Session to identify supportive services and optimal usage of COVID-19 resources for thoughtful
immediate access.

Larry Hogan, Governor | Boyd K. Rutherford, Lt. Governor | Lourdes R. Padilla, Secretary

CRBC-FY2021-Annual-Report-Final-V2 – 13 – 1/5/2022 1:15 PM

DHS/SSA endorses the recommendations for improving permanency outcomes for youth in care and
increasing the support networks for children and families. DHS/SSA is developing policies and
strategies that redefine the concept of family as more inclusive of kinship resources (including fictive
kin) and placing emphasis on relational permanency for older youth, who have a plan of Another
Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA).

The CRBC’s careful assessment of our practices is very much appreciated. We are committed to
continuing to identify and strategically implement best practices to effectively serve children, youth
and families.

We look forward to our ongoing partnership with the CRBC on behalf of children, youth, and families
across Maryland.

Respectfully,

Michelle L. Farr, LCSW-C, LICSW
Executive Director, Social Services Administration

311 W. Saratoga Street. Baltimore. MD 21201-3500 Tel: 1-800-332-63471TTY: 1-800-735-22581 www.dhs.maryland.gov

CRBC-FY2021-Annual-Report-Final-V2 – 14 – 1/5/2022 1:15 PM

CRBC Program Description

The Citizen Review Board for Children is rooted in a number of core values, which relate to
society’s responsibility to children and the unique developmental needs of children. We have a strong
value of believing that children need permanence within a family, and that their significant emotional
attachments should be maintained. We know children develop through a series of nurturing
interactions with their parents, siblings and other family members, as well as culture and
environment. Therefore, a child’s identity or sense of selfhood grows from these relationships.

In addition, we believe children grow and are best protected in the context of a family. If parents
or kin are not able to provide care and protection for their children, then children should be
placed temporarily in a family setting, which will maintain the child’s significant emotional bonds
and promote the child’s cultural ties.

The CRBC review process upholds the moral responsibility of the State and citizenry to ensure a
safe passage to healthy adulthood for our children, and to respect the importance of family and
culture.

As case reviewers, CRBC values independence and objectivity, and we are committed to reporting
accurately what we observe to make recommendations with no other interest in mind but what is
best for children. In addition, CRBC provides an opportunity to identify barriers that can be
eradicated and can improve the lives of children and their families: and improve the services of the
child welfare system (CRBC, 2013).

The Citizens Review Board for Children consists of Governor appointed volunteers from state
and local boards. Currently, there are 35 local review boards representing all 24 jurisdictions (23
counties and Baltimore City). There are currently 159 volunteers serving on local boards, 2 pending
appointment by the Governor, 4 applicants pending submission for appointment and 2 pending
selection. CRBC reviews cases of children in Out-of-Home Placement, monitors child welfare
programs and makes recommendations for system improvements.

The State Board reviews and coordinates the activities of the local review boards. The State Board
also examines policy issues, procedures, legislation, resources, and barriers relating to Out-of-
Home Placement and the permanency of children. The State Board makes recommendations to the
General Assembly around ways of improving Maryland’s child welfare system.

The Citizens Review Board for Children supports all efforts to provide permanency for children in
foster care. The State Board provides oversight to Maryland’s child protection agencies and trains
volunteer citizen panels to aid in child protection efforts.

CRBC-FY2021-Annual-Report-Final-V2 – 15 – 1/5/2022 1:15 PM

Mission Statement

To conduct case reviews of children in out-of-home care, make timely individual case and systemic
child welfare recommendations; and advocate for legislative and systematic child welfare
improvements to promote safety and permanency.

Vision Statement

We envision the protection of all children from abuse and neglect, only placing children in out-of-
home care when necessary; and providing families with the help they need to stay intact; children
will be safe in a permanent living arrangement.

Goals

Volunteer citizens review cases in order to gather information about how effectively the child welfare
system discharges its responsibilities and to advocate, as necessary for each child reviewed in out-of-
home care.

The Citizens Review Board for Children provides useful and timely information about the adequacy
and effectiveness of efforts to promote child safety and well-being, to achieve or maintain
permanenc

MAJOR ASSIGNMENT! SMALL TIME FRAME! NO PLAGARISM!

Appendix C: SWOT Analysis

Appendix D: Systems, Roles, and Allies or Adversaries Analysts Chart

Stakeholder, Roles, Allies and Adversaries

Whose support is needed

Readiness

Capacity

Stakeholder

Role

Ally

Adversary

Must actively champion

Has little influence

Is ready to champion

Adamantly opposes

Going along with the majority

Has the skills and argument to be a champion

Target Benefits and Losses Chart

Negative Outcomes

of Not Making the Change

Benefits/Positive Outcomes

of Making the Change

Appendix E: Force Field Analysis Chart

Impact Score

Forces for change

Recommended Change

Forces Against Change

Impact Score

Total

Total

Impact Score

3 High Impact

2 Medium Impact

1 Low Impact

0 No Impact

MAJOR ASSIGNMENT! SMALL TIME FRAME! NO PLAGARISM!

0

Organizational Leadership Term Paper Brittany Lee
April 10, 2022

OMSW 608 Organizational Policy & Leadership in Urban Human Service Programs
Professor: Devron Dickens, LCSW-C

Running Head: ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP TERM PAPER
1

Baltimore City Child Protective Services

Organization Structure

Baltimore City Department of Social Services (BCDSS) is a government agency. The local

and state government governs the agency. The revenue for the agency is from government funding

(federal, state, and local). The agency size is between 1000-5000 employees. It is a government

administration, the headquarters for the agency is in Baltimore. BCDSS is part of the Maryland

Department of Human Services (DHS). The agency provides vital services annually to more than

190,000 residents in Baltimore City. Its mission is to make Baltimore a place where people

independently support themselves and their families and where children and vulnerable adults are

safe from abuse and neglect. The main stakeholders of the agency are the children, the families,

the state, and the local government.

The current director of BCDSS is Brandi Stocksdale. Corine Mullings is the Deputy

Director for Adult and Child Welfare Services; Nikia Agent and Stephanie Popielski are the

Assistant Deputy Directors for Adult and Child Welfare Services and supervise multiple divisions.

There are various departments under Child welfare: CPS (Safety), extended hours, family

preservation, permanency, adoptions, and ready by 21.

Ms. Popielski supervises the program managers for CPS, extended hours, family

preservation, and adoptions. Taavon Bazemore is the program manager for CPS, which consists

of the screening and child protective services investigation units during regular business hours.

The caseworkers in the investigation units investigate child abuse reports and provide services to

children found to be neglected, physically, and/or sexually abused by their parents and/or family

members. Temitope Owoeye is the program manager for extended hours. Baltimore City CPS is

the only jurisdiction in Maryland that takes reports 24/7. Extended hours caseworkers do the initial

Running Head: ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP TERM PAPER
2

screening and investigation outside of regular business hours. They begin work at 3 pm on the

weekdays and work till 7:30 am, and they work weekends and holidays. The program manager for

family preservation is Jennifer Berry. Family preservation assists families with case management

and other services to avoid placing children in foster care. The program manager for adoptions is

Terri Alston. Adoptions develop profiles on children in foster care who need adoptive resources.

Services are provided to relatives, foster parents, and fictive kin caretakers. Post-adoption

amenities may include a monthly subsidy, Medicaid/Medical Assistance, and information and

referral services.

Ms. Agent supervises the program managers for permanency and ready by 21. The program

manager for ready by 21 is Amesha Smith. Ready by 21 prepares youth for independence when

they turn twenty-one. Ready by 21 assists with attaining education or training programs; searching

and maintaining a job; creating a supportive network of family and friends; searching and

obtaining housing; education on managing finances; and getting access to affordable healthcare.

Willette Parrish-Harris and Teneill Wilson are both program managers for permanency.

Permanency, also known as foster care, offers assistance to children found CINA and placed in

licensed out-of-home living placements, including foster homes, group homes, and other

institutions. Permanency plans can be reunification with parents or legal guardians from whom the

children were removed, adoption or custody and guardianship to relatives, adoption by a non-

relative, or independence (for older children).

Under all program managers, there are Unit managers; under them are team administrators.

The number of team administrators varies in each department. Under the team administrators are

the caseworkers. Each team administrator can have up to at least 20 caseworkers. Turnovers

constantly occur within BCDSS, so someone can be in position for a day and be gone the next day.

Running Head: ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP TERM PAPER
3

Social Problem – Lack of Out of Home Placement due to lack of resources

As of December 2021, there were 4,575 children in out-of-home placements (Out of home

placement: Total in Maryland, 2021). Out-of-Home (OOH) placement describes the situation of

children in the care and custody of the state for a variety of reasons. These may include a Child in

Need of Assistance (CINA), a Child in Need of Supervision (CINS), or a Delinquent. Children can

also enter OOH placement when a parent voluntarily places a child in the state’s care—for

example, when a child cannot access funding for necessary treatment without being in the state’s

care. Placement for children includes a family home (foster or kinship care), a community-based

residential facility (such as a residential child care program), a non-community-based residential

facility (such as a juvenile detention center or a residential treatment center), or a hospital.

The issue of child safety and welfare is relevant to social work. Due to the risk factors

children are exposed to, the community must ensure that they protect the rights and well-being of

children. Children are very vulnerable; hence there is a need for a very strong guide on the laws

and their strict enforcement. The laws should protect children from harm and enable social workers

to assess their needs and provide services accordingly (Rosen, 2020).

Child protective services (CPS) are driven by one goal: the assurance of kids from

additional abuse. Of the mediation choices that can be coordinated toward this objective, the

situation of a kid in substitute consideration is the most revolutionary in light of the expenses for

society and the troublesome life impacts on children and families. Both now and in the past, in any

case, the choice of position has been chosen now and again. The objective is to increase placement

and stability for children in foster care.

Local authorities can improve the system by providing both sets of parents (biological and

foster) to meet regularly and communicate issues regarding the children. In addition, authorities

Running Head: ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP TERM PAPER
4

should ensure that biological parents have a satisfactory attachment to their children. However,

this should not be done at the expense of foster parents who provide facilities and resources to

ensure that children live normal lives. Authorities in the system should consider that homeless

children’s best interests are only met when all stakeholders are included in the process, which

would lead to inefficiency in this vital system.

The tools help the child agency find the proper placement that best suits the child’s needs.

The state and local governments need to be involved in achieving this goal. Regarding children in

foster care, the federal government required child welfare agencies to advance their procedures for

placing children in permanent homes.

Before a child can be legally adopted, they may have to wait for years. A child can lawfully

be adopted only after the court terminates the birth parent’s parental rights. Unless the child is

adopted by their foster parent(s) or relatives, they will remain in the foster care system. The finality

of adoption happens after the process of legal adoption is completed. Children need to experience

nurturing and stable environments during the early years of life because that is the time when they

learn to form relationships with primary caregivers.

Experiences such as neglect, abuse, and abandonment are critical in developing a child’s

brain and the ability to live effectively with other people. Research has established that children in

foster care experience high rates of physical, developmental, psychological, and mental health

problems than children who live with their parents. In addition, they have several unmet medical,

emotional, psychological, and mental health care needs. Children are placed under foster care to

protect them from physical harm that results from abuse, neglect, and abandonment. However, the

age at which many of them are enrolled is critical because it is characterized by high brain growth

and development (Barth, Courtney, Barrack, & Albert, 2017).

Running Head: ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP TERM PAPER
5

The director of Child Welfare Services of BCDSS wants to make a meaningful and lasting

change in the lives of innocent victims of abuse and neglect. BCDSS is passionate about promoting

the safety and well-being of at-risk children and youth who require a safe home environment to

grow and thrive. The director oversees a dedicated group of social workers who screen Baltimore

City’s CPS hotline and investigations for children being abused and neglected. They demonstrate

strong leadership skills by ensuring all calls to the hotline are screened appropriately and are

assigned timely to the necessary CPS staff. They are committed to ensuring an equitable and fair

process of CPS findings for families by providing oversight for the appeals for CPS findings,

including working closely with legal services on the appeals process (Barth, Courtney, Barrack, &

Albert, 2017).

BCDSS’s Program Theory

A program theory is a logic that explains how and why a program is expected to work. It

links things that are supposed to be done and expected outcomes from actions taken. BCDSS’s

program theory is a program that is set to solve the issue of the safety of children in foster care.

The theory explains the activities and interventions involved in the program to achieve the set

objective, which is child safety in the state. Baltimore City Department of Social Services centers

around how to reinforce these associations and the job of the family’s and children’s commitment

at each stage.

Logic Model

There are a lot of children and adolescents who live in foster care. There are many reasons

for one to be admitted to foster care. The main issues to be addressed are the problems of children

placed in foster care, the social impact of foster care, whether these centers are run as they are

supposed, the effect of non-relative care on children, etc. Children in foster care sometimes feel

Running Head: ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP TERM PAPER
6

like they are not getting the love and care from their biological parents. So, their mindset will be

different from children whose biological parents raised them. Children in families with violent or

neglective parents and guardians are more likely to develop psychiatric and behavioral problems

and have difficulty adjusting to normal environments. Often, children may become traumatized

and develop traumatic disorders from being in foster care (Mertens & Wilson, 2018).

Training is needed for the child care providers and the children. Training ensures the

families understand how to care for children suffering from trauma, so the children will not

undergo the same ordeal. Monitoring of the children will be included as needed. Adjustments to

the behavioral and interpersonal skills of the family members would significantly enhance the

relationships between the foster parent or caregiver and the children. This will help improve child

safety within the child welfare system. The goal would be to provide high-quality mental health

consultation to child care providers, families, and children to reduce the number of young children

involuntarily removed from their childcare setting.

Inputs: Due to their social/emotional development, there are a lot of children not entering

school in Baltimore City not ready to learn. Foster care providers require support to help children

with developmental issues and/or challenging behaviors. Due to their trauma, there are a lot of

children who do not stay in their foster care placements.

Activities: Establish partnership sites with specific child care providers. Establishing

partnerships will entail social workers conducting weekly visits, observing and assessing the

children who have behavioral problems, and creating individualized behavioral plans that will be

demonstrated to foster care providers. The progress of the child’s behavior will be monitored, and

referrals for other supports and services will be provided. Other activities include providing

consultation to other foster care providers as requested, collecting data, meeting weekly for

Running Head: ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP TERM PAPER
7

supervision and support, providing care providers with training on behavioral and social-emotional

development, and establishing partnerships with other agencies.

These activities target children with emotional imbalance, poor social skills, behavior

problems, etc. The activities are aimed to train children on managing their emotions and how to

react when some scenarios occur. This therapy focuses on improving family relationships, and

hence conflicts in the families reduce. Adjustments will need to be made to behavioral and

interpersonal skills to enhance the relationships. Family-oriented cognitive behavior therapy

(CBT) is appropriate, and it has a significant effect in preventing children from being

retraumatized. CBT is a comprehensive and accurate treatment designed to address the problems

brought by both the guardians and the children. As a result, the family-oriented mechanism will

comprehensively address the complex issues affecting families. (Acri, Hamovitch, Gopalan, &

Lalayants, 2020).

Outputs: Children vulnerable to removal from their home and/or placement will be

supported. Children’s problematic social-emotional/behavioral issues will improve. Foster care

providers will establish increased skills in social-emotional and behavioral problems. Foster care

providers will be equipped with early intervention services and staff. Relationships between child

care professionals and families with young children are fostered.

Outcomes: Children in Baltimore City enter school ready to learn, are healthy, and feel

safe, as indicated by scores on a scale. A care system for young children is available, infusing

mental health services into child care settings. Foster care providers are more competent and

confident in addressing young children’s behavioral and developmental needs. Collaboration

amongst professionals interacting with children and families is enhanced.

Running Head: ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP TERM PAPER
8

References

Acri, M. C., Hamovitch, E., Gopalan, G., & Lalayants, M. (2020). Examining a peer-delivered

program for child welfare-involved caregivers at risk for depression. Journal of Public

Child Welfare, 15(5), 565-582. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2020.1760177

Barth, R. P., Courtney, M., Barrack, J. D., & Albert, V. (2017). Specialized foster care: A home

for children with special needs. From Child Abuse to Foster Care, 179-

194. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203791431-11

Barth, R. P., Courtney, M., Barrack, J. D., & Albert, V. (2017). Group care for children. From

Child Abuse to Foster Care, 221-234. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203791431-13

Barth, R. P., Courtney, M. E., Barrack, J. D., & Albert, V. N. (2017). From child abuse to foster

care: Child welfare services pathways and placements. Routledge.

Frost, N. (Ed.). (2005). Child welfare: Major themes in health and Social Welfare. Routledge.

Mertens, D. M., & Wilson, A. T. (2018). Program evaluation theory and practice (2nd ed.). Gilford

Publications.

Rosen, M. (2020). Foster care. Treating Children in Out-of-Home Placements, 19-

36. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315786421-2

Tatienne, A. (2019). Child welfare services: Background, funding and foster care. Nova Snova.

Running Head: ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP TERM PAPER
9

Appendix A: Organizational Chart

Appendix B: Logic Model for Organizational Change

Running Head: ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP TERM PAPER
10

Identify the problem,
Challenge, or Opportunity

New Solutions &
Planning

Implement New Solution Evaluation (Assessment,
Stabilization, and Continuous

Quality Improvement

1 Due to their
social/emotional
development, there are a
lot of children not
entering school in
Baltimore City not ready
to learn

2. Foster care providers
require support to help
children with
developmental issues
and/or challenging
behaviors.

3. Due to their trauma,
there are a lot of
children who do not stay
in their foster care
placements.

 Establish partnership
sites with specific child
care providers.

• Weekly visits by social
workers

• Observing and assessing
children with behavioral
issues.

• Creating individualized
behavioral plans that will
be demonstrated to foster
care providers.

• Child progress
monitored.

• Referrals for other
supports and services are
made.

 -Provide consultation to
other child care
providers as requested.

 -Collect demographic
and assessment data.

 -Meet weekly for
supervision and support.

 -Provide care providers
with training on
behavioral and social-
emotional development.

 -Establish partnerships
with other agencies

 Children who are vulnerable
to removal from their
home and/or placement
will be supported.

 Children’s problematic
social-
emotional/behavioral
issues will improve.

 Foster care providers will
establish increased
skills in social-
emotional and
behavioral problems.

 Foster care providers will be
equipped with early
intervention services
and staff.

 Relationships between
childcare professionals
and families with young
children are fostered.

 Children in Baltimore
City enter school ready to
learn, are healthy, and
feel safe, as indicated by
a score on a scale.

 A care system for young
children is available,
infusing mental health
services into child care
settings.

 Foster care providers are
more competent and
confident in addressing
young children’s
behavioral and
developmental needs.

 Collaboration amongst
professionals interacting
with children and families
is enhanced.

MAJOR ASSIGNMENT! SMALL TIME FRAME! NO PLAGARISM!

This assignment is a continuation of a previous assignment which is attached. Please review the previous assignment and complete this assignment based on the first. 

9-10 pgs. Not including reference and appendix. APA format. 10-15 new additional resources. Complete the assignment and complete the attached appendixes per each section. Some references have been provided attached. 

SWOT Analysis – Describe the organization’s internal strengths and weaknesses, its opportunities for growth and improvement, and the threats the external environment presents to its survival. (See Appendix C) 

Introduction– What is a SWOT Analysis  

SWOT Analysis – Presented in narrative format. Diagram placed in the appendix

Integrated discussion of the SWOT Analysis primary emergent themes you will focus on 60

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

Threats 

Opportunities 

The problem, Challenge, or Opportunity 

History of the problem – Emergence 

Past Attempts to solve the problem, challenge or address the opportunity 

Literature review (3 peer-reviewed articles) related to the specific problem, challenge, or opportunity

Solution & Vision for Change – Propose a theoretically or model-based solution for change within the context of factors or pressures that support the status quo (restraining forces) and those pressures that support change in the desired direction (driving forces). (See Appendix D and E)

Describe key elements of proposed change based on the literature review  

Discuss macro – theoretical/model basis of the proposed change (based on the literature review)

History of theory/model development 

Key proponents of theory/model

Seminal message/ focus of theory/model

Clear and thorough connection between the theory/model base and proposed change

Vision statement (Essential elements after the change – what will the difference look like?)

Systems, Roles, and Allies or Adversaries– Systems, Roles, and Allies or Adversaries Analysis Chart – Presented in narrative format. Diagram placed in appendix

Identify individuals and their organizational roles and if they are sponsor, agent, target and if they are allies or adversaries  

ID Force Field Analysis Chart – Presented in narrative format. Diagram placed in appendix 

Identify Internal Driving Force 

Identify Environmental Driving Force 

Identify Internal Restraining Force 

Identify Environmental Restraining Force 

Identify Benefits to target and if allies or adversaries 

Identify losses to target and if allies or adversaries 

Implementation Strategy – focus on the implementation plan for the change, including strategies arising from the force field analysis; and proposes an evaluation plan for ensuring the change is sustained. (See Appendix F)

Detailed, integrated discussion of change effort and the strategy for increasing the driving forces and diminishing the restraining forces; including all roles, benefits, losses, etc. 

Description of plan for enhancing driving forces 

Engaging allies in strategy 

Utilizing sponsor and agent (or others) in strategy 

Description of plan for influencing and containing resistant forces 

Engaging or minimizing adversaries in strategy 

Incorporation of benefits and losses to target group/others in strategy 

Evaluation Plan  

Introduction – Identify outcome. Specify timeline, target population,  

How will you measure outcomes

How will you use outcomes (plan for continuous assessment of change) 

Composition

Appendixes

References