Statement of James E. Beougher, Director,
Child and Family Services Administration, Michigan Family Independence Agency

Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources
of the House Committee on Ways and Means

Hearing on the Promoting Safe and Stables Families Program

May 10, 2001

I am James E. Beougher, Director of the Child and Family Services Administration, the Michigan Family Independence Agency (MFIA), and I am submitting this statement for the record on behalf of the Michigan Family Independence Agency and the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) regarding the reauthorization of Title IV-B, Subpart 2 of the Social Security Act, Promoting Safe and Stable Families.

Promoting Safe and Stable Families enabled many states, Michigan among them, to develop programs and initiatives that focus on identifying those important issues most affecting vulnerable children and families; those needing protection from abuse and neglect. It is critical to continue this funding to promote opportunities for states to develop effective service delivery strategies if they are to achieve this overarching goal of child protection.

In Michigan, our Family Preservation programs are a critical component in the state's ability to provide a broad spectrum of intensive services to families with complex needs. These families can be birth parents, foster-parents, or the adoptive families of these children.

With the ability and encouragement to be creative in the development of Family Preservation programs came the responsibility to evaluate the effectiveness of these services in achieving the goal of protecting children, strengthening all families, and promoting and encouraging permanency for children. We have identified several components that must be present in the design of an intervention if it is to be effective.

In Michigan, we have found that our Family Preservation programs are successful in achieving these goals based on the inherent design philosophy of providing access, voice and ownership to the children and families they are created to serve. Access provides the parent and child with valid options for inclusion in the decision-making process that impacts their family. Voice provides the parent and child with the opportunity to have their concerns heard and to ensure that their needs are addressed at all stages in the case planning. Finally, ownership provides that the parent and child agree with and, most importantly, are committed to the plan that is developed to assist them.

Family Preservation programs focus on meeting the immediate needs of the family to promote stability. Traditionally, where child safety issues are present, parents are often referred to counseling as a primary service. In Family Preservation programs, those factors that result in risk to the child are identified and immediately remedied. For instance, if a family does not have housing, counseling will not make an appreciable difference in the family's ability to provide a safe and stable environment for their children.

Equally as important in the success of these intensive intervention programs is the fundamental design of the service model itself. Services, and those that deliver these services, must view families as partners, as being part of the solution rather than being the problem.

The programs must be based on sound ecological models, working with the family in their natural environment, utilizing their strengths, values, and beliefs and those of their community and natural support systems. Michigan has been aggressive in developing, monitoring, and evaluating programs that comport with these basic family centered philosophies.

Another critical tenet of our Family Preservation continuum is to ensure that the communities in which our families live are active partners with the state, local human service providers, schools, faith community and families. To assure success in achieving the goals of protecting children or reuniting families, several critical operational mandates must be adhered to.

In Michigan, these include:

· Uniform training provided statewide to family preservation service providers;

· Contractual service providers of these intensive services are community based to ensure relevancy of services;

· Defined outcomes and expectations for family preservation programs are clearly articulated and monitored;

· Defined quality assurance processes are built into the family preservation program models and are monitored to ensure adherence to the model; and

· Technical assistance and training is on-going and is provided by state-level collaborative partnerships to ensure relevance and effectiveness.

There are national studies that claim Family Preservation models show no significant differences between families who receive Family Preservation services and those that receive conventional services. I would like to highlight several family preservation programs in Michigan that are particularly effective and that have evidence-based findings which objectively measure those successes.

Families First of Michigan

The Families First of Michigan program, which is based on the HomeBuilders model, is family-centered and home-based providing a broad variety of intensive services to families in need. Families First service providers are available to the families they serve 24-hours a day, 7-days a week for not more than 6-weeks. Families First of Michigan began in 1988 as a response to the upward trend in rising out-of-home care placements.

In 1988, Michigan's placement data showed that 70-80 percent of all Michigan children placed out-of-home were removed from their families, not because of abuse, but because of chronic neglect related to poverty and drug abuse. The primary goal of Families First has always been to ensure the safety and well being of children, with the secondary goal of decreasing the amount of dollars spent on out-of-home care.

Families First began with a pilot in 1988 in 16 Michigan counties. By 1993, Families First had been expanded to all 83 counties in Michigan, including several federally recognized Indian Tribes, Family Courts, Community Mental Health agencies and Domestic Violence shelters.

Since 1992, Families First has been the subject of a series of formal evaluations that conclude the program is effective in reducing out-of-home placement and is cost effective when compared to foster care. The most recent study utilized the following protocol to determine its' findings:

· A rigorous, experimental/control design including random assignment to either a control group (foster care) or the experimental group (treatment at home by Families First); and,

· Included only cases where the court found cause to order placement in foster care (or other out-of-home setting).

Data from this study showed: ⁽¹⁾

The Families First Effectiveness Study also found that to be effective strict adherence to a model is a critical component. To maintain the integrity of the program model, comprehensive staff training has continued to be a high priority for Families First. Additionally, the program provides family preservation specialists at the state level who support and monitor the work of the provider agencies. These specialists conduct monthly on-site visits to review referrals for appropriate targeting, provide case consultation along with clear guidelines, and monitor service delivery, program utilization rates and outcome data to ensure model integrity. The program also includes a quality assurance coordinator who regularly provides consultation and guidance to the agencies in the program operations.

The Michigan Office of the Auditor General specifically cited what they identified as "noteworthy accomplishments" of the Families First Program in the Performance Audit of Families First released in July of 1998. That audit specifically stated:

The Program has shown that it can be a cost-effective alternative to out-of-home placement for certain eligible children. Intensive efforts to safely maintain a child in the parents' home when the child is at imminent risk of out-of-home placement can result in significant savings to the state. The program places a high priority on the safety of children. Also, these caseworkers spend, on a daily basis, a significant amount of their time in the families' homes working with the parents and monitoring the safety of children.

Some of the data reviewed by the Auditor General establishing these findings related to Families First is a twelve-year review as follows:

Historical Data on Families First

September 1998 - November 2000

Family Reunification

Another key in Michigan's successful continuum of Family Preservation programming is the Family Reunification Program (FRP). The Family Reunification Program was created in response to growing public concern about the increasing numbers of children placed in out-of-home care and the lack of effective family-based alternatives. In an effort to prevent repeated out-of-home placement and safely return children to their families, MFIA initiated the FRP to provide intensive home-based services.

The FRP was implemented from 1992-1996 by MFIA utilizing three contract agencies serving a 12-county area in southeast Michigan. All three sites administered the same model, which offered assessment, case management, 24-hour services, and at least two staff (one Bachelor and one Master degree level) working together to provide direct services to children and their families. Family Reunification Services required families to participate in strength-based assessment, family or individual therapy, parenting skill classes, and family workshops. All services were offered through the providing contract agencies. Staff also conducted on-going assessments of the risk to children throughout the program.

The original pilot of the FRP underwent an evaluation by the Skillman Foundation. ⁽²⁾

Synopsis of the findings from that evaluation are as follows:

As a result of the Skillman findings, we have established Family Reunification Services in fourteen of the largest and most populous counties in Michigan. The program has the capacity to serve 1,152 families each year and the program will expand to other counties in Michigan as funding becomes available.

Family Group Decision Making (FGDM)

Michigan's commitment to providing the broadest spectrum of Family Preservation services possible to address those multiple issues of families with complex needs continues with the Family Group Decision Making Program pilot.

Over the past several years, MFIA has formally recognized that Kinship care provides continuity for abused or neglected children's familial and cultural relationships. Michigan recognized that what is needed, and is oftentimes missing, is a tool that can be utilized to ensure safety and stability within kinship placements that also builds upon the existing family commitment to children. Providing an opportunity for family to invest in and become active participants in ensuring child well-being is a critical piece of the Family Group model.

FGDM acknowledges that families can, in most cases, make the most well informed decisions and find safe solutions to issues of abuse and neglect. It emphasizes that families have the responsibility to care for their children and to provide them with a sense of security and belonging. Family, within the FGDM model, is broadly defined to include blood and legal relatives (adoptive parent, stepparent or guardian), tribal elders, neighbors, a child's friend, godparent, teacher, clergy and anyone who has a significant relationship with the parent and/or child.

FGDM utilizes a team approach between children's protective services workers and the FGDM contracted providers to identify concerned members of the child's family and community network. Family meetings are convened to develop a safety plan for the child. This plan becomes the cornerstone of support, assessment and casework services for families by creating a safe environment for the children in the kinship structure.

The program objectives are to:

· Support family decision-making regarding the care and protection of children and create a family support system focused on safety and stability;

· Increase the role of family in the care and protection of children;

· Increase the number of children remaining safely in their homes or with extended family

· Reduce the number of out-of-home placements; and,

· Decrease the number of children's protective service re-referrals and re-substantiations.

In Michigan, there are currently six counties involved in the FGDM demonstration project. The Michigan model includes an after-care component that provides for a FGDM advocate to continue working with the family for up to one year to assist them in the on-going implementation of their safety plan.

There have been 70 referrals made to FGDM involving 254 high-risk children. Of those referrals, 91% of the families agreed to participate in the process. In 98% of safety plans developed, the MFIA children's protective service worker approved the plan as meeting the needs of the child for continued safety. In the last year, 75% of the cases were closed as having successfully achieved their goal.

One of the greatest successes of the FGDM model has been in Leelanau County in northern Michigan. Leelanau is home to the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. In January of 1999, Leelanau County MFIA was supervising 26 children in foster care, 20 of which were Native American. In Leelanau, 77% of their placements into foster care have been historically children of Native American descent while the overall population of Native Americans in the county is less than 2%.

The Grand Traverse Band embraced the concept of empowering families and tribal community members to self-determine a goal and plan to keep their children safely in their local community. As a result of this partnership and implementation of the FGDM model, only two (2) Native American children remain placed out-of-home in Leelanau County and there have been no new referrals for out-of-home placement since the pilot began.

The MFIA Director, Douglas Howard, in his support of FGDM stated, "Family Group Decision Making is a program whose success has been proven time and time again. It is strength based, family driven, culturally appropriate and broadly embraced by families, service providers and the MFIA staff. We are encouraged with these pilot results and hope to continue to build upon these successes through expansion of this model."

In Michigan, we are strongly committed to the principles of ensuring children's safety. We provide them with a safe and stable home environment, opportunities for growth and permanency through the use of community based programming, and empowering them and their families to be partners in those critical decisions that impact them.

Wraparound

In keeping with this philosophy, one of the most effective Family Preservation interventions available for working with children with Severe Emotional Disturbance (SED) is the Wraparound Process. Wraparound is a home-based inclusive model of service delivery that provides intensive services to families in need.

As with the other Family Preservation programs highlighted here, Wraparound has been successful because the services are determined by the family in collaboration with professionals and support persons of their choice. It is family centered, strength based and community driven. Quality Assurance tools and adherence to the model is a key component of Wraparound's success. Michigan is a pilot site for the field testing of the Wraparound Quality Assurance Process that is being developed by John VanDenBerg and Jim Rast of Vroon - VanDenBerg, Denver, Colorado.

The success of Wraparound is most apparent in counties that have a strong commitment to the provision of Wraparound services as a community philosophy. One such county is Lenawee County in southeast Michigan.

In 1990, there were 200 children in family foster care. Twenty-four children, ages 6-12, were placed in a residential treatment facility and were diagnosed as needing residential services until they reached 18 years of age. Wraparound was introduced to the community and immediately engendered a strong commitment within the community to implement this intensive service delivery process.

Four conditions were present that inspired this community support:

1. A perceived need for change - county officials noted a crisis in the escalating foster care caseload, a shortage of available foster homes, high costs for out-of-home placements and the harm to children while placed in care.

2. Leadership in the MFIA, Community Mental Health and the Court were successful in convincing staff and the community that a new and better way to protect children and strengthen families could be found through collaborative community-based efforts.

3. Wraparound, as a process, had proved success elsewhere in the nation and was easily replicable in any community.

4. Resources were available to support the project effort. The county commissioners appropriated funds, as did MFIA, the Courts and the community Mental Health Agency. In addition to this funding, these agencies became partners in moving service delivery in the county from system driven, deficit based to family driven, strength based.

As a result of this philosophical shift, out-of-home placements began to drop dramatically. In the first year of implementation, the number of children in care dropped from 200 to 166. This decrease in out of home care continued as a dramatic pace through 1997 when only 64 children were placed in out-of-home care. Placements in the residential setting dropped from a high of 24 to only one child in a residential facility. Wraparound effectively netted a 78% reduction in the use of out-of-home care in only 7 years.

Wraparound was successful in Lenewee County. The success in the County as well as across the State of Michigan continues because:

· It truly meets the needs of children, families and the community for safety, stability and permanency;

· The collaborative nature of Wraparound builds upon the strengths of the community to invest in protecting children and promoting safety;

· Wraparound provides an effective way to identify and address the multi-agency need for services a family may experience (i.e. mental health, substance abuse, child protection, employment and health);

· Funding sources are flexible and responsive permitting the state to target appropriate services as well as maximize dollars available;

· The services work irrespective of the family make-up, i.e. birth families, kinship, foster-parent, and adoptive families; and,

· The intensive nature of the service adapts to the most needy children and families.

As persuasive as statistical information is relative the effectiveness of a treatment model, nothing compares to the power of witnessing the long-term impact an intervention such as Wraparound can have on keeping children safe in stable homes. I have personally followed five children over a period of eight years who were involved with Wraparound as a last alternative. Two of these children aged eleven and twelve at the time, were placed in residential care because no foster family home could keep them. Their combative behaviors, biting, spitting, hitting, sexual acting out and more, could not be controlled or eradicated. They routinely experienced physical restraint in the residential facility and they were predicted to remain in some form of congregate care until they aged out of the system. Their future at that point was uncertain.

Because of the commitment to the philosophies of Wraparound in the community, these two children received the opportunity to return to a family home and received the support they needed to be successful at home from the family and community support system. Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to meet with these young men, now 19 and 20 years old. Both of them are successfully living in the community, employed and are engaged in supportive relationships. They, and their families, credit Wraparound with their success.

Both of these young men stated Wraparound made a difference because:

· It supported their mothers and listened to her when the caseworker would not;

· They were able to convince the judge to listen to the successes instead of the failures; and,

· Wraparound gave the family, especially their mothers, power over their future.

Each of the Family Preservation models highlighted above focuses on supporting children and families while ensuring that safety concerns are paramount. Significant effort has been expended to ensure program accountability. Universal outcomes and expectations for Family Preservation programming has been developed that meet the needs of the child and family while attaining the overarching programmatic mandates.

Michigan has engaged in a stringent external evaluation of these Family Preservation initiatives in order to determine their effectiveness. These longitudinal studies have included a control group/experimental group design with random assignment protocol. These evaluations do more than assess the satisfaction of the parents and children with the services they receive. They take a critical look at the goals of the intervention, the outcomes achieved, and draw a correlation to those goals and outcomes achieved in the control group. The critical success Michigan has achieved with Families First, Family Reunification, Family Group Decision Making and Wraparound is indisputable.

In 1992, when Michigan first embarked upon Welfare Reform, we achieved significant declines in caseloads immediately. By the mid-point of our efforts, formal evaluation concluded that gains were not due to welfare reform. Despite that, Michigan persisted in its efforts, providing stronger supports, targeted resources, and utilized new and different ways to address issues of education, employability and childcare. As a result, we have continued to decrease the number of citizens dependent on public assistance. In fact, we achieved an approximate 70% reduction in cash assistance caseloads while promoting the formation of strong families who are active participants in determining their future. If Michigan would have listened to those whose studies decried our efforts, we would not have made the significant gains.

On behalf of the Michigan Family Independence Agency and the American Public Human Services Association, I have attempted to provide the Subcommittee with a portrayal of the broad spectrum of intensive services available in Michigan and share our successes. Michigan, over the past twelve years, has committed financial, policy and programmatic resources to develop a range of innovative and effective programs to ensure that children are protected from abuse and neglect. That commitment is born out by the exceptional results we have achieved.

The common thread among these programs that undergird their success is the intensive, strength-based, community driven, and family-centered design of service models. Each program requires intensive contact with the family, strict adherence to and effective monitoring of the model, establishment of clearly defined outcomes, and a quality assurance component that continuously measures the success of the program in relation to the expected outcomes.

Reauthorization of Title IV-B, Subpart 2, Promoting Safe and Stable Families, is critical in all states ability to achieve the overarching goal of protecting children from neglect and abuse, strengthening families and promoting stability and permanency through effective and innovative programming. Michigan strongly believes in and desires the flexibility to address gaps in service and build upon proven successes to meet family needs at the state and local level.

Reauthorization of Promoting Safe and Stable Families will have a significant impact upon not only Michigan's ability to achieve these mandates but on other states in the nation as well.

Thank you for the opportunity to present Michigan's current efforts in these critical areas as well our vision for our continuing work with children and families in need.

1. Michigan Families First Effectiveness Study: A Summary of Findings.  Betty J. Blythe, Ph.D., Boston College Graduate School of Social Work and Srinkika Jayaratne, Ph.D., The University of Michigan School of Social Work

2. An Evalutaion of the Michigan Family Reunification Program: 1992-1997; the Skillman foundation