|
|---|
|
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||
| ACF Home | Services | Working with ACF | Policy/Planning | About ACF | ACF News | HHS Home | ||||
Questions?
|
Privacy
|
Site Index
|
Contact Us
|
Download Reader™
|
Print
|
|---|
 |
|
Table of Contents Text Only Version
Slide 55 of 58 |
Notes: This slide depicts the ratings for the five indicators used to evaluate the systemic factor, Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention, as follows:
Standards for foster family homes and child care institutions: 31 States achieved strength ratings, and one State was rated as area needing improvement.
Standards are applied equally to all homes or institutions: 27 States achieved strength ratings, and 5 States were rated as area needing improvement.
Ability to individualize services to children and families: 30 States achieved strength ratings, and 2 States were rated as area needing improvement.
Diligent recruitment of foster and adoptive families: 12 States achieved strength ratings, and 20 States were rated as areas needing improvement.
Effective use of cross-jurisdictional resources: 28 States achieved strength ratings, and 4 States were rated as areas needing improvement.
While the systemic area of licensing, recruiting, and retaining foster and adoptive parents was generally strong among States, one of the weakest overall indicators was the diligent recruitment of foster families who represent the diversity of children needing placement. Only 12 of the 32 States were doing well in this area. Most of the States had an inadequate supply of foster families, forcing their reliance on inappropriate placements for children in foster care, temporary shelter care for initial and emergency placements, and overcrowding of some foster homes. This will be an important area for States to address in their PIPs if they are to see improvements in the permanency outcomes.
This slide depicts the ratings for the five indicators used to evaluate the systemic factor, Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention, as follows:
Standards for foster family homes and child care institutions: 31 States achieved strength ratings, and one State was rated as area needing improvement.
Standards are applied equally to all homes or institutions: 27 States achieved strength ratings, and 5 States were rated as area needing improvement.
Ability to individualize services to children and families: 30 States achieved strength ratings, and 2 States were rated as area needing improvement.
Diligent recruitment of foster and adoptive families: 12 States achieved strength ratings, and 20 States were rated as areas needing improvement.
Effective use of cross-jurisdictional resources: 28 States achieved strength ratings, and 4 States were rated as areas needing improvement.
While the systemic area of licensing, recruiting, and retaining foster and adoptive parents was generally strong among States, one of the weakest overall indicators was the diligent recruitment of foster families who represent the diversity of children needing placement. Only 12 of the 32 States were doing well in this area. Most of the States had an inadequate supply of foster families, forcing their reliance on inappropriate placements for children in foster care, temporary shelter care for initial and emergency placements, and overcrowding of some foster homes. This will be an important area for States to address in their PIPs if they are to see improvements in the permanency outcomes.
