|
|---|
|
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||
| ACF Home | Services | Working with ACF | Policy/Planning | About ACF | ACF News | HHS Home | ||||
Questions?
|
Privacy
|
Site Index
|
Contact Us
|
Download Reader™
|
Print
|
|---|
| Demonstration Type: | Tribal Administration of Title IV-E Funds1 |
| Approved: | June 14, 1999 |
| Implemented: | July 1, 2000 |
| Completed: | December 31, 2005 |
| Interim Evaluation Report Date: | February 2003 |
| Final Evaluation Report Date: | December 22, 2005 |
New Mexico’s Tribal Administration of Title IV-E Funds demonstration targeted Native American children in the custody of New Mexico Tribes that did not already have Joint Powers Agreements with the State. Joint Powers Agreements provide for greater Tribal involvement in child welfare cases but do not give Tribes the authority to administer title IV-E funds directly.
New Mexico had the option of entering into Title IV-E Agreements with as many as five Tribes in the State. During the course of the waiver, only one Tribal authority – Pueblo of Zuni – chose to enter into a Title IV-E Agreement with the State. Navajo Nation, which had been negotiating a Title IV-E Agreement with New Mexico during the early years of the waiver, chose instead to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement.
Through this demonstration, the State of New Mexico sought to foster (1) improved efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of child welfare services to Native American children and (2) improved safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes for Native American children and their families.
Under the terms of the waiver, the State was granted authority to enter into agreements with eligible New Mexico Tribes that delegated the administration of title IV-E programs to Tribal government authorities. These agreements gave Tribes the authority to develop foster care licensure standards; license foster homes; make title IV-E eligibility determinations for individual children; and receive reimbursement for foster care maintenance, adoption assistance, subsidized guardianship, independent living, and related administrative expenses directly from the Federal government. In addition, participating Tribes had the option of using title IV-E funds to provide enhanced training to child welfare staff and to foster and adoptive parents.
The evaluation consisted of process and outcome components, as well as a cost analysis. In its original evaluation plan, the State proposed using a comparison group design to compare child welfare outcomes for Tribes with Title IV-E Agreements against outcomes for Tribes with Joint Powers Agreements. However, only one Tribe (Pueblo of Zuni) established a Title IV-E Agreement with the State and was therefore available to serve in the evaluation’s experimental group.
Of the eight Tribes and Pueblos with Joint Powers Agreements (Cochiti Pueblo, Jicarilla Apache Nation, Nambe Pueblo, Navajo Nation, Picuris Pueblo, Santa Ana Pueblo, Taos Pueblo, and Santa Clara Pueblo), the State’s evaluators only collected evaluation data from Navajo Nation. Therefore, only limited comparative data are available regarding child welfare outcomes.
For the outcome component of the evaluation, the State’s evaluators identified all children in Pueblo of Zuni and Navajo Nation who entered or were in title IV-E-funded out-of-home placements between December 2004 and May 2005. Using these criteria, the evaluators identified 17 Zuni youth and 33 Navajo youth on whom they collected data on placement setting, permanency, and well-being outcomes.
Process Study
For the process component of the evaluation, the State developed a Demonstration Implementation Review Form to assess administrative functions such as financing, relationships with service providers, and management information systems. In addition, fidelity scales were used to study the extent to which Pueblo of Zuni implemented title IV-E administrative activities and improved the delivery of child welfare services. Finally, caretaker interviews and chart reviews were used to determine the quality of services provided through the demonstration.
Variables studied as part of the State’s process evaluation included the following:
Outcomes Study
For the outcome component of the evaluation, the State and its evaluators designed a case-specific data collection tool called the Individual Case Outcome Form (ICOD), a 30-item questionnaire that tracked information on each child’s placement setting, permanency plan, and permanency outcomes. Outcome data from this form were supplemented using the North Carolina Family Assessment Scale (NCFAS), a 36-item tool that examines the child and biological family’s safety and well-being.
Specific outcome measures tracked for the State’s evaluation included permanency rates, overall child well-being, family functioning, and safety of the home environment. The State’s evaluators caution against direct comparisons of findings between the experimental group (Zuni) and comparison group (Navajo) because of significant differences in the size, population, geographic isolation, and availability of child welfare resources in these Tribal communities.
Process Findings
The State reported various descriptive findings regarding changes in child welfare policies and practices in the Pueblo of Zuni during the course of the demonstration. Some major developments are summarized below.
Organizational Changes
New policies outside of Bureau of Indian Affairs requirements were implemented with respect to child protection intake, maltreatment investigations, and case management procedures and practices. In addition, Zuni social services staff actively reviewed existing child welfare policies and procedures in an effort to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of services.
Changes in Staffing Structures
The Pueblo restructured its approach to social service delivery by dividing the responsibilities of CPS workers into separate intake, investigational, foster care support, and case management components.
Changes in Case Planning and Management
Case management practices were refined to ensure that a regular, formal review of title IV-E eligibility occurs for every child in out-of-home placement.
Improvements in Staff Training and Education
The Pueblo implemented a cross-training program for staff from various social service agencies that serve the tribal community.
Development of Multidisciplinary and Interagency Relationships
The Pueblo worked with Tribal Courts to ensure that child welfare court orders incorporate appropriate title IV-E language. These changes are expected to increase access for otherwise eligible children to title IV-E funds. In addition, the Pueblo began a formal collaboration with the local police department to facilitate a rapid and efficient response to domestic violence incidents that require the involvement of the Tribal social services department.
Monitoring, Reporting, and Data Collection
A monitoring system was developed to track court review hearings to ensure that children maintain their title IV-E eligibility.
Implementation Barriers
New Mexico noted several administrative, financial, regulatory, and cultural barriers to fuller Tribal participation in the demonstration. Common challenges included the following:
In addition, the State noted conflicts between Federal child welfare policies and Tribal cultural practices and preferences. For example, many Tribes would prefer to use “Peacemaking Courts” and Family Group Conferencing to facilitate custody and placement decisions for families. These methods, however, do not meet Federal requirements for official judicial reviews.
Outcome Findings
New Mexico reported some limited findings on placement setting, permanency, and child well-being outcomes for this waiver demonstration. Overall, it appears that children in the experimental group did not experience better child welfare outcomes than children in the control group and, in some instances, appeared to have worse outcomes. However, given the extremely small sample size available for the evaluation (17 experimental group cases versus 33 comparison group cases), it is not possible to interpret these findings or determine whether these apparent differences are statistically significant.
Placement Setting
Different patterns in placement settings emerged between children in the experimental group (Zuni) and those in the comparison group (Navajo). For example, more Zuni youth were placed in non-Indian foster homes or in institutional settings, with four (26.7 percent) Zuni children living in residential treatment centers (RTCs) and another four (26.7 percent) living in non-Indian foster homes as of May 2005. In contrast, no Navajo children were living in RTCs or non-Indian foster homes by this date. Furthermore, more Navajo children were placed in relative foster care or entered assisted guardianship. By May 2005, nine (28 percent) Navajo children were in relative foster homes, and 17 (53 percent) had entered guardianship. In contrast, only three (20 percent) Zuni children were placed in relative foster homes by this date, and none had entered guardianship.
Permanency
A greater proportion of children in the comparison (Navajo) group achieved permanency during the demonstration than in the experimental (Zuni) group. By May 2005, no Zuni children had exited foster care to a permanent placement, compared with 17 Navajo children (53 percent). For Navajo youth, permanency was achieved exclusively through assisted guardianship. Permanency plans for Zuni youth who remained in foster care focused on reunification (20 percent) or guardianship (73 percent), whereas assisted guardianship was the primary permanency objective for Navajo children (84 percent).
Child Well-Being
No statistically significant differences emerged between Zuni and Navajo youth in overall child well-being, safety of the home environment, parental capabilities, child safety, and quality of family interactions as measured by the North Carolina Family Assessment Scale.
1This demonstration was operated under one of two waivers received by New Mexico. A separate waiver allowed the State to implement an assisted guardianship demonstration with two components: (1) a Tribal Custody Guardianship Program, and (2) a State Custody Guardianship Program. Back
Back to Table of Contents
