Child and Family Services Reviews Onsite Review Instrument.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Child Protective Services Enhanced Perinatal Surveillance May 30, 2007.
Advertisements

From QA to QI: The Kentucky Journey. In the beginning, we were alone and compliance reigned.
Working Across Systems to Improve Outcomes for Young Children Sheryl Dicker, J.D. Assistant Professor of Pediatrics and Family and Social Medicine, Albert.
117_PAT_CM_ Putting It All Together During this review course, you will apply the knowledge, skills, and abilities learned during your training.
Community Based Care in Florida and the IV-E Waiver.
1 North Dakota Children and Family Services Review Paul Ronningen, Division Director Don Snyder, Permanency Unit Manager.
California Department of Social Services Program Improvement Plan
JUDY NORD STAFF ATTORNEY, STATE COURT ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGER, CHILDREN’S JUSTICE INITIATIVE Permanency Timeline.
Treatment Plans and Administrative Case Reviews In a Nutshell.
Caregiver Support. Child Intervention Intake Statistics  Calgary and Area 2013:  The Region received 14,100 reports about a child or youth who may be.
1 Child and Family Services Review Program Improvement Plan Kick-Off Division/Staff Name Date (7/30/07)
State Standards and Practices for Content of Caseworker Visits with Children in Foster Care DHHS-OIG Report OEI December 2005.
Strategic Thinking to Align Initiatives and Integrate Management, Supervision, and Practice Heidi D. McIntosh, MSW Deputy Commissioner Fernando J. Muñiz,
1 Agency/Court Collaboration in the CFSR: ENGAGING COURTS AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM The National Child Welfare Resource Center For Organizational Improvement.
1 Lessons Learned about the Service Array from the First Round of Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) The Service Array Process National Child Welfare.
1 THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW (CFSR) PRACTICE PRINCIPLES: Critical Principles for Assessing and Enhancing the Service Array The Service Array.
Findings From the Initial Child and Family Service Reviews
Presented By: Tracy Johnson, Central CAPT
An overview of Florida’s Practice Model Florida Department of Children and Families Copyright 2013 Florida Department of Children & Families.
FTMs and Foster Care Policy Kenny A: FTMs are to be held within 3-9 days after a child comes into care Held to make any key decisions regarding placement.
Minnesota Child Welfare Program Goals Safety Permanency Well-Being.
VISITATION 1. Competencies  SW Ability to complete visitation plans that underscore the importance of arranging and maintaining immediate, frequent,
Meeting the Needs of Individuals
Oregon’s Community-Involved Approach to Differential Response Implementation.
Assessment Skills Lab Structured Decision Making (SDM) Version 1.0 | 2014.
Systems Change to Achieve Permanency Mountains and Plains Child Welfare Implementation Center Arlington, Texas April 15, 2009.
Memo Series Overview  Requirements  Frequently Asked Questions  Reports  Reporting to the Federal Government Did Wisconsin Make the target.
DIVISION OF FAMILY & CHILDREN SERVICES G-FORCE MEETING May 2009.
BRINGING COMMUNITY TOGETHER TO SUPPORT FAMILIES AND THEIR REUNIFICATION FAMILY REUNIFICATION TELECONFERENCE Strong Families Make a Strong Kansas.
Prepared by American Humane Association and the California Administrative Office of the Courts.
Bringing Protective Factors to Life in the Child Welfare System New Hampshire.
A New Narrative for Child Welfare February 16, 2011 Bryan Samuels, Commissioner Administration on Children, Youth & Families.
WEBINAR, AUGUST 9, 2011 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES Quality Service Review Ratings on the Quick.
Family Team Meeting Policy Updates Presented by Mitzie Smith August 10, 2009.
Maine DHHS: Putting Children First
Welcome to the Quarterly FTM Facilitator Advanced Training  Please make sure you have signed in.  In order to receive PE training hours you must be registered.
Foster Care Eligibility Determination Training System Century College MFWCAA Conference Title IV-E Workshop October 9, 2008 Deborah Trotter NW Region Paula.
204: Assessing Safety in Out-of-Home Care Updates.
SSIS as a Case Management Tool Nan Beman Anne Broskoff.
1 DIVISION OF FAMILY & CHILDREN SERVICES G-FORCE MEETING April 23, 2009.
DIAKON Lutheran Social Ministries/Family Design Resources Tools That Work Conference 11/03 Implementing Best Practice Standards in Permanency Planning.
1 Quality Counts: Helping Improve Outcomes for Pennsylvania’s Children & Families September 22, 2008.
Child and Family Service Review CFSR 101. Child and Family Service Review CFSR stands for the Child and Family Service Review. It is the federal government’s.
ACCELERATED FAMILY REUNIFICATION (A-FRE) State Initiative Leads: Marcella Herrera (Region 6) Maria Galloway (Region 8)
1 Executive Summary of the Strategic Plan and Proposed Action Steps January 2013 Healthy, Safe, Smart and Strong 1.
1 CHILDREN SAFE AND THRIVING WITH FOREVER FAMILIES, SOONER DIVISION OF FAMILY & CHILDREN SERVICES Isabel Blanco, Deputy Director of Field Operations September.
The Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) February 2008 Update.
Public Law H.R Background Information In September of 2014, Congress passed the “Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families”
ACWA Conference 2010 Barnardos Find-a-Family Working Together – Promoting Positive Relationships to Enhance Permanency Lisa Velickovich and Laura Ritchie.
Strategic Planning  Hire staff  Build a collaborative decision- making body  Discuss vision, mission, goals, objectives, actions and outcomes  Create.
The Children’s Aid Society of Brant Preliminary Findings Crown Ward Review 2011 February 28-March 10, 2011.
Roles and Responsibilities of the IRO. Role and Responsibilities of IRO When consulted about the guidance, children and young people were clear what they.
1 Department of Human Services (DHS)/Child Welfare Services (CWS) Branch Child & Family Services Review (CFSR) & Program Improvement Plan (PIP)
CT’s DCF-Head Start Partnership Working Together to Serve Vulnerable Families & Support the Development of At-Risk Children Presenters: Rudy Brooks Former.
Completing the circle: concurrent planning and the use of Family Finding, Blended perspective meetings, and family group decision making processes.
STRONG FAMILIES SELF- SUFFICENT STABLE RELIANT SUPPORTIVE.
PIP effective January 1, 2017 & runs through December 31, 2018
Quality Case Practice Improvement
Office of Children's Services
The Children’s Aid Society of Brant
Stakeholder Webinar September 20, 2018
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services January 23, 2015
GOT PERMANENCE? DIVISION OF FAMILY & CHILDREN SERVICES G-FORCE MEETING
Pathways to Permanency: Safety, Permanency and Well-Being
Stakeholder Webinar September 20, 2018
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services December 19, 2014
House Human Services Committee
Insert Meeting Date and Presenters
Permanency Planning Modified Manual
Children Services Committee Meeting
Presentation transcript:

Child and Family Services Reviews Onsite Review Instrument

Training Objectives  To help ensure consistency among reviewers statewide.

Face Sheet

Rolling Monthly Sample Period  Case reviews will be conducted April 1, 2016-September 30,  NOTE:  The sample period is April 1, 2016-September 30,  Add 45 days for in-home services sample periods. Review MonthsRolling Monthly Sample Periods* Periods Under Review April /1/2015 to 9/30/20154/1/2015 to Date of Review May /1/2015 to 10/31/20155/1/2015 to Date of Review June /1/2015 to 11/30/20156/1/2015 to Date of Review July /1/2015 to 12/31/20157/1/2015 to Date of Review August /1/2015 to 1/31/20168/1/2015 to Date of Review September /1/2015 to 2/29/20169/1/2015 to Date of Review

Open & Closure Dates Open Date Closure Date  The “period under review” includes all agency (DCF, Sheriffs’ and CBC) services and actions on all accepted maltreatment reports (including special conditions ) and open cases from the start of the period under review, up to the date that the case is reviewed or case is closed, whichever comes first. Note: this is further clarification since the training.  If the first case that was open during the period under review was opened before the period under review began, include it as the case opening date for the period.  Although the CFSR tool discusses the trial home visit, Florida does not do trial home visits.  If the family received in-home services before the removal of a child and placement of the child in foster care, and the case was not closed before placement, enter the date on which the case was opened for services as defined above.  Enter the date on which the agency officially closed the case. For foster care cases, this may or may not be the same as the discharge date.  If there were multiple case openings and closures during the period under review, indicate the date of the last case closure that occurred during the period.  If the case is still open at the time of review, select “Case not closed by time of review."

Safety Outcomes 1 & 2

Items 1 & 2  Item 1  Ensure all applicable children are listed in the Reports Table.  All children listed on accepted intakes or investigations during the PUR should be included, whether they are the target child or not.  Item 2  Consider safety-related services only in rating this item. Other services (counseling, parenting classes, etc.) are considered in item 12.  If item 2A is rated as Area Needing Improvement (ANI), then item 12 should be checked for consistency.

Item 3  Only assess for safety and risk; therapy and other services are addressed elsewhere.  Assess 3B and 3C separately. Failure to do so may cause double dinging.  3B asks if ongoing assessments were accurately conducted to assess risks and safety concerns.  3C asks if safety concerns were present, whether a suitable safety plan was implemented and appropriately monitored.  The rating should be based on both initial and ongoing assessments. Both formal and informal assessments are considered.

Permanency Outcomes 1 & 2

Items 4, 5 & 6  Item 4  Is the child in foster care in a stable placement and were any changes in the child’s placement in the best interests of the child and consistent with achieving the child’s permanency goal(s)?  Item 5  Focuses on the timely establishment and appropriateness of the child’s permanency goal.  Item 6  Focuses on concerted efforts to achieve the permanency goal.

Items 7, 8, & 9  Item 7  Did the agency make concerted efforts to ensure that siblings in foster care are placed together unless separation was necessary to meet the needs of one of the siblings?  Item 8  Did the agency make concerted efforts to ensure that visitation between a child in foster care and his or her mother, father, and siblings was of sufficient frequency and quality to promote continuity in the child’s relationships with these close family members?  Item 9  Base ratings on whether efforts were made to maintain the child’s relationships with his/her neighborhood, community, faith, etc.  This item does not measure efforts to maintain connections to siblings or parents from whom the child was removed. This is measured in item 8.

Items 10 & 11  Item 10  Did the agency make concerted efforts to place the child with relatives when appropriate?  Item 11  This item addresses concerted efforts (other than visiting) to support and maintain positive relationships. Visitation with parents and siblings is measured in item 8.

Well-Being Outcomes 1, 2, & 3

Item 12  12a – In-Home Cases:  Item applies to all children residing in the home during the PUR.  12a – Foster Care Cases:  Item applies only to the target child.  “Services” refers to services other than those addressed in items 2, 16, 17, and 18 (safety-related services to prevent removal, assessing educational needs, addressing medical/dental needs, and addressing mental/behavioral health needs).  Safety concerns are addressed in item 3, not in 12B

Item 13  Ensure that age-appropriate children are included in the case planning process as well.  When children are not age appropriate, specify why they are not age appropriate to participate in case planning.  Provide more detailed summaries to support how parents were or were not included in case planning (i.e. visits, case plan meetings, periodic reviews, permanency hearings, etc.).

Item 14 & 15  Item 14  Who to Include:  For in-home cases, all children in the home are included in the assessment of the item.  For foster care cases, only the target child is considered in the assessment of this item.  14b should not be based solely on state policy.  The item assesses whether or not the frequency of the visits are sufficient to ensure the safety, permanency, and well-being of the child and to promote achievement of the case goals.  Strengthen rating narratives to better reflect the reasoning behind the rating.  The item rating should not address dental and medical needs. These are captured in item 17.  Item 15  Were the frequency and quality of visits between caseworkers and the mothers and fathers of the child(ren) sufficient to ensure the safety, permanency, and well- being of the child(ren) and promote achievement of case goals?

Items 16, 17, & 18  Who to Include:  For in-home cases, all children living in the home during the PUR are included in the assessment of these items.  For foster care cases, only the target child is considered in the assessment of these items.  Be cautious of item drift. Ensure ratings are only based on the criteria mentioned in each item.