A System Review of The Division of Child & Family Services - Produced by The Utah Office of Services Review

This page is Purposely blank
Executive Summary
Positive outcomes and improved services for children and families are priorities of child welfare professionals throughout Utah. Results of the Qualitative Case Review (QCR) and the Case Process Review (CPR) for FY2013 are found in the following report. The Office of Services Review measures performance and practices of the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) by evaluating outcomes using the QCR. The QCR provides a qualitative assessment of DCFS services. Throughout most of the state, overall scores improved this year on both Child Status and System Performance. The CPR measures compliance to DCFS guidelines, state statute, and federal law. The CPR reviews result in quantitative data indicating how often evidence is found in documentation to verify compliance to DCFS guidelines, State statutes, and Federal law. This year the CPR experienced an incremental improvement in five of six program areas. Within the FY2013 report, the following strengths and weaknesses were identified:
FY2013 STRENGTHS
QUALITATIVE CASE REVIEW Overall Child Status increased from 86% to 91%. Six of the eight Child Status indicators improved. Four out of five regions scored above standard on Overall Child Status. Overall System Performance increased from 82% to 83%. Five of the seven System Performance indicators scored above standard. Four out of five regions scored above standard on Overall System Performance. CASE PROCESS REVIEW Private conversations with children involved with In-Home cases have steadily increased. Efforts to locate kin are documented following a removal and when caregivers change. General CPS cases continue to score well in both state and federal expectations. Slow improvement in both In-home and Foster Care scores.
FY2013 AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

QUALITATIVE CASE REVIEW Prospects for Permanency declined and scored below standard at 58%. Long-term View declined and scored below standard at 61%. Western Region scored 67% on Overall System Performance, which is below standard. CASE PROCESS REVIEW In 79% of cases reviewed, prior to a child's placement, the foster care provider received pertinent information (below standard). In 79% of cases reviewed, Initial plans are finalized within the required 45 days (below standard). Fathers are involved in planning for services in 61% of Foster Care cases reviewed while visitation for fathers dropped from 87% in FY2012 to75% in FY2013. Private conversation with children involved with In-Home Services continues to score below 70%.
Page | 2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 5 Qualitative Case Review ........................................................................................................................... 6

PURPOSE OF REVIEW..............................................................................................................................................6 METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................................................................................6 DATA RELIABILITY ..................................................................................................................................................7 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS ....................................................................................................................................7 STATEWIDE OVERALL SCORES .................................................................................................................................8
Overall Child and Family Status ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 Safety ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Child Status by Region ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Overall System Performance ............................................................................................................................................................ 9 Effect of Western Region Scores ...................................................................................................................................................... 9 System Performance by Region ...................................................................................................................................................... 10
SYSTEM INDICATORS ............................................................................................................................................10

Engagement .................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Teaming ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Assessment ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Long-term View ............................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Intervention Adequacy .................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Tracking and Adapting..................................................................................................................................................................... 12
SUMMARY OF PROGRESS BY REGION ...................................................................................................................12

Eastern Region ................................................................................................................................................................................ 13 Northern Region .............................................................................................................................................................................. 14 Salt Lake Region .............................................................................................................................................................................. 15 Southwest Region ........................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Western Region ............................................................................................................................................................................... 17
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................................17
Case Process Review ............................................................................................................................. 19

METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................................19 DATA RELIABILITY.................................................................................................................................................19 ADJUSTMENTS .....................................................................................................................................................20 STATEWIDE RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................20
Child Protection Services ................................................................................................................................................................. 20
Page | 3
Unable to Locate ............................................................................................................................................................................. 21 Unaccepted Referrals ...................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Removals ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 In-Home Services............................................................................................................................................................................. 22 Foster Care Cases ............................................................................................................................................................................ 23
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................................24
Appendix A .............................................................................................................................................. 25
General CPS ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Unable to Locate ............................................................................................................................................................................. 26 Removals ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 In-Home Services............................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Foster Care Placement and Contacts .............................................................................................................................................. 29 Foster Care Health, School, and Planning ....................................................................................................................................... 30
Appendix B .............................................................................................................................................. 31
Special Study of the Centralized Intake Office ................................................................................................................................ 31
Page | 4
Introduction
The Office of Services Review (OSR) was established in 1994 in response to legislation that required the Executive Director of Human Services to report to the Legislature how well outcomes are achieved and policies followed in the states child welfare system (Utah Code Section 62A-4a117,118). OSR conducts two major reviews of the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) each year, the Qualitative Case Review (QCR) and the Case Process Review (CPR). The quality of DCFS practice is reflected in the QCR and compliance with State and/or Federal statutes are reflected in the CPR. QCR reviewers read case records and conduct interviews with key parties for each case. Reviewer interviews include parents, stepparents, guardians, foster parents, the target child, school personnel, therapists, attorneys, service providers, placement providers, and other persons helping the family.
Review Differences Qualitative Case Review
Interviews with key parties and limited review of case record. By Region Measures outcomes
Following the interviews, reviewers score the case on eight Child Status indicators and seven System Performance indicators. Reviewers provide written justification of their scores along with a short synopsis of why DCFS became involved with the family and how well the family is achieving identified goals. CPR reviewers search the DCFS electronic management system known as SAFE for documentation of tasks meeting compliance to statutory requirements and policy. Reviewers then travel to field offices throughout the state. Field visits provide caseworkers an opportunity to present additional documentation not found within SAFE. Reviewers provide one-to-one training to caseworkers and make recommendations for improved documentation. While the QCR is outcome oriented, the CPR is compliance oriented. For example, during the QCR, reviewers seek feedback from those involved with DCFS about whether the childs health care needs are being met (outcome). The CPR reviewers seek evidence that an initial or annual health exam occurred within a specific timeframe (compliance). The following report provides data gleaned from the QCR and CPR of FY2013.
Case Process Review

Thorough review of case record Statewide Measures Compliance
Method
Sample Measurement
Page | 5
Qualitative Case Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW The Qualitative Case Review (QCR) is a method of evaluation used by the Office of Services Review (OSR) to assess the performance of the child welfare system and the status of children and families served by the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS). Each regions improvement or decline in performance (relative to standards set at 85% for Overall Child Status and Overall System Performance and 70% for each indicator) is measured using the QCR. Indicators that score below 70% require the DCFS region to create an action plan outlining how they will improve practice. METHODOLOGY OSR completed a Qualitative Case Review for each region of DCFS. Reviews began in September 2012 and concluded in May 2013. A total of 150 randomly selected cases were pulled for the review. One case was not reviewed because the family would not give consent, and another case was not scored because the child was on the run at the time of the review. Due to the large size of the Salt Lake Valley region, two separate reviews were conducted. OSR selected the cases for review based on a sampling matrix that ensured representative groups of children were selected. The sample included children in out-of-home care and families receiving in-home services such as Voluntary Counseling Services (PSC), Protective Supervision Services (PSS), and Family Preservation Services (PFP). Information was obtained through in-depth interviews with the child (if old enough to participate), parents or other guardians, foster parents (if the target child was placed in foster care), caseworker, teacher, therapist, service providers, and others having a significant role in the childs life. The childs file, including prior CPS investigations and other available records, was also reviewed. An important element of a QCR is participation of professionals outside of the DCFS system who act as reviewers. These professionals may work in related fields such as mental health, Juvenile Justice Services, education, etc. All reviews included professionals from DCFS, OSR, local agencies, and providers within the community. Individuals from the following organizations participated as QCR reviewers:
Adoption Exchange Childrens Justice Center Childrens Service Society Christmas Box House Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Family Support Center Fostering Healthy Children Head Start Juvenile Justice Services Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health Marriage Law Foundation Office of Child Protection Ombudsman Quality Improvement Committees Safety Solutions Salt Lake County Youth Services Utah Foster Care Foundation Utah Youth Village Valley Mental Health Washington School District
The QCR instrument used by reviewers (the QCR Protocol) contains two domains. The first domain appraises the child and familys status. Indicators within this domain were:
Page | 6
Child and Family Status

Safety Stability Prospects for Permanence Health/Physical Well-being Emotional/Behavioral Well-being Learning Progress/Development Family Connections Satisfaction
A case story narrative for each case was submitted to the caseworker and region administrators for their review. The supervisor and region administrators had the opportunity to provide clarification to reviewers during the debriefing of the case. The regions also had the option to appeal scores on individual cases. STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS The results of the QCR should be considered within a broad context of local or regional interaction with community partners. As part of the QCR process, OSR staff interviewed stakeholders from all five DCFS regions. Interviews conducted by OSR included key community stakeholders, community agencies, and DCFS staff. For FY2013, reviews were supported by 46 interviews, including 28 focus groups and 18 individual interviews. Findings and conclusions from the stakeholder interviews were included in each of the regional reports completed by OSR after each QCR review. Stakeholders interviewed included:
Assistant Attorneys General Central Utah Counseling Childrens Justice Center Community Based Transition Services Davis Behavioral Health DCFS Region Administrators DCFS Region Directors DCFS Caseworkers DCFS Supervisors DCFS Trainers Family Support Center Foster Parents Guardians ad Litem New Horizons Crisis Center Northeastern Counseling Center Quality Improvement Committees Richfield High School Richfield Police Department RISE Utah Youth Village Vernal City Manager Wasatch Mental Health
The second domain assesses the performance of the child welfare system. Reviewers evaluated the implementation of DCFS Practice Model principles and skills. The indicators in this domain were:
SYSTEM
Engagement Teaming Assessment Long-term View Child and Family Plan Intervention Adequacy Tracking and Adaptation
Each indicator was scored on a scale of 1 to 6, with 1 representing a completely unacceptable outcome and 6 representing an optimal outcome, and then Overall Child Status scores and Overall System Performance scores were calculated. A narrative report written by the reviewers provided background information on the child and familys circumstances, evaluated the childs status, and described the strengths and weaknesses of the system. The reviewers made specific suggestions for improvement, if needed. DATA RELIABILITY Several controls were in place to ensure data accuracy. Two individuals reviewed each case to minimize personal bias, and DCFS reviewers did not review cases from the region where they were employed. The Office of Services Review assessed each case story for completeness and consistency with the scoring protocol.
Page | 7
STATEWIDE OVERALL SCORES The QCR review consists of two domains: Child and Family Status and System Performance. Chart II-A illustrates the statewide performance of DCFS, gives historical background, and charts trends in Overall Child Status and System Performance. As illustrated, the child welfare system has met or exceeded the 85% standard for the past 13 years in Child Status; however, System Performance has mostly declined over the past four years after peaking in FY2009. System Performance fell below standard in FY2011 to 84% and t h e n dropped again in FY2012 to 82%. It recovered by one point this year for a score of 83%.
(99%), Emotional/Behavioral Well-being (89%), Learning (91%), Family Connections (86%), and Satisfaction (87%). Historically, the most challenging Child Status indicators have been Stability and Prospects for Permanence. This is the second year the indicator of Family Connections was reviewed. This indicator applies to children who are in foster care and explores whether the Division maintains family relationships and connections through appropriate visits and other connecting strategies while the family and child are living apart, unless compelling reasons exist for keeping them apart. The score on this indicator improved by three points (83% to 86%).
State Child Status Safety Child Safe from Others Child Risk to Self Stability Prospect for Permanence Health/Physical Well-being Emotional/Behavioral Well-being Learning Family Connections Satisfaction Overall Score # of cases acceptable 141 146 142 114 86 147 131 135 83 128 136 # of cases needing improvement 8 2 7 34 62 1 17 13 14 19 13 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 92% NA NA 75% 75% 99% 91% 85% NA 93% 91% 89% NA NA 67% 63% 99% 87% 90% NA 91% 89% 89% 94% 94% 77% 66% 100% 88% 88% NA 87% 89% 91% 99% 93% 76% 65% 97% 83% 89% 83% 92% 86% FY13 Scores 95% 99% 95% 77% 58% 99% 89% 91% 86% 87% 91%
T ABLE II-A O VERALL CHILD STATUS
C HART II-A STATEWIDE O VERALL SCORES
Overall Child and Family Status Scores on individual status indicators identified strengths and needs in specific areas. The overall scores for the past five years are shown in Table 11-A. Overall Child Status for FY2013 showed 91% of cases were acceptable. This increased five points from the score in FY2012. The Division met or exceeded the 85% standard for Overall Child Status for the 13th consecutive year. Scores improved on five of the eight Child Status indicators. Indicators with a score or 70% (standard) or better included Safety (95%), Stability (77%), Health/Physical Well-being
Safety Safety is the "trump" indicator for Child Status. Since Safety is central to the overall well-being of a child, a case cannot receive an acceptable rating on Overall Child Status if it receives an unacceptable rating on Safety. To receive an acceptable rating, the child had to be safe from risks of harm in his/her living environment as well as his/her learning environment. Others within the child's daily settings also had to be safe from behaviors or activities of the child. Of the 149 cases in the sample, 141 had acceptable scores on safety, which represented 95% of all reviewed cases. Of the eight cases with unacceptable scores on Safety, only two scored unacceptable due to the child not being safe from others, resulting in a statewide score of 99%. The seven unacceptable scores on Child Risk to Self
Page | 8
were due to the child putting themself or others at risk due to behaviors such as self-harming, running away, assaulting others, etc. Child Status by Region T ABLE II-B shows the Overall Child Status results by region. There was a five-point increase in the statewide score. Four of the five regions exceeded the 85% standard for Overall Child Status, and three of the regions had significant increases of eight to 10 percentage points.
FY00 FY13 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 Baseline Scores 78% 89% 87% 89% 50% 78% 83% 96% 96% 100% 92% 100% 96% 96% 100% 88% 88% 80% 75% 96% 100% 100% 96% 96% 100% 96% 83% 87% 88% 86% 90% 88% 89% 90% 88% 92% 96% 89% 91% 90% 88% 86% 83% 88% 96% 96% 100% 96% 91% 92% 96% 96% 88% 85% 83% 100% 92% 92% 88% 92% 96% 87% 83% 83% 100% 92% 85% 92% 93% 94% 91% 94% 96% 91% 91% 89% 89% 86% 80% 94% 94% 95% 88% 91%
Child Status
Eastern Region Northern Region Salt Lake Region Southwest Region Western Region
Overall Score
Effect of Western Region Scores Western Region had surprisingly poor results this year on System Performance. Their score on Overall System Performance was the lowest it has been since FY2002. Although only 24 of the 148 cases reviewed were from Western Region, their scores were so low they significantly affected the statewide scores. The table below shows the actual FY2013 statewide scores compared to what the scores would have been if Western Region had done as well as they did last year. The largest impact was on Teaming, which experienced a six-point decline due to the impact of Western Regions Teaming score (29%). With the exception of Assessment, indicators experienced a one to six point decline due to Western Regions scores. If Western Region performed at least as well as last year, the statewide score on Overall System Performance would have reached the standard. As it is, the statewide score fell two points below standard (83%). Fortunately, Western Region scored quite well on Child Status, so scores were impacted to a much lesser extent. T ABLE II-D AND T ABLE II-E show the impact of Western Regions scores on the overall score:
FY13 current score
95% 77% 58% 99% 89% 91% 86% 87% 91%
T ABLE II-B CHILD STATUS BY R EGION
Overall System Performance The standard for Overall System Performance is 85%. The standard for each indicator within System Performance is 70%. Table II-C highlights the Overall System Performance scores. After maintaining Overall System Performance above 85% since FY2007, the score fell to 84% in FY2011 and then dropped to 82% in FY2012. The score improved by one point this year but remains below standard at 83%.
State System Performance Teaming Assessment Long-term View Child & Family Plan Intervention Adequacy Tracking & Adaptation Engagement Overall Score # of cases acceptable
98 114 90 103 122 126 133 123
State Child Status

Safety Stability Prospect for Permanence Health/Physical Well-being Emotional/Behavioral Well-being Learning Family Connections Satisfaction Overall Score
If Western same as 2012

95% 79% 61% 99% 89% 91% 86% 88% 92%
# of cases FY13 needing FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 Scores improvement 78% 73% 69% 70% 66% 50 34 77% 71% 71% 78% 77% 78% 66% 63% 68% 61% 58 45 78% 72% 62% 67% 70% 26 96% 90% 85% 82% 82% 22 89% 86% 80% 90% 85% 15 92% 85% 77% 89% 90% 25 93% 89% 84% 82% 83%
T ABLE II-D W ESTERN R EGION EFFECT ON C HILD STATUS
T ABLE II-C O VERALL SYSTEM P ERFORMANCE
Page | 9
Teaming As shown in TABLE II-H the statewide score on Teaming was 66%. Three of the five regions improved their scores, but the remaining regions had declines that led to an overall decline in the statewide Teaming score. The statewide score on this indicator (66%) is below standard.
FY2013 only Southwest region scored above standard. They were also the only region that improved their score. Eastern region scored the same as last year. The other three regions had significant declines of 11 or 12 points, which led to a significant decline in the overall score (68% to 61%).
Teaming
Long-Term View
Overall Score
Overall Score
T ABLE II-H T EAMING BY R EGION
T ABLE II-J L ONG -T ERM VIEW BY R EGION
Assessment As shown in T ABLE II-I four of the five regions achieved scores above the 70% standard on Assessment. Southwest region had a 10-point increase in their score. Northern, Salt Lake, and Western regions scored identical or nearly identical to last year. Eastern region had a 15-point drop in their score. The net effect was a one-point drop in the overall score to 77%. The overall score remained above standard for the fifth year in a row.
Assessment
Child and Family Plan As seen in T ABLE II-K three of the five regions increased their scores on the Child and Family Plan, and one region scored the same as last year. Only one regions score declined (Western). Three of the regions scored above standard. The state score rose by three points, which was enough to reach standard this year.
Child & Family Plan
Overall Score
Overall Score
T ABLE II-K C HILD AND FAMILY PLAN BY R EGION
T ABLE II-I ASSESSMENT BY REGION
Long-term View Long-term View has been the most challenging core indicator in System Performance over the years, as illustrated in T ABLE II-J . In FY2011, only one region achieved an above standard score. In FY2012 there were three regions with improved scores and two regions that scored above standard; however, in
Intervention Adequacy All regions have historically scored well on Intervention Adequacy as demonstrated in T ABLE II-L . For eleven consecutive years, every region has scored above standard; however, the statewide score dropped from a high of 96% in FY2009 to 82% in FY2012 and FY2013. This year only the Salt Lake Region had an increase. Northern Region and
Page | 11
Southwest Region repeated last years scores (89% and 80% respectively) while the other two regions had small declines. This indicator was redefined three years ago, which may account for some of the decrease seen over the past three years.
Intervention Adequacy
SUMMARY OF PROGRESS BY REGION After each Qualitative Case Review, individualized reports are provided to each region regarding the outcome of their review. The FY2013 Qualitative Case Review results for each region are presented below. Charts include each regions performance on all Child Status and System Performance indicators. This was only the second year that Family Connections was scored, as it was recently added to the QCR review.
Overall Score
T ABLE II-L I NTERVENTION ACCURACY BY R EGION
Tracking and Adapting As seen in T ABLE II-M all regions scored above standard for the tenth consecutive year on Tracking and Adapting. Salt Lake Region improved their score a little and Eastern and Southwest scored the same as last year; however, large declines in Northern and Western region led to a five point decline in the overall score. The Overall Tracking and Adapting score is at 85%, which is well above standard.
Tracking and Adaptation FY00 FY13 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 Baseline Scores
Overall Score
56% 56% 69% 47% 36% 55%
75% 79% 83% 71% 88% 88% 78% 78% 88% 79% 71% 85% 54% 58% 67% 71% 88% 83% 96% 78% 88% 100% 83% 97% 54% 57% 57% 83% 76% 75% 87% 88% 91% 86% 83% 88% 75% 79% 96% 96% 100% 92% 74% 88% 88% 71% 79% 85% 43% 50% 63% 83% 77% 79% 79% 100% 88% 92% 75% 92%
85% 83% 92% 85% 75%
59% 63% 69% 81% 84% 81% 84% 87% 89% 86% 80% 90% 85%
T ABLE II-M TRACKING AND ADAPTATION BY R EGION
Page | 12
CONCLUSION Scores for the past 14 years of QCR reviews show the Child Welfare System traveled an upward path of continual system improvement from FY2001 to FY2007 when Overall Child Status peaked at 96%. It then began a gradual decline each year through FY2012, but it never dropped below standard. The declining trend was reversed this year when the Overall Child Status score improved by five points to 91%. The Overall System Performance score peaked in FY2009 at 93%, and then declined every year over the following three years to a score of 82%. In spite of unexpectedly poor performance in Western Region, which negatively affected most of the System Performance indicators, the statewide score for Overall System Performance rose by one point this year (82% to 83%). If Western Region had scored as well this year as they did last year, the statewide score would have reached the standard of 85%. In FY2012,
only one of the five regions scored above standard on Overall System Performance. This year four of the five regions scored above standard (all but Western Region). Performance on individual System Performance indicators was mixed; four indicators declined, one remained the same, and two improved. Two indicators scored below standard (Teaming and Long-term View). Throughout most of the state, scores improved on both Child Status and System Performance; however, unexpectedly poor scores in Western Region led to declines on most of the statewide scores for System Performance indicators. Most importantly, Overall System Performance, which would have reached the standard this year if Western Region had scored the same as they did last year, instead scored just 83%, leaving it two points shy of the standard. Practice appears to be improving in most of the state, but there is need for improvement in Western Region.
Page | 18
Case Process Review

METHODOLOGY The Case Process Review (CPR) was completed by thoroughly reviewing documentation within the Child Welfare Electronic Data Management System, also known as SAFE. Documentation verifies completion of tasks required by DCFS Practice Guidelines, as well as compliance with federal law. An established mathematical method creates a random sample for each area of focus. Performance Standards are established at 90% for most CPS cases and 85% for all other program areas. Program areas included the following:
Child Protection Services (CPS): In addition to General CPS investigations, this program area includes cohorts of Medical Neglect referrals, Unable-to-Locate referrals, Unaccepted referrals, and any referrals categorized as Priority One. (2013 had zero referrals that met the Priority One definition.) Removals: A Removal generally occurs during the course of a CPS Investigation; however, a Removal may also occur due to failure of an In-Home Services case, beginning a voluntary placement, or a Court Order directing DCFS to take custody of a delinquent minor. Agency requirements at the time of removal require seeing the child face-to-face each week during the first four weeks following the Removal. This means a CPS investigator may begin the process of a Removal, but a SCF worker may be responsible for weekly visits within the initial four weeks of the removal. In-Home Services (PSS, PSC, and PFP): This program area includes Family Preservation Services (PFP), Voluntary Services (PSC), and court ordered Protective Supervision Services (PSS). Foster Care Services (SCF): This program area includes families with children living in out-of-home care due to abuse, neglect, or dependency. This program area also includes those circumstances where DCFS is court ordered to take custody of a child/youth who has exhibited delinquent behavior without an allegation of abuse or neglect.
The Office of Services Review (OSR) examined 100% of the cases within the universe of Medical Neglect, as well as the universe of Unable to Locate. In addition, random samples generated from Program Area universes were examined. CPS cases that close within the review period qualify to be included in the Universe. The review period for Family Preservation cases (PFP) is the entire period the case remains open, generally 60-90 days. In-Home and Foster Care cases have review periods of six months. Total case files reviewed in each focus area appear in T ABLE III-A.
Program Area
CPS General Unable to Locate Medical Neglect Priority I Unaccepted Removals PSS/PSC/PFP Foster Care
Case Files Reviewed

134 67 23 0 135 101 126 131
T ABLE III-A NUMBER OF C ASES BY FOCUS AREA
DATA RELIABILITY In order to assure quality and consistency, 11% of the sample cases received a second evaluation by an alternate reviewer. Statistics for FY2013 show reviewers respond the same on 93% of cases reviewed. Of those measurements where the two reviewers disagreed on the response, 53% are resolved in favor of the original reviewer while 38% are resolved in favor of the alternate reviewer. The remaining 8.5% are measurements where the correct
Page | 19
response could not be determined between the workers. Following an examination of data in SAFE, reviewers meet on-site at individual offices within each region of the state. DCFS workers have the opportunity to supply documented evidence not found during reviews of SAFE. One-to-one training occurs with each worker as he/she examines case results with the assigned OSR reviewer. ADJUSTMENTS Beginning in FY2011, In-Home workers were to complete the following tasks on a monthly basis: a) enter the residence, b) have a conversation with the child(ren) away from the presence of the caregiver, c) have face-to-face contact with the mother, and d) have face-to-face contact with the father. In order to address families in which the legal parents are not living together at the time of case creation, Questions IH.8 and IH.9 (having face-to-face contact with the legal mother and father, respectively) were modified. Monthly face-to-face contact is no longer required if the legal parent is not identified as receiving services on the Service Plan. However, the requirement to involve the legal parent in creating the childs portion of the Child and Family Plan remains. STATEWIDE RESULTS T ABLE III-B displays the scores for the past five years of Case Process Reviews. Statewide scores indicate 84% of all cases reviewed have appropriate documentation. The Child Protection Services score reflects adequate documentation in 94% of cases reviewed. Unable-to-Locate dropped five percentage points. Unaccepted Referrals and Removals each improved by one percentage point. In-Home services increased by 7 percentage points, from 75% to 82% and Foster Care Services increased 4 percentage points from 80% to 84%. These scores combined led to a 4-point increase in the overall score from FY2012.
Statewide CPR 2013 Data

Answers Yes answers Partial credit answers Partial credit (score) Partials (no credit) No answers EC answers N/A answers Sample FY 2013 FY 2012
FIVE YEAR COMPARISON FY 2011
Year
CPS 854 0 0.00 0 52 0 212 906 94% 94% 95% 94% 93%
Unable Unaccepted In Home Removals to Locate Referrals Services 196 0 0 0 26 5 98 227 86% 91% 90% 79% 83% 403 0 0 0 2 0 405 100% 99% 100% 100% 99% 326 0 0.00 2 93 0 185 421 77% 76% 60% 87% 80% 2376 36 27.00 0 515 10 2355 2937 82% 75% 70% N/A N/A
Foster Overall % Care Yes 3229 17 12.75 0 735 12 3866 3993 81% 80% 78% N/A N/A 7384 39.75 2 1423 27 6716 8889 84% 80% 77% 91% 91%
FY 2010 FY 2009
T ABLE III-B STATEWIDE CPR 2013
Child Protection Services Of 906 measures scored in General CPS Investigations, reviewers found adequate documentation for 854 measurements. When examining general CPS cases, reviewers closely match data culled from SAFE programming. The exceptions to this are question CPSG.2 (if the child remained at home, were services offered within 30 days?) and CPSG.8 (were findings based on facts obtained/available at the time of investigation?). These questions are dependent on a reviewers ability to derive information based only on documentation provided. In the past, caseworkers reported confusion for CPSG.7 (did the worker make an unscheduled homevisit?) and whether this is required or not. Some workers reported it was necessary only if the home environment was a part of the original allegation, while others thought an unannounced visit was always required. In such situations, reviewers refer to DCFS policy. The policy regarding unscheduled home-visits states: An unscheduled home visit shall only be required when the allegation(s) specifically involve circumstances of the home and/or concerns related to activities of persons living in the home. Activities of persons living in the home are sometimes overlooked when deciding whether to complete an unscheduled home visit. The overall score for CPS compliance is seen in CHART III-A.
Page | 20
C HART III-A CPS C OMPLIANCE
Unable to Locate Unable to Locate questions dropped over the past year from 91% to 86%. CPSUL.1 (did the worker visit the home at times other than normal work hours?) had a significant drop from 93% in FY2012 to 79% in FY2013. This may be a reflection of the sample used. Another question workers struggled with in FY2013 was CPSUL.5 (Did the worker check with the referent for new information regarding the location of the family?). Of interest on this measurement are the historic scores. The measure scored very low in FY2010 (74%), barely approached expectation in FY2011 (83%), and finally made a great improvement in FY2012 (93%). Unfortunately, that 91% fell to 86% for FY2013. All other measurements for Unable-to-Locate cases met or exceeded the standard of 85%. The overall score for Unable to Locate is shown IN CHART IIIB.
Unaccepted Referrals Unaccepted Referrals score 100% overall, with only two measurements receiving negative responses. Question CPSUA.3 (does documentation support the decision not to accept the referral for investigation) requires a hands-on examination of all documentation to determine if the decision was appropriate. One case was located where the decision not to accept the referral was not supported by available documentation. Question CPSUA.2 (Did the intake worker staff the referral with the supervisor or other intake/CPS worker to determine non-acceptance of the report?) also had one case where documentation did not verify completion of the task. The Office of Services Review completed a special study exploring the procedures and protocol associated with the Intake Office. The Intake Office is located in Magna and is a centralized office, IE it receives allegations from across the state. The Special Study of the Centralized Intake Office is located in its entirety as APPENDIX B . Removals FY2013 is the third year of reviewing Removals as an independent focus area. Responsibility for the completion of this measurement is on the agency as a whole, rather than solely on the Child Protection investigator. Although Removal scores remain below the standard, scores are showing steady improvement. Of 421 qualifying measurements, positive responses occurred on 326, resulting in an overall score of 77%. OSR reviewers find the CPS investigator always completes the first visit (sometimes referred to as the 48-hour visit) and possibly the first weeks follow-up visit before an on-going worker is assigned. There is difficulty in completing adequate documentation for weeks two and three. This is likely due to the ongoing worker practicing Out-of-Home policy. Out-ofHome policy requires monthly visits instead of weekly visits. During one-to-one training, OSR reviewers stressed the importance of communication between the CPS investigator and the on-going
Page | 21
C HART III-B U NABLE TO L OCATE C OMPLIANCE
worker when the transfer of case occurs. Overall, this is receiving better documentation after the on-going worker is assigned as shown by a steady improvement of scores. The overall performance rate for the weekly visits has improved from 37% in FY2011 to 65% in FY2013. OSR and DCFS are actively discussing methods to clarify this question while ensuring workers receive the training necessary for all parties to understand these weekly requirements for a new case. Overall Compliance for Removal cases is shown in Chart IIIC.
Question IH.3 (Were the following team members involved in the development of the current child and family plan?) has improved documentation indicating involvement of the mother in creating the service plan by six percentage points, involvement of the father by six percentage points, involvement of other caregivers by six percentage points, and involvement of the child by seven percentage points. The overall score has improved from 75% in FY2012 to 81% in FY2013. Question IH.4 (did the worker have face-to-face contact with the child at least once each month?) improved overall scores from 78% to 85% in FY2013. Question IH.5 (Did the worker have a faceto-face conversation with the child outside the presence of the parent or substitute caregiver at least once each month?) increased from 54% in FY2012 to 65% in FY2013. Question IH.6 (Did the worker make a face-to-face contact with the substitute caregiver at least once during each month?) increased by nine percentage points, scoring 90% in FY2013. Question IH.7 (Did the caseworker enter the residence where the child is living at least once during each month?) also showed improvement and raised the score from 85% in FY2012 to 91% in FY2013. Question IH.8 (Did the worker make a face-to-face contact with the mother of the child at least once each month?) showed an overall improvement of three percentage points, scoring 88% for FY2013. Question IH.9 (Did the worker make a face-to-face contact with the father of the child at least once each month?) showed great improvement overall by bringing last years score of 56% up to 71% this year, an improvement of 15 points. The biological, or legal father often does not dwell in the home where Inhome services are being provided. The improvement of documentation on this measurement indicates a significant effort by workers to locate and involve both parents. Overall compliance scores are seen in CHART III-E .
C HART III-C REMOVALS C OMPLIANCE
In-Home Services In-Home services improved a score of 75% in FY2012 to 82% in FY2013. Out of 2937 measures, 2376 measures received affirmative responses with an additional 27 points received as partial credit. Question IH.2 (Was an initial child and family plan completed for the family within 45 days of the case start date?) dropped from 84% in FY2012 to 79% in FY2013. This is the lowest score in the past five years on this standard question. Five of the ten cases, which received no credit on this measurement, were located within the Western region, while the remaining five cases represent three other regions. DCFS Practice Guidelines changed three years ago to improve outcomes for families receiving In-Home services. The measurements all show improvements in documentation:
Page | 22
Continued improvement is expected for all In-Home measurements as workers become accustomed to the newer requirements. These newer requirements met with resistance initially, but over time, improving scores indicate efforts to comply are being made.
is not notified of the placement change until after it occurs. Although scores for involving the mother, the substitute caregiver, and the child in creating the service plan continue to improve and have met the expected goal of 85% or above, involving the father in planning continues to score low. Twenty-eight out of 77 relevant cases did not have documentation to provide evidence of involving fathers in creating the service plan. This results in a score of 61% for FY2013, down six percentage points from FY2012. Questions IB.4 and IB.5 (Did the caseworker make face-to-face contact with the mother/father at least once each month?) particularly bring the overall scores down as face-to-face with the mother occurred in only 69% of relevant cases and face-to-face with the father occurred in only 47% of relevant cases. Neither question has ever come close to the goal of 85%. OSR reviewers discussed with DCFS workers what the worker perceives as purposeful avoidance or situations where the parent does not respond to phone calls or other attempts at contact. The parent has not verbalized a refusal to be involved, but their behavior seems to be avoiding the worker. If it is documented that the worker made two or more attempts to contact the parent in order to schedule face-to-face contact, the score on the measurement would be EC. In FY2013, there were no EC scores for the mother while the father had two cases receiving an EC. Question IV.5 and IV.6 (Was the child provided the opportunity to visit with the mother/father weekly, or is there an alternate plan?) are also examples of how involving both parents is problematic for caseworkers. Although the child has regular visitation with their mother in 92% of the relevant cases, the child only has regular visitation with their father in 75% of the relevant cases. If the child has siblings also in Foster Care, living with a different caregiver, visitation is arranged in 89% of the relevant cases. This shows that only the father fell below the expected score in FY2013.
Page | 23
C HART III-E I N-HOME C OMPLIANCE
Foster Care Cases Seen in CHART III-F, overall scores for the area of Foster Care increased one percentage point; from 80% in FY2012 to 81% in FY2013. Of note is an impressive improvement on Question IA.2 (Were reasonable efforts made to locate kinship placements?). The question refers to whether the child experienced a placement change during the review period, which resulted in a change of caregiver. The score improved from 87% in FY2012 to 100% in FY2013. This may indicate continued searching for, or contact with kinship each time the childs caregiver is changed. Question IA.5 (Did the caseworker gather available information essential to the childs safety and provide that information to the caregiver prior to placement or within 24-hours if this is a removal situation?) scored in the 70 percent range for the last three years but previously was above the expected score of 85%. OSR reviewers discussed a common situation that occurs when utilizing services from a private agency. Often, the private agency moves the child from the home of one proctor parent and places with another proctor parent also contracted with the private agency. This is a change in caregiver, but the worker
Question IV.4 (Was an initial or annual Casey Life Skills Assessment completed?) showed tremendous improvement, moving from 36% in FY2012 to 58% in FY2013, an improvement of 22 percentage points. OSR reviewers were unable to understand why this scores so low as the data management system (SAFE) prompts the worker in advance when this is due and the due date is associated with the childs birthday.
CONCLUSION Documentation supports completion of the majority of Case Process Review measurements in each Focus Area. Child Protection Services (CPS) cases continue to score very well (in the 90% area). Unable to Locate CPS cases continue to meet the goal despite dropping slightly and Unaccepted Referrals once again scored 100%. Removals continue to fall below the goal. Required visits associated with the monitoring of the child after being removed from their primary home continue to confuse caseworkers. DCFS and OSR have recently clarified the question to ensure that both agencies are interpreting the policy in the same manner. By doing this, scores in this area are expected to increase. In-Home Service cases continue the upward trend in meeting newly established requirements. This is the third year the scores have improved although the score falls just short of the goal. The scores on Foster Care Services appear to be stagnant with the overall score fluctuating within three percentage points over the last three years. As has been explored in past studies, including all the children and an absent parent during the provision of In-Home Services and including the legal parents in aspects of Foster Care cases continue to cause scores to remain low on specific measurements.
C HART III-F FOSTER C ARE C OMPLIANCE
Page | 24
Appendix A
Case Process Review Tables
Page | 25
General CPS
Partial No Credit
Type & Tool #
Question
GOAL
FY 2013
2012
2011
2010 2009
General CPS
CPSG.1 CPSG.2 Did the investigating worker see the child within the priority time frame? If the child remained at home, did the worker initiate services within 30 days of the referral? Was the investigation completed within 30 days of CPS receiving the report from intake or within the extension time frame granted if the Regional Director granted an extension? Did the worker conduct the interview with the child outside the presence of the alleged perpetrator? Did the worker interview the childs natural parents or other guardian when their whereabouts are known? Did the worker interview third parties who have had direct contact with the child, where possible and appropriate? Did the CPS worker make an unscheduled home visit? Were the case findings of the report based on facts/information obtained/available during the investigation? If this is a Priority I case involving trauma caused from severe maltreatment, severe physical injury, recent sexual abuse, fetal addiction, or any exposure to a hazardous environment was a medical examination of the child obtained no later than 24 hours after the report was received? If this case involves an allegation of medical neglect, did the worker obtain a medical neglect assessment from a health care provider prior to case closure? 4295 49 3922 46 0 0 0 0 373 3 0 0 0 85 90% 90% 92% 94% 90% 96% 91% 88% 92% 95% 87% 95%
0.7% 5.6%
CPSG.3
4295
3976
319
90%
93%
96%
95%
96%
95%
CPSG.4
94
92
40
90%
98%
97%
98%
93%
96%
CPSG.5
134
128
90%
96%
91%
94%
90%
91%
CPSG.6 CPSG.7 CPSG.8
117 88 134
115 83 130
0 0 0
0 0 0
2 5 4
0 0 0
17 46 0
90% 90% 85%
99% 95% 98%
100% 86% 100%
95% 92% 97%
94% 94% 97%
91% 92% 98%
CPSH.1
23
90%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
CPSH.2
22
19
90%
86%
94%
100%
90%
93%
! The Office of Services Review has a confidence rate of 90%. For example, the score for question CPS-G2 is 94%. Using the precision range for that question (5.6%), OSR is 90% positive the exact percentage is somewhere between 88% and 100%
Unable to Locate
Partial No Credit Precision range
11.7% 5.2% 8.5% 5.2% 8.4%
Type & Tool #
Sample
Partial Credit
Yes
Question
NA
GOAL
No
Performance Rate (%)
FY 2013
2012
2011
2010 2009
Unable to Locate Cases

CPSUL.1 Did the worker visit the home at times other than normal work hours? If any child in the family was school age, did the worker check with local schools or the local school district for contact/location information about the family? Did the worker check with law enforcement agencies to obtain contact/location information about the family? Did the worker check public assistance records for contact/location information regarding the family? Did the worker check with the referent for new information regarding the location of the family? 33 26 0 7 0 34 85% 79% 93% 85% 67% 88%
CPSUL.2
EC
31
30
36
85%
97%
93%
92%
78%
88%
CPSUL.3
58
47
11
85%
81%
86%
90%
78%
81%
CPSUL.4 CPSUL.5
61 51
57 43
4 3
0 5
6 16
85% 85%
93% 84%
90% 93%
98% 83%
92% 74%
83% 80%
Page | 26
Precision range
Sample
Partial Credit
Yes
NA
No
EC
0.7%
2.4%
2.9%
2.0%
4.1%
2.4%
NA
12.0%
Unaccepted Referrals
Partial No Credit
Type & Tool #
Question
GOAL
FY 2013
2012
2011
2010 2009
Unaccepted Referrals
CPSUA.1 Was the nature of the referral documented? Did the intake worker staff the referral with the CPSUA.2 supervisor or other intake/CPS worker to determine non-acceptance of the report? CPSUA.3 Does the documentation adequately support the decision not to accept the referral? 135 135 135 135 134 134 0 1 1 85% 85% 85% 100% 99% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 98% 100% 100% 99% 99% 99% 98%
0.0% 1.2%
Removals
Partial No Credit
Type & Tool #
Question
GOAL
FY 2013
2012
2011
2010 2009
Removals
R.1 R.2 R.3 Did the child experience a removal as a result of 24 77 a CPS investigation this review period? Did the worker visit the child in the placement by midnight of the second day after the date of 72 64 0 0 8 0 29 removal from the childs home? Did the worker (CPS or ongoing worker) visit the child in the placement for the first three weeks after the initial visit? Week one Week two Week three 69 49 0 46 0 68 0 65 37 Performance rate for all three weeks 0 0 0 20 22 28 0 0 0 32 33 36
85%
89%
90%
81%
86%
76%
85% 85% 85%
71% 68% 57% 65%
63% 38% NA 58%
35% 24% 30% 37%
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
R.4
R.5
Within 24 hours of the childs placement in care, did the worker make reasonable efforts to gather information essential to the childs safety and well being and was this information given to the care provider? During the CPS investigation, were reasonable efforts made to locate possible kinship placements?
72
57
13
29
85%
79%
85%
85%
85%
66%
75
73
26
85%
97%
99%
99%
96%
97%
! The Office of Services Review has a confidence rate of 90%. For example, the score for question R.2 is 89%. Using the precision range for that question (6.1%), OSR is 90% positive the exact percentage is somewhere between 83% and 95%.
Page | 27
Precision range
6.1% 9.0% 9.3% 10.1% 7.9% 3.1%
Sample
Partial Credit
Yes
NA
No
EC
Precision range
1.2%
Sample
Partial Credit
Yes
NA
No
EC
In-Home Services
4.9% 8.0% 3.3% 8.0% 7.4% 8.0% 6.0% 7.3% 6.7% 5.8% 5.9% 6.4% 9.5% 9.5% 9.1% 9.3% 8.9% 9.4% 10 5% 12 6% 7.0% 7.0% 13.1% 13 8% 5.3% 6.0% 3.7% 4.1% 5.2% 5.0% 6.7% 5.9% 5.8% 5.4% 5.4% 6.3% 11 3% 11 2% 11 0% 9.2% 9.2% 8.6%
Type & Tool #
Sample
Partial Credit
Yes
Question
NA
GOAL
No
FY 2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
In Home Services
IH.1 IH.2 IH.3 Is there a current child and family plan in the 126 96 13.5 0 12 0 0 file? Was an initial child and family plan completed for 70 42 13.5 0 10 0 56 the family within 45 days of the case start date? Were the following team members involved in the development of the current child and family plan? the mother 110 105 0 0 5 0 16 the father 91 63 0 0 27 1 35 other caregiver (guardian, step-parent, kinship)? 37 34 0 0 3 0 89 the child/youth if developmentally appropriate? 88 62 0 0 26 0 38 Performance rate for all four sub-questions Did the worker have a face-to-face contact with the child at least once during each month of this review period? Month one Month two Month three Month four Month five Month six IH.5 77 68 0 85 67 0 87 72 0 95 82 0 94 81 0 82 70 0 Performance rate for six months 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 17 14 12 13 12 0 1 1 1 0 0 49 41 39 31 32 44 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 88% 79% 83% 86% 86% 85% 85% 81% 76% 75% 79% 78% 78% 78% 70% 74% 77% 72% 74% 71% 73% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 85% 85% 87% 79% 88% 84% 84% 81% 89% 81% 88% 85%
EC
85% 85% 85% 85%
95% 69% 92% 70% 81%
89% 63% 86% 63% 75%
91% 60% 87% 74% 77%
63% 63% NA 78% NA
81% 81% NA 79% NA
IH.4
Did the worker have a face-to-face conversation with the child outside the presence of the parent or substitute caregiver at least once during each month of the review period? Month one Month two Month three Month four Month five Month six 64 44 0 71 44 0 73 48 0 76 45 0 76 51 0 68 45 0 Performance rate for six months 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 27 25 30 25 23 0 0 0 1 0 0 62 55 53 50 50 58 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 69% 62% 66% 59% 67% 66% 65% 55% 51% 46% 59% 59% 54% 54% 42% 51% 50% 46% 48% 47% 47% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
IH.6
Did the worker make a face-to-face contact with the substitute caregiver at least once during each month of the review period? Month one Month two Month three Month four Month five Month six 21 19 0 21 18 0 23 22 0 23 22 0 20 17 0 19 16 0 Performance rate for six months 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 105 105 103 103 106 107 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 90% 86% 96% 96% 85% 84% 90% 78% 75% 80% 85% 85% 83% 81% 71% 94% 93% 88% 72% 77% 83% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
IH.7
Did the caseworker enter the residence where the child is living at least once during each month of the review period? Month one Month two Month three Month four Month five Month six 78 71 0 85 74 0 87 83 0 96 90 0 95 85 0 84 77 0 Performance rate for six months 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 11 4 5 10 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 48 41 39 30 31 42 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 91% 87% 95% 94% 89% 92% 91% 82% 86% 82% 88% 85% 86% 85% 82% 82% 87% 85% 86% 86% 85% 91% 88% 92% NA NA NA NA 91% 88% 85% NA NA NA NA
IH.8
Did the worker make a face-to-face contact with the mother of the child at least once during each month of the review period? Month one Month two Month three Month four Month five Month six 72 62 0 79 70 0 80 71 0 90 80 0 91 81 0 80 69 0 Performance rate for six months 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 9 9 10 10 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 47 46 36 35 46 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 86% 89% 89% 89% 89% 86% 88% 76% 80% 87% 90% 86% 89% 85% 86% 77% 85% 85% 80% 82% 82% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
IH.9
Did the worker make a face-to-face contact with the father of the child at least once during each month of the review period? Month one Month two Month three Month four Month five Month six 44 51 53 60 60 55 31 31 33 45 45 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 20 19 15 14 9 0 0 1 0 1 1 82 75 73 66 66 71 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 70% 61% 62% 75% 75% 82% 71% 53% 56% 46% 58% 63% 57% 56% 39% 46% 57% 47% 53% 55% 49% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Performance rate for six months
! The Office of Services Review has a confidence rate of 90%. For example, the score for question IH.9 month three is 62%. Using the precision range for that question (11.0%), OSR is 90% positive the exact percentage is somewhere between 51% and 73%.
Page | 28
Foster Care Placement and Contacts

Partial No Credit
Type & Tool # Question GOAL FY 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
Foster Care Cases

IA.1 IA.2 IA.3 IA.4 Did the child experience an initial placement or placement change during this review period? Were reasonable efforts made to locate kinship placements? Were the childs special needs or circumstances taken into consideration in the placement decision? Was proximity to the childs home/parents taken into consideration in the placement decision? Before the new placement was made, was basic available information essential to the childs safety and welfare and the safety and welfare of other children in the home given to the out-ofhome care provider, OR if this is an initial placement resulting from a CPS investigation removal, did the worker provide the essential information with-in 24 hours of the removal? 38 45 43 51 38 45 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 1 0 0 0 93 86 88 85% 85% 85% 100% 100% 98% 87% 98% 89% 100% 100%
0.0%
100% 100% 100%
100% 100% 100% 100%
IA.5
48
38
10
83
85%
79%
70%
74%
87%
88%
IB.1
Did the worker make a face-to-face contact with the substitute caregiver at least once during each month of the review period? Month one Month two Month three Month four Month five Month six 94 83 0 99 96 0 100 91 0 103 98 0 104 95 0 97 90 0 Performance rate for six months 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 3 9 5 9 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 32 31 28 27 34 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 88% 97% 91% 95% 91% 93% 93% 90% 88% 92% 95% 91% 90% 91% 93% 92% 93% 94% 96% 87% 93% 97% 94% 98% 99% 97% 93% 96% 98% 94% 95% 96% 96% 94% 96%
5.5% 2.8% 4.7% 3.5% 4.5% 4.3%
IB.2
Did the worker have a face-to-face contact with the child/youth inside the out-of-home placement at least once during each month of this review period? Month one Month two Month three Month four Month five Month six 95 85 0 99 93 0 100 92 0 103 91 0 104 95 0 98 88 0 Performance rate for six months 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 6 8 12 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 36 32 31 28 27 33 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 89% 94% 92% 88% 91% 90% 91% 90% 86% 90% 89% 92% 87% 89% 85% 91% 90% 92% 91% 83% 89% 90% 92% 91% 94% 91% 91% 91% 93% 88% 90% 92% 95% 86% 91%
5.2% 3.9% 4.5% 5.2% 4.5% 5.0%
IB.3
Did the worker have a face-to-face conversation with the child outside the presence of the caregiver at least once during each month of the review period? Month one Month two Month three Month four Month five Month six 89 76 0 90 77 0 90 77 0 89 77 0 97 83 0 91 79 0 Performance rate for six months 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 13 13 12 14 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 41 41 42 34 40 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 86% 86% 87% 86% 87% 86% 87% 89% 86% 84% 92% 83% 87% 91% 90% 85% 94% 91% 85% 89% 81% 91% 89% 93% 89% 90% 89% 92% 90% 89% 95% 95% 89% 91%
6.2% 6.1% 6.1% 6.0% 5.9% 5.8%
IB.4
Did the worker make a face-to-face contact with the mother of the child at least once during each month of the review period? Month one Month two Month three Month four Month five Month six 78 51 0 81 60 0 81 52 0 84 62 0 93 69 0 89 53 0 Performance rate for six months 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 21 29 22 24 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 50 50 47 38 42 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 65% 74% 64% 74% 74% 60% 69% 57% 58% 61% 60% 60% 57% 59% 57% 53% 60% 59% 53% 53% 56% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
8.9% 8.0% 8.8% 7.9% 7.5% 8.6%
IB.5
Did the worker make a face-to-face contact with the father of the child at least once during each month of the review period? Month one Month two Month three Month four Month five Month six 61 27 0 65 27 0 63 24 0 66 35 0 73 40 0 70 34 0 Performance rate for six months 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 36 38 30 31 35 1 2 1 1 2 1 70 66 68 65 58 61 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 44% 42% 38% 53% 55% 49% 47% 46% 44% 49% 39% 49% 51% 47% 40% 31% 42% 37% 34% 28% 35% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
10 5% 10.1% 10.1% 10.1% 9.6% 9.8%
Page | 29
Precision range
0.0% 3.8% 9.6%
Sample
Partial Credit
Yes
NA
No
EC
Foster Care Health, School, and Planning

5.5% 4.9% 5.5% 11 5% 4.5% 9.7% 6.0% 9.1% 3.8% 6.3% 12.1% 4.6% NA 8.4%
Type & Tool #
Sample
Partial Credit
Yes
Question
NA
GOAL
FY 2013
2012
2011
2010 2009
No
Foster Care Cases

II.1 II.2 II.3 III.1 Was an initial or annual Well Child CHEC conducted on time? Was an initial or annual mental health assessment conducted on time? Was an initial or annual dental assessment conducted on time? Is the child school aged? 128 125 105 106 109 91 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 16 14 43 1 0 0 3 6 26 85% 85% 85% 83% 87% 87% 85% 80% 90% 86% 85% 88% 89% 92% 94% 88% 93% 89%
III.2
IV.1
IV.2
IV.3
If there was reason to suspect the child may have an educational disability, was the child 29 24 0 0 5 0 102 referred for assessments for specialized services? Is there a current child and family plan (including 129 107 8 0 14 0 2 the ILP, if applicable) in the file? If the child and family plan which was current at the end of the review period was the childs initial child and family plan, or if the initial child 41 25 9 0 7 0 90 and family plan was completed within the review period, was it completed no later than 45 days after a childs removal from home? Were the following team members involved in the development of the current Child and Family Plan? the mother 97 82 0 the father 77 47 0 other caregiver, (guardian, foster parent, 118 110 0 stepparent, kin)? the child/youth if developmentally appropriate? 84 72 0 (generally age 5 and over) Performance rate for all four sub-questions In order to create an individualized TAL plan, was 45 26 0 an initial or annual Casey Life Skills Assessment (CLSA) completed? Was the child provided the opportunity to visit 91 84 0 with his/her mother weekly, OR is there an alternative visitation plan? Was the child provided the opportunity to visit 67 50 0 with his/her father weekly, OR is there an alternative visitation plan? Was the child provided the opportunity for 37 33 0 visitation with his/her siblings weekly OR is there an alternative visitation plan? 0 0 0 0 15 28 8 12 0 2 0 0 34 54 13 47
EC
85%
83%
89%
100%
86%
82%
85%
88%
90%
90%
90%
91%
85%
77%
78%
86%
82%
91%
85% 85% 85% 85%
85% 61% 93% 86% 83%
77% 67% 92% 78% 80% 36%
76% 45% 95% 86% 78% 69%
63% 63% 57% 90% 71% 73%
81% 81% 57% 89% 83% 69%
IV.4
19
85
85%
58%
IV.5.a
40
85%
92%
93%
85%
74%
89%
IV.5.b
17
64
85%
75%
87%
85%
74%
89%
IV.6
94
85%
89%
90%
78%
76%
72%
! The Office of Services Review has a confidence rate of 90%. For example, the score for question IV.4 is 58%. Using the precision range for that question (12.1%), OSR is 90% positive the exact percentage is somewhere between 46% and 70%.
Page | 30
Appendix B
Special Study of the Centralized Intake Office
Page | 31
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................... 5 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................................... 5 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 6 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 real time recording ............................................................................................................................................................... 9 improved staffings ............................................................................................................................................................... 9 APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................................................................. 11 APPENDIX A. REVIEW PROTOCOL ................................................................................................................................ 12 APPENDIX B. INTAKE GUIDELINES ....................................................................................................................... 14 APPENDIX C. PERFORMANCE BY TEAM/SUPERVISOR .................................................................................................. 21 APPENDIX D. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ...................................................................................................... 22
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) recently altered the method of receiving allegations of child abuse, neglect, or dependency. Previously, each of the five regions within the state housed an intake office receiving calls within their jurisdiction. A centralized intake office is now established in the Salt Lake Valley and located at what was previously identified as the Magna DCFS office. The Centralized Intake Office has been in full operation for over a full year. The Office of Services Review (OSR) completed a Special Study in September 2012 to determine how the process of referrals is completed. Particularly,
OSR reviewers sought evidence, which would confirm that DCFS Practice Guidelines are observed and practiced, identify the type of information gathered by the Intake workers, and gather information regarding the professionalism exhibited to those calling in to the center. The following report will show OSR reviewers found the workers at the Centralized Intake Office gather appropriate information, act in a professional manner, and follow the requirements of the DCFS practice guidelines.
INTRODUCTION
The Division of Child and Family Services has established a 24/7 call center to receive concerns from throughout the state regarding possible child abuse, neglect or dependency. This system was established over a period of time, allowing each region to slowly make the adjustment of having referrals come into a central office. All regions are now represented by the Centralized Intake Office located in Magna. Intake workers receive two weeks training before answering phone calls for referrals. The training includes the Practice Model Philosophy and Practice Model applied specific to intake. This training does not include CPS or permanency training. They also receive one week of shadowing and one week of mentoring. These are half days and are received the same time that the other training is received. DCFS Practice Guideline 201.2 establishes minimally required information for a referral. The minimal information should include: A) A narrative description of a specific occurrence or allegation of abuse, neglect, or dependency, B.) A means of identifying an alleged victim under the age of 18 years for each allegation, or to the age of 21 years if Child and Family Services has been assigned custody by a court. If the reported concerns involve an unborn child and there are no threats of harm to other children in the home, a child must be
born before a case can be opened, C.) A means of locating (address or contact person) the alleged victim and, D.) Every referral requires a query of SAFE and EREP. EREP is the Electronic Resource & Eligibility Product, which is an automated program to determine eligibility and calculation of benefits for TANF (temporary assistance for needy families), Food Stamps, Medicaid, Child Care, and other service programs. Each call received by the Centralized Intake Office regarding the safety and protection of a child is a potential referral and documented by Intake in the DCFS data management system known as SAFE. The Intake worker researches additional sources to gather more pertinent, complete information and help establish the validity, credibility, necessity, and priority of the referral information. As with most transitions, there are some who like the change and some who dislike the change that has occurred by having a centralized intake office. Reviewers were previously informed that some information is missing or incomplete in the referrals to Child Protection Workers. This study will explore the processes practiced by workers located at the Centralized Intake Office.
METHODOLOGY Practice Guidelines of the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) specific to the Intake process were examined. A protocol was created in conjunction with the DCFS Policy and Practice Improvement Team. The entire protocol is available as Appendix A AND Practice Guidelines for INTAKE are seen in Appendix B. The review occurred by monitoring incoming telephone calls during a one week period (October 31, 2012 September 10, 2012). Police reports and faxes from other referents were not evaluated as the protocol helps to measure the workers ability to gather information from a caller. Telephone calls to Intake are not recorded, but reviewers could evaluate calls while sitting with the Intake worker and using an additional receiver attached to the workers telephone. This allowed the reviewer to hear the entire conversation between the Intake worker and the referent. At the time of the review, the Intake office employed 21 workers with four Supervisors. The call line is manned 24 hours a day seven days a week. Two Office of Services Review (OSR) staff members were assigned to perform the review, attempting to
meet each worker and covering all potential shifts. Reviewers attempted to listen to a minimum of one phone call of each worker. The intake office was down three positions, for which interviews were conducted during the week of the review. This altered the normal dynamics of the Intake Office as the employment interviews kept supervisors unavailable for staffings. The workers rotated the responsibility of staffing among those who had current SSW licenses. One worker was on leave leaving a total of 20 workers available for the review. OSR reviewers arrived at the Intake office unannounced and tried to maintain a low profile in an attempt to avoid announcement of who would be present or which worker may be monitored. Due to management of the additional telephone receivers, this proved cumbersome and somewhat intrusive to staff at the Centralized Intake Office. The method was altered to allow identity of who would be reviewed on a specific day. This allowed
all phones of workers being reviewed to be prepared with the second telephone receiver ahead of time. Reviewers kept track of information during each phone call by having a paper copy of the protocol with them. Each phone call received a case number, which allowed the reviewers to track the information. Intake workers are required to have documentation in place within 24 hours for priority 3 allegations, one hour for priority 2 allegations, and within 5 days for allegations that were unaccepted (See Appendix B). Following the time-frames for documentation, the OSR reviewer was able to compare their own notes to those that were placed within SAFE. Information was transferred from the reviewers paper copy into a database, with statistics provided via a computerized spreadsheet program. This information can be found in the FINDINGS portion of this report.
FINDINGS
The Intake unit appeared to operate efficiently and productively. Each day had periods of time that were extremely busy as well as periods that were very slow. The lunch hour and after-school hours appeared to be the busiest times, while hours between 10 PM and 6 AM were the slowest times. The number of Intake workers assigned at each shift reflected these workloads, and there were two workers in the building at any given time. The questions asked in the review are items that Intake workers are required to discover during their interview with the referent. All questions scored above 90%, with six of the ten questions scoring 100%. The remaining four questions scored 90% or above. All workers answered their phones in similar manners. Each worker would identify the office and then state their name. Because the caller has a purpose, the workers were able to gather information regarding specific incidences of abuse or neglect
without necessarily asking a specific question. Workers were very good at responding to the individual circumstances of the calls and sometimes had to request information, but usually were able to gather the information as the referent was speaking. These skills led to scores of 100% for Questions 1, 3, and 4. Question #2 (regarding whether the worker listened professionally and respectfully in order to understand the concerns of the referent) scored 98%. Both reviewers noted that on a couple of calls, the worker interrupted the referent as they were telling their story. It appeared the worker was trying to gather information in a specific order. Whether the order was specific to the workers personal method, or identified in a processing tool is unknown. Question #5 (Did the worker obtain a means of locating the alleged victim) scored 92%. Due to the design of this question, the worker may have attempted to gain this information, but if the
information was not obtained then the answer was NO. There were six calls which received a NO answer and were due to the referent not knowing the information, or the referent refusing to provide the information. Question #6 (Did the Intake worker query SAFE and EREP) scored 91%. Five calls received NO answers. It is possible the worker looked for the information, but did not document this in SAFE. Since the workers move very quickly through various frames/windows on their computer, it was not possible for the reviewers to keep up with what they were looking at. However, the five calls that did not have EREP documented did document SAFE history. The sixth call to receive a NO was an unaccepted referral because the referent refused to give names of the parents or children; therefore the worker had no names to seek for further information. Workers always let the caller know whether the case was accepted or not. This was a natural occurrence due to the method of staffing cases. Workers were always polite when they asked the referent to hold while the worker staffed the case with a colleague or a supervisor. All workers had a good grasp of what constituted a priority 2 or a priority 3 referral. If a referral was not accepted for investigation, the worker always attempted to provide alternative services if appropriate. The capabilities of workers
to address these items led to questions 7, 8, and 10 receiving scores of 100%. Question #9 (regarding assigning the correct allegation code) scored 97%. One worker originally identified Child Endangerment in addition to Environment Neglect as the allegations at the time of the referents call, but when it was documented in SAFE only Environment Neglect was identified. In addition, four calls determined to be Unaccepted referrals resulted in IHS (In-Home Services) requests, 26 calls were information only and nine calls provided additional info for existing cases. One worker offered an IHS request on a call that was an unaccepted referral. During the staffing for the call, the supervisor stated the therapist needed to fulfill her own responsibilities. However, when the worker returned to the referent, she offered to send a request for IHS. The worker explained that she would need to send an email to make the request and could not guarantee that it would be accepted. Following the call, the reviewer asked the worker what services IHS would provide that the familys therapist was not already providing. The worker was not able to inform the reviewer. The following table identifies the data collected during the weeklong review of the Centralized Intake Office.
INTAKE QUESTION
1. Was the referent informed of the worker's name at the beginning of the call? 2. Did the Intake worker listen professionally and respectfully in order to understand the concerns of the referent? 3. Did the Intake worker solicit a description of a specific occurrence or allegation of abuse, neglect, or dependency? 4. Did the Intake worker accurately document the information as it was given by the referent? 5. Did the Intake worker obtain a means of locating the alleged victim(s)? 6. Did the Intake worker query SAFE and EREP? 6B. Did the worker seek any of the preferred information?
A. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE B. NAME,ADDRESS,PHONE NUMBER AND AGE OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM(S) C. NAMES, ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBERS OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM'S PARENTS D. REFERENT NAME AND PHONE NUMBER E. EVERY KNOWN MEMBER OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM'S IMMEDIATE FAMILY F. ACCESSIBILITY OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM BY THE ALLEGED PERPETRATOR. G. THIRD PARTIES H. THREATS OF HARM, CHILD VULNERABILITIES, AND PROTECTIVE CAPACITIES I. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES/PRECAUTIONS J. USPS
YES 93 91 74 74 66 64 33 64 64 61 52 14 10 8 12 0 75 36 35 28
NO 0 2 0 0 6 6 34 3 3 6 15 53 57 59 55 67 0 0 1 0
NA 0 0 19 19 21 23 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 18 57 57 65
SAMPLE 93 93 74 74 72 70 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 75 36 36 28
PERFORMANCE 100% 98% 100% 100% 92% 91% 49% 96% 96% 91% 78% 21% 15% 12% 18% 0% 100% 100% 97% 100%
7. Did the Intake worker notify the referent with respect to the acceptance or lack of acceptance of the referral? 8. If the referral was accepted for investigation did the Intake worker assign the correct priority to the case? 9. If the referral was accepted for investigation did the Intake worker assign the correct allegation code to the case? 10. If the referral was not accepted for investigation did the Intake worker give the referent appropriate resources?
RECOMMENDATIONS
REAL TIME RECORDING
Although monitoring calls using headsets allow supervisors, or OSR reviewers, to hear both sides of the conversation, there is potential for false results. When one is knowingly monitored, an unnatural environment is created. It is recommended that DCFS invest in real-time recording of incoming calls to the Centralized Intake Office. This would prevent workers from altering their normal performance due to knowledge of being monitored at a specific time. In addition, misunderstanding between the intake worker, the assigned CPS investigator, and potentially the public who make these calls would be diminished. An example of the misunderstanding that can occur was witnessed by a reviewer when Intake received a phone call from the security dispatch of a university. A mother came to the campus for an appointment and brought her daughter with her. At some point during her appointment, it was determined that the mother would be pink slipped into a hospital. This would occur immediately and leave the child without someone to care for them. The person IMPROVED STAFFINGS
making the call could not, or would not give a name and phone number for CPS to contact the responding officer. Information on where to pick up the child was also denied. Dispatch directed the intake worker to have the CPS investigator contact dispatch when they arrived and further information would be given. Through repeated phone calls between the intake worker and the dispatch office, which had a change of shift introducing another worker into the confusion, accurate information was questionable. Ultimately, the CPS worker was irritated, the intake worker was irritated and finger pointing was experienced by all involved. Had the phone call been recorded, the verbal responses of both parties could easily be verified. Having an automatic recording system would improve accuracy as all workers would know every phone call is recorded. Questions regarding what was asked or what was said would no longer be a he said/she said situation, but could easily be bypassed by accessing the recording of the allegation.
The DCFS Practice Guideline 201.4 under Major Objectives states: The CPS Intake process shall be completed by or staffed with a licensed social worker, with the exceptions of information only contacts. These staffings are completed by supervisors as well as workers that have a Social Service Worker license. Supervisors have additional tasks besides staffing cases and are often busy with those assignments such as building issues, mail, supplies, staff meetings, training, hiring and interviewing for hiring. Supervisors sometimes also take referral calls. They also work out issues with the regions if
there is a concern. Supervisors also read and assign the emails and faxes that Intake receives as referrals. The reviewers noted that Intake workers place the referent on hold while they staff the case with a licensed worker or supervisor. In theory, this should be very effective, as there appeared to be sufficient licensed workers; however, the licensed workers are on the same rotation as new workers and may also be receiving a referral or screening a case with another worker. It is recommended that DCFS review Practice Guidelines regarding the need to staff each case. For example, if a worker is current on maintaining a
license as a Social Service Worker, they still staff a referral with another licensed worker. The public may be better served to allow licensed workers to accept referrals and assign a region to investigate independently. To have licensed social workers taking time to identify the referral to another licensed worker may be duplicative. It may be beneficial for the Intake Office to reconsider the staffing portion of the Intake process and explore whether there is a more efficient way to do the staffings that would cut down on the wait time for those who have been put on hold.
Perhaps a longer training period or including CPS practice guidelines so new workers are better prepared and would not be required to staff every case would be helpful. Alternatively, perhaps positioning the supervisors and licensed workers in a way that they would be more accessible to new workers would be beneficial. It may be efficient to rotate the licensed workers or supervisors off telephone referrals and staffing cases only.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A. REVIEW PROTOCOL
FY2013 CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES INTAKE STUDY

Each call received by Child and Family Services regarding the safety and protection of a child shall be considered a potential referral and shall be documented by intake in SAFE. The intake worker shall research all available additional sources to gather more pertinent complete information to help establish the validity, credibility, necessity, and priority of the referral information. 1. Was the referent informed of the workers name at the beginning of the call? YES NO The referent did receive the name of the Intake worker at the beginning of the call. The referent did not receive the name of the Intake worker at the beginning of the call.
2. Did the Intake worker listen professionally and respectfully in order to understand the concerns of the referent? Professionally and respectfully means in part the following: Did the worker allow the referent to tell their story without interruptions? Did the worker check with the referent to determine the accuracy of the workers understanding? Did the worker refrain from using jargon? Could the referent tell that the Intake worker was listening by the workers responses? (oh, I see, yes) YES NO The Intake worker listened professionally and respectfully to the caller. The Intake worker was disrespectful to the caller.
3. Did the Intake worker solicit a description of a specific occurrence or allegation of abuse, neglect, or dependency? YES NO NA The intake worker did obtain a specific occurrence or allegation. The Intake worker did not obtain a specific occurrence or allegation. No allegation was made, call was for information only, or call provided additional information for an existing case.
4. Did the Intake worker accurately document the information as it was given by the referent? YES NO NA The intake worker documented the information accurately. The intake worker did not document the information accurately. No allegation was made, call was for information only, or call provided additional information for an existing case.
5. Did the Intake worker obtain a means of locating the alleged victim(s)? YES NO NA The Intake worker did obtain location information for the victim(s). The Intake worker did not obtain location information for the victim(s). No allegation was made, call was for information only, or call provided additional information for an existing case.
APPENDIX A. - CONTINUED
6. Did the Intake worker query SAFE and EREP? YES NO NA The Intake worker queried SAFE and EREP. The Intake worker did not query SAFE and EREP. No allegation was made, call was for information only, or call provided additional information for an existing case.
6B. Did the Intake worker also ask some of the preferred information? a. Physical evidence b. Name, address, phone number and age of the alleged victim(s) c. Names, address, phone numbers of the alleged victims parents d. Referent name andphone number e. Every known member of the alleged victims immediate family f. Accessibility of the alleged perpetrator to the alleged victim g. Third parties h. Threats of harm, child vulnerabilities, and protective capacities i. Special circumstances/ precautions j. USPS NOT APPLICABLE 7. Did the Intake worker notify the referent with respect to the acceptance or lack of acceptance of the referral? YES NO NA The Intake worker notified the referent of the status of the referral. The Intake worker did not notify the referent of the status of the referral. No allegation was made, call was for information only, or call provided additional information for an existing case.
8. If the referral was accepted for investigation did the Intake worker assign the correct priority to the case? YES NO NA The correct priority was assigned. The correct priority was not assigned. The case was not accepted for investigation.
9. If the referral was accepted for investigation did the Intake worker assign the correct allegation code to the case? YES NO NA The correct allegation(s) were assigned to the case. The allegations assigned to the case were incorrect. The referral was not accepted for investigation.
10. If the referral was not accepted for investigation did the Intake worker give the referent appropriate resources? YES NO NA Appropriate resources were given to the referent. No appropriate resources were given to the referent The referral was accepted for investigation.
APPENDIX B. INTAKE GUIDELINES

Utahs Division of Child and Family Services Child Protective Services Practice Guidelines Revised August 2012
201 Effort
A Call For Help: A Community And State Collaborative
This section contains the major objectives and procedures that CPS caseworkers need to receive, document, and categorize reports of child abuse, neglect, or dependency.
201.1
Intake
Major objectives Child and Family Services shall maintain a child welfare management information system (SAFE) for receiving referrals or reports about child abuse, neglect, or dependency when there is reasonable cause to believe that abuse, neglect, or dependency occurred
Applicable Law
Utah Code Ann. 62A-4a-501. Harboring a runaway Reporting requirements Division to provide assistance Affirmative defense Providing shelter after notice. Utah Code Ann. 62A-4a-1003. Management Information System Requirements Contents Purpose -- Access. Administrative Rule R512-200. Child Protective Services, Intake Services. Practice Guidelines SAFE shall supply the CPS caseworkers with a complete history for each child, including siblings, foster care episodes, all reports of abuse, neglect, or dependency, treatment plans, and casework deadlines. If Child and Family Services receives a report concerning a runaway child, the Intake worker shall gather information to determine if there is an allegation of abuse, neglect, or dependency that requires a CPS referral or refer the caller to contact the Youth Services Agency.
APPENDIX B. CONTINUED
201.2
Receiving And Researching The Referral
Major objectives: Each call received by Child and Family Services regarding the safety and protection of a child shall be considered a potential referral and shall be documented by Intake in SAFE. The Intake worker shall research all available additional sources to gather more pertinent complete information to help establish the validity, credibility, necessity, and priority of the referral information.
Applicable Law
Utah Code Ann. 62A-4a-409. Investigation by division -- Temporary protective custody -- Preremoval interviews of children. Practice Guidelines The minimum required information for a referral in any form (e.g., fax, letter, or email) should include: A. A narrative description of a specific occurrence or allegation of abuse, neglect, or dependency, which falls into at least one of the defined categories in Major objectives Section 201.11. B. A means of identifying an alleged victim under the age of 18 years for each allegation, or to the age of 21 years if Child and Family Services has been assigned custody by a court. If the reported concerns involve an unborn child and there are no threats of harm to other children in the home, a child must be born before a case can be opened. C. D. A means of locating (address or contact person) the alleged victim. Every referral requires a query of SAFE and EREP.
E. Where possible, the following information is preferred in addition to the minimum required information: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Where the abuse, neglect, or dependency occurred. When the incident occurred. Any witness to the incident. Physical evidence. Alleged victim name, address, phone number, birth date, and primary language 6. Parent name, address, phone number, birth date, and primary language of alleged victim. 7. Alleged perpetrator name, address, phone number, and birth date. Include sex offender registry information if the allegations are related to Sexual Abuse. 8. Referent name, address, and phone number.
9. Every known member of the alleged victims immediate family/household. All siblings should be identified on the referral, regardless of whether or not they reside in the same home as the alleged victim. 10. Accessibility of the alleged perpetrator to the alleged victim. 11. School/child care information for the alleged victim and where the alleged victim can be located. 12. Employment information and schedule for the parents. 13. How the referent obtained the information regarding the allegation. 14. Willingness of the referent to testify. 15. Special circumstances/precautions recommended for investigation. 16. Third-party/collateral contacts. 17. History or occurrence of domestic violence. 18. The threats of harm, child vulnerabilities, and protective capacities. 19. Indicate whether or not the family has had prior Child and Family Services involvement. If there is currently an open case, document the type of service and the caseworker assigned. 201.3 REMOVED
201.4
Disposition Of The Referral
Major objectives: The CPS Intake process shall be completed by or staffed with a licensed social worker, with the exception of "information only" contacts.
Applicable Law
Utah Code Ann. 62A-4a-105. Division responsibilities. Practice Guidelines The CPS Intake process shall consist of all actions taken by an Intake worker from the time contact is made with Child and Family Services until the information received is determined to be one of the following: A. Accepted referral: An accepted referral is one in which the minimum information required for a referral is obtained and opened for investigation. Law enforcement shall be notified of accepted referrals. B. Unaccepted referral: A referral is unaccepted in situations including, but not limited to, any of the following: 1. The child is not yet born. 2. The minimum required information for accepting a referral is not available. a. A narrative description of a specific occurrence or allegation of abuse, neglect, or dependency. b. A means of identifying an alleged victim under the age of 18 years for each allegation, or to the age of 21 years if Child and Family Services has been assigned custody by a court. c. A means of locating the alleged victim.
3. 4. 5. 6.
The allegations do not amount to abuse or neglect. As a result of research, the information is found not credible or reliable. The specific incidence or allegation has been previously investigated and no new information is gathered. The specific incidence occurred out of the geographic jurisdiction, and the referent was referred to the proper child welfare jurisdiction.
With respect to unaccepted referrals, the Intake worker may offer community resource information and/or referral information including, but not limited to, information about priority of treatment. Information received in an unaccepted referral will still be documented, and this history can be used to establish a pattern of concern. C. Additional information or allegation: 1. When there is an open CPS case involving children of the same household and/or who have the same parent or guardian, an additional information referral will be added to the open CPS case. a. If the additional information meets the definition for an allegation not previously assigned to the open case, any new allegation(s), victim(s), and/or perpetrator(s) shall be added to the CPS case by the Intake worker. b. If the additional information referral meets the criteria for a Priority 1 or 2 response time: (1) The Intake worker will call the worker assigned to the case. If the assigned worker does not respond, the Intake worker will call the workers supervisor. If the workers supervisor does not respond, the Intake worker will call the community services manager (CSM). If the CSM does not respond, the Intake worker will call the associate region director. (2) If the call comes in after hours, the Intake worker will call the on-call worker to respond. 2. If the additional information involves victims and/or perpetrators not of the same household, where there is no blood or legal relation to any parties involved with the case, a new CPS case will be opened. D. An Information Only contact is a call which does not meet the criteria of an Accepted, Unaccepted, or Additional Information referral. (Practice Guidelines Section 201.4 A, B, and C.) 1. These calls shall be documented by the Intake worker as an Information Only referral in SAFE and shall include the duration of the call. The Information Only referral will be entered into SAFE immediately after the call is completed.
E.
Conflict of Interest and Related Parties Investigation cases: 1. A case that involves allegations of child abuse, neglect, or dependency of a child in state custody will be forwarded to the contracted independent CPS agency or individual regardless of whether or not the alleged perpetrator is the out-of-home caregiver (see Practice Guidelines Section 207). 2. Where a Child and Family Services employee, volunteer, or contractor of the Department of Human Services (DHS) has a relationship with the alleged victim, alleged perpetrator, or another person named in the investigation such that there is or might be a conflict of interest, the appearance of a conflict of interest, impropriety, or the appearance of impropriety if CPS or Child and Family Services performed the investigation, shall be forwarded to the Office of Services Review Related Parties Investigators (see Practice Guidelines Section 207). F. Licensed daycare provider: When the allegation involves a licensed daycare provider, the Intake worker shall notify the Department of Health and document the name and phone number of the contact person in the narrative of the CANR. G. The Intake worker will call and email the region director and CC: the associate region director for referrals involving any of the following: 1. Domestic Violence homicide/suicide. 2. Alleged abuse or neglect related child fatality/near fatality. 3. Involves or is likely to involve the media. 4. Any Conflict of Interest or Related Parties investigation involving the associate region director or region directors region.
201.5 Priority Of The Referral

Major objectives: The priority of the referral shall be based upon the information received at Intake and shall be determined prior to the face-to-face contact with a child. The priority determines the time allotted for Intake to complete the referral process and for the assigned CPS caseworker to make face-to-face contact with the child.
Applicable Law
Administrative Rule R512-200. Child Protective Services, Intake Services.
Practice Guidelines Child and Family Services shall prioritize referrals as follows: A. A priority 1 response shall be assigned only if there is an imminent threat to the safety and well-being of a child as determined by the Intake checklist. Do not use priority 1 when: 1. The police are present and able to provide protection to the alleged victimor if 2. The child is in a facility (such as a hospital) where it is reasonable to assume there are responsible adults providing protection and there are no immediate threats to the childs safety. Intake has no more than 30 minutes from the completion of the initial contact from the referent to gather additional information, staff the referral to determine the priority, notify law enforcement, and assign to the CPS caseworker. Intake shall provide the CPS caseworker with information concerning prior investigations in SAFE. The CPS caseworker has a maximum of 60 minutes from the moment Intake notifies the caseworker to make the faceto-face contact with an alleged victim. For a priority 1R (rural) referral, a CPS caseworker has a maximum of three hours if the alleged victim is more than 40 miles from the investigator who is assigned to make the face-to-face contact. B. A priority 2 response shall be assigned when the following conditions exist: the child is at risk of further abuse, neglect, or dependency, or the child has immediate protection and safety needs, as determined by the Intake checklist. Intake has no more than 60 minutes from the completion of the initial contact from the referent to gather additional information, staff the referral to determine the priority, assign the referral to the CPS caseworker, and notify law enforcement. Intake shall give verbal notification to the assigned CPS caseworker. Intake shall also provide the CPS caseworker with information concerning prior investigations on SAFE. The CPS caseworker has 24 hours from the moment Intake notifies the caseworker to make the face-toface contact with the alleged victim. Intake may assign a priority 2 response with more urgent time frames when: 1. The police are present and there is an allegation of abuse, neglect, or dependency and they are asking for immediate assistance. 2. The child is in a facility (such as a hospital or school) and there is an allegation of abuse or neglect that requires a more immediate response.
C. A priority 3 response shall be assigned when there is an allegation of abuse or neglect that does not require an immediate response as listed in Section 201.5 B. The Intake worker has no more than 24 hours from the completion of the initial contact from the referent to gather additional information, research data sources, staff the referral as necessary, determine the priority, complete documentation including data entry, disposition to CPS, and notify law enforcement. The CPS caseworker has until midnight of the third working day from the moment Intake assigns the case to make the face-to-face contact with the alleged victim. D. Intake has until midnight of the fifth working day to enter unaccepted referrals into SAFE. E. Intake has 24 hours to enter an additional information referral into SAFE.
APPENDIX C. PERFORMANCE BY TEAM/SUPERVISOR
dD Question Number YES NO NA TOTAL SAMPLE Performance
1 15 0 0 15 100%
2 15 0 0 15 100%
3 13 0 2 13 100%
4 13 0 2 13 100%
5 11 2 2 13 85%
6 8 1 6 9 89%
7 13 0 2 13 100%
8 6 0 9 6 100%
9 6 0 9 6 100%
10 5 0 10 5 100%
1 25 0 0 25 100%
2 24 1 0 25 96%
3 20 0 5 20 100%
4 20 0 5 20 100%
5 19 1 5 20 95%
6 21 2 2 23 91%
7 20 0 5 20 100%
8 8 0 17 8 100%
9 8 0 17 8 100%
10 6 0 19 6 100%
1 33 0 0 33 100%
2 32 1 0 33 97%
3 22 0 11 22 100%
4 23 0 10 23 100%
5 20 2 11 22 91%
6 22 2 9 24 92%
7 23 0 10 23 100%
8 11 0 22 11 100%
9 10 2 21 12 83%
10 12 0 21 12 100%
1 19 0 0 19 100%
2 19 0 0 19 100%
3 18 0 1 18 100%
4 17 0 2 17 100%
5 16 1 2 17 94%
6 13 1 5 14 93%
7 18 0 1 18 100%
8 11 0 8 11 100%
9 11 0 8 11 100%
10 4 0 15 4 100%
APPENDIX D. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

A System Review of The Division of Child & Family Services - Produced by The Utah Office of Services Review

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A System Review of The Division of Child & Family Services - Produced by The Utah Office of Services Review

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

This page is Purposely blank

FY2013 AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

SYSTEM INDICATORS ............................................................................................................................................10

SUMMARY OF PROGRESS BY REGION ...................................................................................................................12

Case Process Review ............................................................................................................................. 19

Case Process Review

Qualitative Case Review

Child and Family Status

T ABLE II-A O VERALL CHILD STATUS

C HART II-A STATEWIDE O VERALL SCORES

T ABLE II-B CHILD STATUS BY R EGION

State Child Status

If Western same as 2012

T ABLE II-D W ESTERN R EGION EFFECT ON C HILD STATUS

T ABLE II-C O VERALL SYSTEM P ERFORMANCE

T ABLE II-H T EAMING BY R EGION

T ABLE II-J L ONG -T ERM VIEW BY R EGION

T ABLE II-K C HILD AND FAMILY PLAN BY R EGION

T ABLE II-I ASSESSMENT BY REGION

T ABLE II-L I NTERVENTION ACCURACY BY R EGION

56% 56% 69% 47% 36% 55%

85% 83% 92% 85% 75%

T ABLE II-M TRACKING AND ADAPTATION BY R EGION

Case Process Review

Case Files Reviewed

T ABLE III-A NUMBER OF C ASES BY FOCUS AREA

Statewide CPR 2013 Data

T ABLE III-B STATEWIDE CPR 2013

C HART III-A CPS C OMPLIANCE

C HART III-B U NABLE TO L OCATE C OMPLIANCE

C HART III-C REMOVALS C OMPLIANCE

C HART III-E I N-HOME C OMPLIANCE

C HART III-F FOSTER C ARE C OMPLIANCE

Type & Tool #

CPSG.6 CPSG.7 CPSG.8

90% 90% 85%

99% 95% 98%

100% 86% 100%

95% 92% 97%

94% 94% 97%

91% 92% 98%

Type & Tool #

Performance Rate (%)

Unable to Locate Cases

Performance Rate (%)

Type & Tool #

Type & Tool #

85% 85% 85%

71% 68% 57% 65%

63% 38% NA 58%

35% 24% 30% 37%

Performance Rate (%)

Performance Rate (%)

Type & Tool #

Performance Rate (%)

85% 85% 85% 85%

95% 69% 92% 70% 81%

89% 63% 86% 63% 75%

91% 60% 87% 74% 77%

63% 63% NA 78% NA

81% 81% NA 79% NA

Performance rate for six months

Foster Care Placement and Contacts

dD Question Number YES NO NA TOTAL SAMPLE Performance

dD Question Number YES NO NA TOTAL SAMPLE Performance

dD Question Number YES NO NA TOTAL SAMPLE Performance

dD Question Number YES NO NA TOTAL SAMPLE Performance