ChildNet FY 10-11 Q2 Rprt - R2 - Florida`s Center for Child Welfare

2nd Quarter
2010/2011
In Broward County every year, several
hundred children enter the child welfare
system due to abuse, abandonment or
neglect. As the local Community Based
Care lead agency, ChildNet manages the
local system of services and supports for
Broward's most vulnerable children. Our
mission is to protect Broward's abused,
abandoned and neglected children.
Case Management Base, Side-by
Side, In-Depth Review, and
Council on Accreditation (COA)
Reviews for FY 2010-2011
CHILDNET, INC.
C A S E M A N A G E M E N T R E V IE W RE P O R T
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Date of 2nd Quarter Review and Period under Review ………………….
Page 2
Methodology ……………………………………………………………………
Page 2
Analysis of Case File Review Data …………………………………………
Page 2-3
Case Management Practice Trends…………………………………………
Pages 3-7
Areas of Excellence……………………………………………………………
Pages 7
Opportunities for Improvement ……………………………………………
Page 8-9
Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) Progress Findings ……………………
Page 9-12
DCF In-Depth Side-by-Side Review Findings……………………………..
Pages 13-15
Requests for Action (RFA) …………………………………………………..
Page 15-16
Summary and Recommendations …………………………………………
Page 16-17
List of Standards and Data Roll Up ……………………………………….
Pages 18-24
Date of DCF Base Review: October 25, 2010 – October 29 2010
Date of DCF Side-by-Side Review: October 11, 2010 – October 15, 2010
Date of COA Review: October 1, 2010 – December 31, 2010
Period under Review: January 1, 2010 – December 30, 2010
Methodology
Eighty (80) cases were reviewed during the FY 2010/2011 second quarter (Q2). Of the eighty
(80) cases reviewed, seventeen (17) were reviewed as part of the Florida Department of
Children and Families’ (DCF) Regional Quality Assurance (QA) Model for Case Management
Base, sixteen (16) were reviewed as part of the Florida Department of Children and Families’
(DCF) Regional Quality Assurance (QA) Model for Case Management Side-by-Side and the
remaining forty-seven (47) cases were reviewed to increase the sample size based on
guidelines from the Council on Accreditation (COA).
An in-depth review was also completed on two (2) cases selected from the sixteen (16) Florida
Department of Children and Families’ (DCF) Regional Quality Assurance (QA) Model for Case
Management Side-by-Side sample. These reviews consisted of case specific interviews with
the focus child as well as other individuals, such as child advocates, caregivers, service
providers, and other child care staff, who were or are currently involved with the child under
protective supervision.
All case reviews were completed by ChildNet’s Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI)
department, Florida Department of Children and Families’ (DCF) Regional Quality Assurance
office and ChildNet’s Client Services staff. The eighty (80) cases reviewed consisted of the
following services: Foster Care (29); Adoption (19); Kinship Care (17); and Independent Living
(15). All eighty (80) cases were reviewed for specific indicators utilizing the standardized DCF
electronic tool to determine whether safety, permanency and well-being were achieved for the
children under review.
The below definitions were used to categorize cases to COA service standards:
Foster Care includes children in foster care who are younger than 13 years old, or
any child in an unlicensed placement such as non-relative placements, and children
who receives services through In-Home (Petition for Adjudicate Dependent and
Voluntary Protective Supervision).
Adoption includes children with goals of adoption (regardless of placement).
Kinship Care includes children residing with relatives that do not have goals of
adoptions.
Independent Living includes children placed in licensed out-of-home care age 13 and
older.
Analysis of Case File Review Data
ChildNet’s overall second quarter (Q2) performance in achieving safety was 67.8%, a decrease
of 3.4% from the FY 2010/2011 first quarter (Q1) report. The overall performance in achieving
permanency was 74.9%, a decrease of 8.3% from the FY 2010/2011 Q1 report. Regarding child
well-being, the overall performance was 75.3%, a decrease of 11.6% from the FY 2010/2011 Q1
report. The overall performance for all of the quality practice standards was 73.9%, a decrease
of 8.1% from the FY 2010/2011 Q1 report. The chart below represents ChildNet’s performance
for FY 2010/2011 Q2 (in yellow); ChildNet’s performance from the FY 2010/2011 Q1 (in blue);
and statewide Community-Based Care Lead Agencies performance for FY 2010/2011 Q2 (in
orange).
2
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
70.2%
73.9%
85.2%
81.7%
67.8%
Safety
ChildNet FY 10/11 Q1
74.9%
Permanency
74.0%
75.3%
Well-Being
ChildNet FY 10/11 Q2
73.3%
80.5%
73.9%
73.2%
Overall Practice Standards
Statewide FY 10/11 Q2
Case Management Practice Trends
Assessment:
Initial family assessments averaged 68% (17/25) for completion while the up-dated family
assessment averaged 59.7% (40/67). In comparison to the FY 2010/2011 Q1 report, this was a
decrease of 15.9% and an increase of 22.6%, respectively.
A safety assessment was conducted of a home prior to a reunification or placement in an
unlicensed placement in 92.9% (26/28) of cases and concerted efforts were made during postplacement supervision to manage the risks following reunification and prevent re-entry into outof-home care in 91.7% (11/12) of the cases. In comparison to the FY 2010/2011 Q1 report,
there was an overall increase of 17.3%.
Multi-disciplinary staffings/assessments were conducted before each placement in 78.6%
(22/28) of the cases. In cases involving a child in a licensed placement setting, an exit interview
was conducted in 45.5% (5/11). Exit interviews continue to present an opportunity for
improvement since this standard continues to fall below 50% during each of the previous four
quarters under review.
Ongoing assessment of the children’s needs was achieved in 88.8% (71/80) of the cases;
89.2% of the mother’s (58/65); 77% of the father’s (35/45) needs and 91.8% (56/61) of the outof-home caregivers.
ChildNet achieved 60% (3/5) in completing an assessment for residential group care when
required, which was a 34.9% decline from FY 2010/2011 Q1 report.
When the case involved a youth who has reach 13 but not yet 15 years of age and he/she is
living in a licensed, out-of-home care placement, a pre-independent living assessment was
completed that identified service needs and services in 50% (3/6) of cases.
ChildNet achieved 73.2% (30/41) on ensuring the child’s educational needs were assessed. In
comparison to the FY 2010/2011 Q1 report, this was a decrease of 8.5%.
3
The child’s physical health care needs were assessed in 65.2% (45/69) of the cases and the
child’s dental health care needs were assessed in 46% (20/43) of the cases. In comparison to
the FY 2010/2011 Q1 report, there was an overall decrease of 12.1%
The child’s mental/behavioral health needs in 82.5% (47/57) of the cases were assessed.
Family Engagement:
ChildNet achieved 79.2% (19/24) in ensuring parents are notified all of placement changes,
which was a 19.2% decrease from FY 2010/2011 Q1 report.
ChildNet achieved 78.5% (51/65) in ensuring and maintaining children’s important connections
while in out of home care, which was a decrease of 17.4% from FY 2010/2011 Q1 report.
Concerted efforts were made to ensure visitation (or other contact) was sufficient between the
child and parents to maintain or promote the continuity of their relationship in 85.2% (46/54) of
cases. In addition, concerted efforts were made to ensure visitation between the child and
his/her siblings to maintain or promote the continuity of the relationship in 75% (21/28) of
applicable cases. However, this standard has shown a steady decline since FY 2009/2010 Q4
report.
ChildNet achieved 73.1% (38/52) as to the mother and 58.8% (20/34) as to the father for
concerted efforts to encourage and support participation in making decisions about child's
needs and activities.
ChildNet achieved 88.7% (55/62) as to the mother and 77.3% (34/44) as to the father in
concerted efforts to support parents’ engagement in services. In addition concerted efforts were
made to actively involve all case participants in the case planning process in 82.1% (64/78) of
cases, which was a decrease of 9.3% from FY 2010/2011 Q1 report.
ChildNet achieved 100% (7/7) on ensuring informed consent or a court order was obtained for
the use of psychotropic medications deemed necessary by a physician. This standard continues
to show improvements since FY 2009/2010 Q4 and had an increase of 8.7% from FY
2010/2011 Q1 report.
Service Planning and Provisions:
There were seven (7) children with verified findings of abuse and/or neglect for both in-home
and out-of-home cases; however 100% (15/15) of the children were provided immediate and
ameliorative interventions, and concerted efforts were made to provide or arrange for
appropriate services for the family to protect the child and prevent the child’s entry into out-ofhome care in 79.3% (23/29) of cases.
ChildNet achieved 97.3% (73/75) for documentation that service referrals were consistent with
the child’s needs and/or assessments relating to safety, and 90.9% (40/44) of the children all
immediate and emerging safety concerns were addressed.
Concerted efforts were made to identify, locate, and evaluate other potential relatives and
possible permanent placements for children in 87.1% (54/62) of applicable cases.
4
ChildNet ensured each child in out-of-home care experienced no more than two out-of-home
placement settings during the period under review in 83.3% (55/66) of applicable cases. This
was a decrease of 8.2% from the FY 2010/2011 Q1 report.
The court was informed of the child’s placements and reasons for changes in placement in
90.3% (28/31) of applicable cases. Although, ChildNet has achieved over 90.0% on this
standard for the past four quarters, this standard has shown a slow decline since FY 2009/2010
Q4 standard score of 100%.
For youth 15 years of age but not yet 18, ChildNet monitored progress towards successfully
transitioning from foster care to independence through regular informative staffings in 40%
(4/10) of applicable cases, which was a decrease of 57.5% from the FY 2010/2011 Q1 report.
Another area of opportunity for improvement is with ensuring teen-aged children are afforded
opportunities to participate in normal life skills activities in the foster home and community that
are reasonable and appropriate for his/her respective age or special needs. This standard was
achieved in 35.7% (5/14) of the applicable cases, which was a decrease of 36.2% from the FY
2010/2011 Q1 report.
The frequency of the services worker’s visits with all case participants declined 13.3% since FY
2010/2011 Q1 report. This standard was achieved in 73.8% (59/80) of cases reviewed.
Frequency of visits with fathers, which ChildNet achieved 28.9% (11/38) of applicable cases,
continues to be an area for improvement. The quality of the services worker’s visits with case
participants was sufficient to address issues pertaining to the child’s safety, permanency, and
well-being in 92.5% (74/80) of applicable cases.
When educational needs were identified services were engaged in 84.2% (16/19) of the cases
and 80% (12/15) of applicable cases in which services were initiated, services effectively
reduced/resolved the focus child’s education needs.
When physical health care needs were identified services were provided to 62.5% (25/40),
which was a decrease of 20.7% from FY 2010/2011 Q1 report. When dental health care needs
were identified services were provided to 56.6% (13/23). Ensuring children’s dental health
needs are appropriately addressed continues to be an area for improvement
When needs were identified to address mental/behavioral health issues; services were provided
in 80% (12/14) and the agency followed up on all treatment plans that were ordered in 81.5%
(22/27) of cases.
Promoting Case Progress:
ChildNet achieved 84.7% (50/59) with placement stability and has achieved 40% (2/5) in
children who did not re-entry out-of-home care in less than twelve months following a discharge.
Although this standard is only applicable to five (5) cases out of eighty (80), there was a
significant decrease of 46% from the FY 2010/2011 Q1 report and a significant decline since FY
2009/2010 Q3 standard score of 100%.
ChildNet continues to perform well with ensuring the case is designed to achieve permanency
(out-of-home cases) and safety and stability (in-home cases) through appropriate tasks for the
case participants in 95.7% (45/47) of cases. There were current case plans in 64% (48/75) of
5
cases and 97.9% (47/48) of those case plan had appropriate permanency goals based on the
child’s and family’s circumstances. Ensuring case files contain a current (not expired) case plan
continues to be an area for improvement. In terms of the case plan specifically addressing
visitation and other contact plans with all case participants, ChildNet achieved 94.3% (33/35) of
applicable cases
The case worker communicated with service providers about the effectiveness of services for
involved case participants in 73.6% (53/72) of cases. This standard had a significant decrease
of 20.6% from the FY 2010/2011 Q1 report.
ChildNet continues to do well in regards to maintaining the child’s current placement within
close proximity to the parents to facilitate face-to-face contact between the child and parents
while the child was in out-of-home care. This standard was achieved in 90.4% (47/52) of
applicable cases and for children who were not placed within close proximity to the parents,
100% (6/6) of applicable cases were based on the child’s needs and achieving the case plan
goal.
ChildNet achieved 44.4% (16/20) on placing child with siblings who were also in licensed and/or
non-licensed out-of-home care, which was a 13.4% decrease from FY 2010/2011 Q1 report.
Sixty (60) percent (12/20) of those cases where the child was not placed with siblings
documented clear evidence separation was necessary to meet the child’s needs, which was a
decrease of 33.4% from FY 2010/2011 Q1 report.
ChildNet continues to need improvement in ensuring an inquiry to determine if a child was of
Native American or Alaskan Native heritage and the completed Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)
form is maintained in the case file. This standard was achieved in 28.2% (22/78) of the case.
ChildNet achieved 66.7% (2/3) for cases in which an out-of-state placement was, or is being,
explored for the focus child, a completed Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children
(ICPC) packet requesting a non-priority home study was submitted within the required
timeframe. This standard increased 35.6% from FY 2010/2011 Q1 report.
If the child was in out-of-home care for at least 12 of the most recent 22 months or met other
Adoption Safe Families Acts (ASFA) criteria for Termination of Parental Rights (TPR), a TPR
petition was filed in 59.5% (22/37) of applicable cases. However, if a TPR petition was not filed,
the case file contained compelling reasons and an exception for not filing the petition was
documented in 73.3% (11/15) of applicable cases. In comparison to the FY 2010/2011 Q1
report, there was an overall decrease of 12%.
ChildNet achieved a 93.3% (14/15) in documenting appropriate steps taken to identify/recruit an
adoptive family that matched the child’s needs. In addition, appropriate steps were taken to
process and approve an adoptive family that matched the child’s needs in 93.8% (15/16) of
applicable cases.
ChildNet has provided guidance and assistance in developing an educational and career path
based on the child’s needs in 57.1% (8/14) of applicable cases, which had a 32% decrease
since FY 2010/2011 Q1 report.
ChildNet achieved an 84.5% (60/71) in ensuring Judicial Reviews are being held timely and
Judicial Review Social Study Reports providing a thorough investigation and social study
regarding all pertinent details relating to the child, and area ChildNet had maintained a 90% or
6
above average in the last five (5) quarters. However, this quarter the standard decreased 11.2%
from FY 2010/2011 Q1 report.
Supervisory Review and Oversight:
ChildNet continues to show a need for improvement on documenting qualitative supervisory
reviews. Qualitative supervisory reviews and follow through were conducted in 57.5% (46/80) of
cases. More specifically, supervisory reviews were completed quarterly in 48.1% (38/79) of
cases; supervisor considered all aspects considered all aspects of the child’s safety,
permanency and well-being in 86.3% (69/80) of cases; and supervisors ensured follow through
on guidance and direction provided to the case worker in 64.6% (51/79) of cases.
Areas of Excellence
Case Management excelled in several of the areas related to safety, permanency and wellbeing.
Safety:
• 100% (15 of 15) of the children re-abused or re-neglected, immediate and ameliorative
interventions were initiated on behalf of the child
• 97.3% (73 of 75) of the cases had service referrals that were consistent with the needs
identified through investigative and other assessments related to safety.
• 92.9% (26 of 28) of the cases had a thorough safety assessment of the home completed
prior to reunification or placement of the child in an unlicensed out-of-home placement.
Permanency:
• 97.9% (47 of 48) of the cases documented the current case plan goal was appropriate
based on the child’s, and family’s circumstances.
• 94.3% (33 of 35) of the cases specifically addressed visitation and other contact plans
with all case participants.
• 100% (3 of 3) of cases ensured the information provided in the ICPC packet regarding
the focus child was sufficient to enable the receiving state to make an appropriate
decision concerning approval of the proposed placement for the focus child.
• 93.3% (14 of 15) of the cases ensured appropriate steps were taken to identify and
recruit an adoptive family that matched the child’s needs.
• 93.8% (15 of 16) of the cases ensured appropriate steps were taken to process and
approve an adoptive family that matched the child’s needs
Well-being:
• 100% (7 of 7) of the cases documented expressed and informed consent or obtained
court authorization for the use of each psychotropic medication deemed necessary by a
physician to address the child’s mental/behavioral health needs.
7
Opportunities for Improvement
The review also identified some opportunities for improvement, including:
Safety:
• 68% (17 of 25) of initial family assessments conducted following the investigative safety
assessment sufficiently addressed child safety factors and emerging risks.
• 59.7% (40 of 67) of updated family assessments focused on the immediate and
prospective safety of the child, as well as any changes and implications in the family’s
situation related to emerging concerns and services needs.
Permanency:
• 40% (2 of 5) of cases ensured the child remained safe in his/her home after being
discharged from out-of-home care and did not re-enter out-of-home care at least twelve
(12) months following discharge.
• 64% (48 of 75) of cases contained a current (not expired) case plan.
• 44.4% (16 of 36) of cases ensured the child was placed with siblings who were also in
licensed and/or non-licensed out-of-home care.
• 28.2% (22 of 78) of cases documented that an inquiry was made to determine if the child
was of Native American or Alaskan Native heritage.
• 58.8% (20 of 34) of cases documented the father was encouraged and supported to
participate in making decisions about his child’s needs and activities.
• 59.5% (22 of 37) of cases ensure if the child was in out-of-home care for at least twelve
(12) months or met ASFA criteria for Termination of Parental Rights (TPR), a TPR
petition was filed or joined.
Well-being:
• 50% (3 of 6) of cases involving a youth who has reached 13 but not yet 15 years of age
and he/she is living in a licensed, out-of-home care placement, a pre-independent living
assessment was completed that identified service needs and services were provided.
• 57.1% (8 of 14) of cases involving a child 13 years of age or older and in licensed foster,
received guidance and assistance in developing an educational and career path that is
based on the child’s individual abilities and interests.
• 35.7% (5 of 14) of cases ensured the teen-aged focused child is afforded opportunities
to participates in the normal life skills activities in the foster home and community that
are reasonable and appropriate for his/her respective age or special needs.
• 40% (4 of 10) of cases ensured the agency appropriately monitored each youth’s, 15
years of age but not yet 18, progress towards successfully transitioning from foster care
to independence through regular informative staffing.
• 65.2% (45 of 69) documented that concerted efforts were made to assess the child’s
physical health care needs.
• 62.5% (45 of 69) documented that concerted efforts were made to provide appropriate
services to address the child’s physical health care needs.
• 46.5% (20 of 43) documented that concerted efforts were made to assess the child’s
dental health care needs.
• 56.5% (13 of 23) documented appropriate services were provided to address the child’s
identified dental health care needs.
• 25% (1 of 4) of cases with the goal of Another Planned Permanent Living Arraignment
(APPLA), the agency made concerted efforts to ensure the child is adequately prepared
to transition into independent living and is living in a “permanent” arrangement until
he/she reaches the age of majority.
8
Federal Child and Family Services Review:
• 57.5% (46 of 80)) documented qualitative supervisory reviews and follow through were
conducted as needed and required to include being completed quarterly; supervisor
considering all aspects of the child’s safety, well
well-being
being and permanency; and ensuring
follow through on guidance and direction.
Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) Progress Findings
Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR) Item Measurement based on QA standards
Outcome Safety 2:
Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate.
appropriate
•
Item 3: Services to Family to Protect Child (ren) In
In-home
home and Prevent
Removal or Re-entry
entry into Foster Care. The three case management
standards for Item 3 are: services to protect the child ((79.3%,
79.3%, 23/29); service
referrals (97.3%, 73/75) and management of risks 91.7%, 11/12).
). The overall
performance for all the quality practice standards was 9
92.2%.
100.0%
80.0%
93.4%
92.2%
FY 10/11 Q1
FY 10/11 Q2
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
FY 10/11 Q1
•
FY 10/11 Q2
Item 4: Risk Assessment and Safety Management. The four case
management standards for Item 4 are: initiation of immediate interventions
(100%, 15/15);
); initial family involvement ((68%, 17/25);
); immediate and emerging
safety concerns (90.9%,
90.9%, 40/44
40/44) and safety assessment (92.9%,
92.9%, 26/28).
26/28 The
overall performance for all the quality practice standards was 87.5%.
87.5
100.0%
80.0%
85.0%
87.5%
FY 10/11 Q1
FY 10/11 Q2
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
FY 10/11 Q1
9
FY 10/11 Q2
Outcome Permanency 1: Childre
Children
n have Permanency and Stability in Their Living Situations.
•
Child. The case management standard for
Item 7: Permanency Goal for Child
Item 7 is case plan goals (97.9%, 47/48). The overall performance for all the
quality practice standards was 97.9%%.
100.0%
80.0%
95.8%
97.9%
FY 10/11 Q1
FY 10/11 Q2
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
FY 10/11 Q1
•
FY 10/11 Q2
Item 10: Other Planned Permanent Living Arrangement – The case
management standard for Item 10 is the agency made concerted efforts to ensure
the child is adequately prepared to transition into independent living and is living
in a permanent arrangement until he/she reaches the age of majority (25%,
(
1/4).
The overall performance for the quality practice standard was 25%
100.0%
80.0%
60.0%
75.0%
40.0%
20.0%
25.0%
0.0%
FY 10/11 Q1
FY 10/11 Q1
FY 10/11 Q2
FY 10/11 Q2
Outcome Well-Being 1:
Families have Enhanced Capacity to Provide for Their Children’s Needs.
•
10
Item 17: Needs and Services of Child, Parents, and Foster Parents.
Parents The six
case management standards for Item 17 are: ongoing assessments of the
child’s needs (88.8%,
88.8%, 71/80
71/80);
); ongoing assessments of the mother’s needs
(89.2%, 58/65);
); engaging the child’s mother ((88.7%, 55/62);
); ongoing assessment
a
of the father’s needs ((77.8%, 35/45);
); engaging the child’s father (77.3%,
(
34/44)
and ongoing assessment of out
out-of-home care providers (91.8%, 56/61).
56/61 The
overall performance for all the quality practice standards was 86.6%
86.6
100.0%
80.0%
94.5%
86.6%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
FY 10/11 Q1
FY 10/11 Q1
•
FY 10/11 Q2
FY 10/11 Q2
Item 18: Child and Family Involvement in Case Planning. The case
management standard for Item 18 is: case planning process: family involvement
(82.1%, 64/78).
). The overall performance for all the quality practice standards
was 82.1%.
100.0%
80.0%
90.6%
82.1%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
FY 10/11 Q1
FY 10/11 Q1
•
FY 10/11 Q2
FY 10/11 Q2
Item 19: Caseworker Visits with Child. The two case management standards
for Item 19 are: frequency of service worker’s visits with the child (80%,
(
64/80)
and quality of the service worker’s visits with the child ((93.8%, 75/80).
75/80 The
overall performance for all th
the quality practice standards was 86.9%.
86.9
100.0%
80.0%
93.7%
86.9%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
FY 10/11 Q1
FY 10/11 Q1
11
FY 10/11 Q2
FY 10/11 Q2
•
Item 20: Caseworker Visits with Parent(s). The four case management
standards for Item 20 are: frequency of service worker’s visits with the mother
(33.3%, 21/63);
); quality of the service worker’s visits with the mother (68.3%
(
41/60);
); frequency of service worker’s visits with the father ((28.9%,
%, 11/38) and
quality of the service worker’s visits with the father ((67.5%, 27/40).
27/40 The overall
performance for all the quality practice standards was 49.8%.
100.0%
80.0%
60.0%
70.0%
40.0%
49.8%
20.0%
0.0%
FY 10/11 Q1
FY 10/11 Q2
FY 10/11 Q1
FY 10/11 Q2
Item Numbers for
FY 10/11 Q2
Quality
Assurance
Progress on
CFSR Items
96%
93%
95%
85%
91%
94%
70%
97.9%
92.2%
75%
86.6%
87.5%
82.1%
86.9%
49.8%
Item Numbers for
FY 10/11 Q1
Quality
Assurance
Progress on
CFSR Items
25.0%
Item 3
Item 4
Item 7
Item 10
Item 17
Item 18
Item 19
Item 20
Arrow represents
ents increase or decrease from FY 2010/2011 Q1 REPORT.
REPORT
12
ChildNet In-Depth Review Findings:
In-Depth Case #1
The AM case involved a mother, father and a fifteen (15) month old girl. The family is currently
under non-court ordered in-home supervision. The case is under supervision due to threatened
harm allegations; the mother has had a number of children removed from her care in the past
and both parents have a history of substance abuse; the child did not test positive for drugs at
the time of birth. Prior to a Petition Adjudicating Dependency (PAD) no legal sufficiency was
found and the family has been receiving voluntary services the entire life of the case. The father
is currently involved with Drug Court and the mother is prescribed pain medications for a
physical condition.
This in-depth consist of an interview with the child advocate, the mother and father. Telephone
interviews were scheduled with an in-home provider; however this interview was not
successfully completed at the date of this writing.
Interviews:
Child Advocate (CA): States that she has been assigned for approximately a year and has
been the only child advocate assigned to the case. The family’s assessed needs were
successfully matched with community services with no wait lists and the family is actively
engaged in completing case plan tasks. The CA explained that the mother is a stay-at-home
mom and that the father is a hard worker. The father has been able to utilize his handyman
skills to pay the rent and also has a trust fund that is controlled by his adult sister. The family
also receives food stamps and Medicaid benefits. The mother has numerous prescriptions for
pain due to a variety of back/skeletal issues and has recently agreed to accept services through
Susan B. Anthony to wean off the medications. These services are provided in the home. The
father’s drug court involvement has now been extended due to a recent positive test. The
family’s progress is monitored through regular contact with providers and the family is
encouraged and supported to complete their tasks; there is no court involvement at this time.
The child’s safety is monitored through at least every thirty day visits (regularly unannounced);
the parents are very cooperative and the child is thriving in their care. The case has currently
been staffed on two occasions for legal sufficiency; none was found.
Biological Mother and Father: The parents were interviewed in their home with the child
present. The child was observed to be clean, healthy and developmentally appropriate,
demonstrating a good bond with both parents. They explained that their involvement in the child
welfare system was due to the mother’s past and she was “red-flagged” when the child was
born. The parents both were familiar with the tasks required of them under their voluntary
supervision agreement and had completed the majority of those tasks. They are/had been
involved with Gulf Coast, Spectrum, Women in Distress (which mother felt was inappropriate),
drug court, a psychological evaluation, Work Force One and Susan B. Anthony. The father and
mother discussed the recent abuse report openly due to the father testing positive for drugs.
The only change they would wish to be made is to “shorten it” as it had been going on a year.
The parents confirmed that the child advocate visits at least monthly; she checks the baby,
takes her picture and checks if the family needs anything. They expressed always being able
to get in touch with their child advocate; she responds to their calls and requests for assistance.
Additional services for the family would involve help with transportation and diapers for the child.
13
The parents expressed they have a support system in the community that consists of maternal
and paternal relatives.
Strength:
The family’s assessed needs were successfully matched with community services with no wait
lists and the family is actively engaged in completing case plan tasks. The parents stated they
are always able to get in touch with their assigned child advocate; she responds promptly to
their calls and requests for assistance.
Weakness:
While under non-court ordered in-home supervision, several abuse reports were generated due
to the father testing positive for drugs.
In-Depth Case #2
The JF case involved a ten month old infant who was sheltered directly from the hospital at birth
and placed under court ordered Protective Supervision with the maternal grandparents. The
case came into care due an allegation of being a substance exposed newborn. Although the
infant tests results were negative the mother admitted to abusing substance during her
pregnancy and initially opted to go for residential treatment. The father of the infant was not in a
position to care for the child and as a result, the baby was placed with the maternal
grandparents following a positive home study and background checks. The mother also has a
six year old daughter that was being cared for by the maternal grandparents via a mutual
agreement between the grandparents and the mother.
This in-depth review consist of an interview with the CA, Guardian Ad Litem office (GAL), and
the maternal grandparents; the focus child and the six year old siblings were physically
observed by reviewers when they visited the home. The CA was unsuccessful in obtaining
interview appointments with either parent as both them have been avoiding contact with the
agency.
Interviews:
The CA stated that she has been assigned to this case since December 2009 after court order
was obtained sheltering the child into the Protective Supervision of the DCF/ChildNet. The CA
stated initially the mother agreed enter rehabilitation and accepted services, but shortly after she
told her mother that she wasn’t ready to give up her life style and told the grandparents that she
wanted them to take care of the child. The CA stated she has made regular attempts to contact
both the mother and the father by following up on any address leads that she can find, via
certified mail, phone calls, and relaying messages through the maternal grandparents. The CA
reports she has had occasional contact from the mother by phone, but no success in reaching
the father. The CA stated she still makes referrals and sends them certified mail to addresses
she has on file for either parents in addition to conducting ongoing diligent searches. The CA
states the grandparents provide excellent care of JF and his sister. States at the last court
hearing the judge changed the goal from reunification to adoption and a TPR petition is pending.
The CA stated the sibling was not included in the case since the inception because she was not
at risk. When asked about referrals for relative care, the child advocate stated the grandparents
were not receiving relative caregiver funding and that they were financially able to care for child.
14
The GAL and her supervisor were also interviewed. The GAL stated she has been assigned to
the since August 2010. Stated she has visited with the child at home with his grandparents and
sibling and the grandparents are taking very good care of JF. States she has never met either
parent, but based on the case file she agrees with the judge’s decision to change the goal to
adoption.
The interview with the grandparents took place in their home, which was located in a nice upper
middle class neighborhood in Fort Lauderdale. Upon entering the home it was spacious and
clean with working utilities and adequate rooms for each child. The focus child JF and his six
years old sister were also present both observed and reviewers made small talk with the six
year old. Reviewers observed both children appeared healthy and developmentally normal for
their age and both were observed to be free of any marks or bruises indicative of abuse or
neglect. Reviewers also observed interactions between the grandparents and the children as
well as the sibling with each other; they all appeared to be loving and appropriately affectionate
towards each other. The grandparents held JF when he beckoned to get out of his high chair
and neither child displayed any signs of fear or discomfort towards either grandparent. The
grandparents stated their daughter has had a problem with drugs since she was a teenager.
They were not aware of the second pregnancy with child JF until after the baby was born; when
the mother asked them to take care of him so he would not have to go into foster care. The
grandparents and their other daughter also help out. The grandmother states the children’s
mother asked her to she wants JF to stay with them because she is not ready to enter
rehabilitation or give up her life style. The father of the child only contacts them to ask for
money, but he shows no interest in the child. They stated at the hearing in September they
spoke to the judge and shared their concern about the parents and expressed that they wanted
to adopt the child because they wanted stability for the child’s life. As a result of the
grandparents statements the judge ordered the goal change to adoption. The grandparents’
states they would like to adopt both children; they were encouraged to speak with the CA, GAL
and the Office of Attorney General (OAG) to inquire if it was possible to add the six year old
sibling to the TPR petition. Overall the grandparents stated that they were very satisfied with
the CA and they felt she was gone above and beyond to work with the parents, visit the child
each month and has kept them informed of the court hearings and staffing on the case.
Strength:
The caregivers (grandparents) stated they are very satisfied with the CA assigned to the case
and feel she has gone above and beyond to work with the parents while keeping all parties
involved informed of any changes occurring in the case.
Weakness:
Visits with the mother and the father were not conducted every thirty-days when child’s
permanency goal was reunification. Both parents have court ordered supervised visitation, but
both parents have not been exercising their visitation rights. Efforts have been made to engage
the mother in the case planning process, but case file lacked documentation of efforts to engage
biological father in the case planning process.
Requests for Action (RFA)
RFA’s were only issued during the seventeen (17) cases reviewed as part of the DCF Regional
QA Model for Case Management Base, and during the sixteen (16) cases reviewed as part of
the DCF Regional QA Model for Case Management Side-by-Side. RFA’s were not issued during
15
the forty-seven (47) cases reviewed for Council on Accreditation (COA). RFA’s were issued for
the following reasons:
Missing court order/ratification orders accepting case plans
Missing physical health and dental care documentation
Missing mental health documentation
Missing ICWA eligibility form 5323
Missing updated educational / school records
Supervisory reviews not completed quarterly and/or lack of follow-through
Missing initial and/or six-month updated family assessments
Expired case plans
Missing completed exit interviews
Lack of monthly contacts with parents when goal was reunification
Lack of accurate documentation in FSFN regarding psychotropic medication
Summary and Recommendations
The overall performance in achieving safety 67.8%, permanency 74.9% and well-being 75.3%
are below the 90%, which should be raised to meet the current projected CFSR performance
range of 95%. More specifically the following areas under each should be carefully evaluated
and strengthened to raise ChildNet’s overall performance achievements.
Safety:
• Initial and updated family assessments must be completed timely, focusing on the
immediate and prospective safety of the child, as well as any changes and implications
in the family’s situation related to emerging concerns and services needs.
Permanency:
• The CA and the family need to develop an aftercare plan in advance of case closing that
outlines specific services needed or desired and steps for obtaining those services. Also,
a check-in system should be developed that allows the child advocate to check on the
family every quarter for the first year of case closure to ensure ChildNet meets contract
Measure 3 (The percentage of children reunified who re-entered Out-of-home care
within 12 months shall not exceed 10.5%)
•
The CA must file case plans timely, and ensure each case plan filed is accompanied by
a legal request having the case plan heard before the goal date expires. Once the court
accepts the case plan, the case file must be updated with the actual case plan and court
order accepting the current (not expired) case plan.
•
Continue to strengthen documentation of all inquiries to determine if the child was of
Native American or Alaskan Native heritage by the completion of the ICWA 5323 form.
Well-being:
• Ensure CA updates the Normalcy Plan quarterly, and strengthen documentation of how
children are afforded opportunities to participate in normal life skills activities in the foster
homes and communities that are appropriate for the youth’s respective age or special
needs.
16
•
Ensure all pre-independent living assessments are completed timely and are maintained
in the case file. Also strengthening documentation of services being provided based on
the needs identified from the assessment.
•
Ensuring all cases involving a child 13 years of age or older and in licensed foster,
receive guidance and assistance in developing an educational and career path that is
based on the child’s individual abilities and interests, which is currently being addressed
with the revision of the new Independent Living Transitional Action Plan due to roll out
shortly.
•
Strengthen case file documentation on each youth’s, 15 years of age but not yet 18,
progress towards successfully transitioning from foster care to independence for the
following: IL staffings, permanency staffings, Casey Roundtable forums and thirty-day
home visitations.
•
In reference to the goal of APPLA, case file documentation needs to be strengthen to
show concerted efforts were made to ensure the child is adequately prepared to
transition into independent living and is living in a “permanent” arrangement, based on
the commitment on the part of the caregiver, until he/she reaches the age of majority.
•
Ensure documentation is maintained in the case file of updated child’s physical health,
dental and mental / behavioral health assessment(s) and appropriate services are being
provided to address identified needs.
Federal Child and Family Services Review:
• Strengthen timeliness and documentation of all quarterly supervisory reviews by
considering all aspects of the child's safety, well-being and permanency; and ensuring
follow through on guidance and direction and/or documented the reasons the guidance
and direction were no longer necessary.
17
List of Standards and Data Roll-Up for FY 2010/2011 Q2
% of Yes
No
% of No
NA
Total
1 No child living in the home was re-abused or neglected.
(applicable to in-home cases)
2 The focus child was not re-abused or re-neglected.
(applicable to out-of-home care cases)
24
77.4%
7
22.6%
49
31
60
88.2%
8
11.8%
12
68
3 If a child was re-abused or re-neglected, immediate and
ameliorative interventions were initiated on behalf of the child.
(applicable to all cases)
15
100.0%
0
0.0%
65
15
4 Concerted efforts were made to provide or arrange for
appropriate services for the family to protect the child and
prevent the child's entry into out-of-home care. (applicable to
in-home cases)
23
79.3%
6
20.7%
51
29
17
68.0%
8
32.0%
55
25
19
76.0%
6
24.0%
55
25
18
20
18
11
69.2%
83.3%
78.3%
61.1%
8
4
5
7
30.8%
16.7%
21.7%
38.9%
54
56
57
62
26
24
23
18
6
22.2%
21
77.8%
53
27
73
97.3%
2
2.7%
5
75
40
59.7%
27
40.3%
13
67
40
59.7%
27
40.3%
13
67
38
56.7%
29
43.3%
13
67
5 A thorough initial family assessment was conducted
following the investigative safety assessment that sufficiently
addressed child safety factors and emerging risks. (applicable
to all cases)
5.1 Caregivers' (if removed from)/parents' capacity to protect
and nurture the child;
5.2 Observations of interactions between the child and
siblings and household members
5.3 Emerging risk factors
5.4 Actions needed to address emerging risk factors
5.5 Implementation of a safety plan when needed
5.6 The initial family assessment was completed within 15
working days of ESI staffing/case transfer.
6 Completed service referrals were consistent with the needs
identified through investigative assessment(s), and other
assessments related to safety. (applicable to all cases)
7 The updated family assessment was focused on the
immediate and prospective safety of the child, as well as any
changes and implications in the family's situation related to
emerging concerns and service needs. (applicable to all
cases)
7.1 A review of changes in the family’s condition or
circumstances since the initial assessment that positively or
negatively impacted the child’s safety
7.2 A review of the short and long-term implication of any
changes in individual or family factors affecting family
resources, strengths and/or protective capacities
7.3 An evaluation of signs of emerging danger and a plan to
address them
18
Yes
36
57.1%
27
42.9%
17
63
7.4 A review of the case plan goals met and are remaining,
and the plan to address any barriers that exist to fully meet
the case plan goals.
37
55.2%
30
44.8%
13
67
7.5 The family assessment was completed at least every six
months and/or at critical changes in circumstances of the
family unit.
16
23.9%
51
76.1%
13
67
8 All immediate and emerging safety concerns were
addressed and additional needed interventions were provided
to protect the child. (applicable to all cases)
40
90.9%
4
9.1%
36
44
9 A thorough safety assessment of the home was completed
prior to reunification or placement of the child in an unlicensed
out-of-home care setting. (Applies to cases involving post
placement supervision, and where a child will be placed in an
unlicensed [relative/non-relative] setting.)
26
92.9%
2
7.1%
52
28
Yes
% of Yes
No
% of No
NA
Total
11
91.7%
1
8.3%
68
12
2
40.0%
3
60.0%
75
5
22
78.6%
6
21.4%
52
28
50
84.7%
9
15.3%
21
59
54
87.1%
8
12.9%
18
62
55
83.3%
11
16.7%
14
66
7
63.6%
4
36.4%
69
11
5
45.5%
6
54.5%
69
11
5
45.5%
6
54.5%
69
11
1
33.3%
2
66.7%
77
3
19
79.2%
5
20.8%
56
24
28
30
28
90.3%
96.8%
90.3%
3
1
3
9.7%
3.2%
9.7%
49
49
49
31
31
31
46
38
57.5%
48.1%
34
41
42.5%
51.9%
0
1
80
79
69
86.3%
11
13.8%
0
80
51
64.6%
28
35.4%
1
79
48
64.0%
27
36.0%
5
75
10 Concerted efforts were made during post-placement
supervision to manage the risks following reunification and
prevent re-entry into out-of-home care. (applicable to inhome post-reunification cases)
11 The child remained safe in his/her home after being
discharged from out-of-home care and did not re-enter outof-home care at least 12 months following discharge.
(applicable to out-of-home cases)
12 A multi-disciplinary staffing/assessment for placement
planning was conducted before each placement to ensure
the placement or move was unavoidable. (applicable to
out-of-home care cases)
13 The child's current placement is stable and appropriate
to meet the child's needs with no apparent or significant
risks or projections of disruption. (applicable to out-ofhome care cases)
14 Concerted efforts were made to identify, locate and
evaluate other potential relatives and possible permanent
placements for the child
15 The child experienced no more than two out-of-home
care placement settings during the period under review.
16 If No was entered for #15, all placement changes were
planned in an effort to achieve the child's case goals or to
meet the needs of the child.
17 In cases involving a child in a licensed placement
setting, an exit interview was conducted with the child
when moved from one placement to another, and
appropriate action was taken if the exit interview
documented a concern.
17.1 An exit interview was conducted with the child when
he/she was moved from one placement to another to
discuss the previous placement experience.
17.2 Appropriate action was taken if the exit interview
documented a concern.
18 The parents were notified of all the child's placement
changes. (applicable to out-of-home care cases)
19 The court was informed of the child's placements and
reasons for changes in placement
19.1 Number and type of placement
19.2 Reason for the change in placement.
20 Qualitative supervisory reviews and follow through
were conducted as needed and required.
20.1 Reviews were completed quarterly
20.2 Supervisor considered all aspects of the child's
safety, well-being and permanency
20.3 Supervisor ensured follow through on guidance and
direction or documented the reasons the guidance and
direction were no longer necessary.
21 The case record contained a current (not expired)
case plan. (applicable to court ordered in-home and out-
19
of-home care cases)
22 The current case plan goal was appropriate based on
the child's, and family's circumstances.
23 The case plan specifically addressed visitation and
other contact plans with all case participants.
23.1 Mother
23.2 Father
23.3 Caregiver (removed from)
23.4 Between siblings
24 The case is designed to achieve permanency (out-ofhome care cases) and safety and stability (in-home
cases) through appropriate tasks for the case
participants.
24.1 Mother
24.2 Father
24.3 Child (if developmentally or age appropriate)
24.4 Caregiver (removed from)
25 The services worker communicated with service
providers about the effectiveness of services for involved
case participants. (applicable to all cases)
25.1 Mother
25.2 Father
25.3 Child
25.4 Out of Home Care Provider (includes relative/nonrelative)
26 The child's current placement was in close proximity to
the parents to facilitate face-to-face contact between the
child and parents while the child was in out-of-home care.
(applicable to out-of-home care cases)
26.1 Mother
26.2 Father
27 If No was entered for #26, the location of the child's
current placement was based on the child's needs and
achieving the case plan goal. (applicable to out-of-home)
28 The child was placed with siblings who were also in
licensed and/or non-licensed out-of-home care.
(applicable to out-of-home care cases)
29 If No was entered for #28, there was clear evidence
separation was necessary to meet the child's needs.
(applicable to out-of-home care cases)
30 Concerted efforts were made to ensure visitation (or
other contact) was sufficient between the child and
parents to maintain or promote the continuity of the
relationship between them. (applicable to out-of-home
care cases)
30.1 Mother
30.2 Father
31 Concerted efforts were made to ensure visitation (or
other forms of contact if visitation was not possible)
between the child and his or her siblings and it was of
sufficient frequency to maintain or promote the continuity
of the relationship. (applicable to out-of-home care cases)
32 Concerted efforts were made to maintain the child's
important connections. (applicable to out-of-home care)
20
47
97.9%
1
2.1%
32
48
33
32
94.3%
100.0%
2
0
5.7%
0.0%
45
48
35
32
Yes
% of Yes
No
% of No
NA
Total
23
4
11
100.0%
100.0%
68.8%
0
0
5
0.0%
0.0%
31.3%
57
76
64
23
4
16
45
41
29
11
9
95.7%
100.0%
93.5%
73.3%
100.0%
2
0
2
4
0
4.3%
0.0%
6.5%
26.7%
0.0%
33
39
49
65
71
47
41
31
15
9
53
40
29
28
73.6%
71.4%
69.0%
62.2%
19
16
13
17
26.4%
28.6%
31.0%
37.8%
8
24
38
34
72
56
42
45
34
87.2%
5
12.8%
41
39
47
44
26
90.4%
86.3%
89.7%
5
7
3
9.6%
13.7%
10.3%
28
29
51
52
51
29
5
100.0%
0
0.0%
75
5
16
44.4%
20
55.6%
44
36
12
60.0%
8
40.0%
60
20
46
44
28
85.2%
84.6%
80.0%
8
8
7
14.8%
15.4%
20.0%
26
28
45
54
52
35
21
75.0%
7
25.0%
52
28
51
78.5%
14
21.5%
15
65
33 An inquiry was made to determine if the child was of
Native American or Alaskan Native heritage. (Life of Case
- applicable to out-of-home care and court ordered
supervision cases)
34 If the child is of Native American or Alaskan Native
heritage, the tribe was provided timely notification of its
right to intervene in any state court proceedings seeking
court ordered supervision, an involuntary out-of-home
care placement or termination of parental rights. (Life of
Case - applicable to out-of-home care and court ordered
in-home supervision cases)
35 Concerted efforts were made to place the child in outof-home care in accordance with the Indian Child Welfare
Act placement preferences if the child was of Native
American or Alaskan Native heritage. (Life of Case applicable to out-of-home care cases)
36 The mother was encouraged and supported to
participate in making decisions about her child's needs
and activities.
37 The father was encouraged and supported to
participate in making decisions about his child's needs
and activities.
38 For cases in which an out-of-state placement was, or is
being, explored for the focus child, a complete Interstate
Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC) packet
requesting a non-priority home study was submitted within
the required timeframe. (applicable to out-of-home cases)
39 The information provided in the ICPC packet regarding
the focus child was sufficient to enable the receiving state
to make an appropriate decision concerning approval of
the proposed placement for the focus child.
40 If the child was in out-of-home care for at least 12 of
the most recent 22 months or met other ASFA criteria for
TPR, a TPR petition was filed or joined - Life of Case
41 If a Termination of Parental Rights petition was not
filed, there were compelling reasons and an exception for
not filing the petition was documented.
42 Appropriate steps were taken to identify and recruit an
adoptive family that matched the child's needs.
42.1 If TPR has occurred, appropriate steps have been
taken to identify and recruit an adoptive family.
42.2 If TPR has not occurred, there is evidence
recruitment efforts have been initiated.
43 Appropriate steps were taken to process and approve
an adoptive family that matched the child's needs.
44 If the case involves a youth who has reached 13 but
not yet 15 years of age and he/she is living in a licensed,
out-of-home care placement, a pre-independent living
assessment was completed that identified service needs
and services were provided.
45 If the child is 13 years of age or older and in licensed
foster care, the case management agency provided
guidance and assistance in developing an educational
and career path that is based on the child's individual
abilities and interests.
46 The teen-aged focus child is afforded opportunities to
participate in normal life skills activities in the foster home
and community that are reasonable and appropriate for
his/her respective age or special needs.
21
22
28.2%
56
71.8%
2
78
0
0.0%
5
100.0%
75
5
Yes
% of Yes
No
% of No
NA
Total
0
0.0%
3
100.0%
77
3
38
73.1%
14
26.9%
28
52
20
58.8%
14
41.2%
46
34
2
66.7%
1
33.3%
77
3
3
100.0%
0
0.0%
77
3
22
59.5%
15
40.5%
43
37
11
73.3%
4
26.7%
65
15
14
93.3%
1
6.7%
65
15
11
91.7%
1
8.3%
68
12
3
75.0%
1
25.0%
76
4
15
93.8%
1
6.3%
64
16
3
50.0%
3
50.0%
74
6
8
57.1%
6
42.9%
66
14
5
35.7%
9
64.3%
66
14
47 For youth 15 years of age but not yet 18, the agency
appropriately monitored his/her progress towards
successfully transitioning from foster care to
independence through regular informative staffings.
48 An ongoing assessment of the child(ren)'s needs was
conducted to provide updated information for case
planning purposes. (applicable to all cases)
49 An assessment for residential group care was
completed when required.
50 An ongoing assessment of the mother's needs was
conducted to provide updated information for case
planning purposes. (applicable to all cases)
51 Concerted efforts were made to support the mother's
engagement with services. (applicable to all cases)
52 An ongoing assessment of the father's needs was
conducted to provide updated information for case
planning purposes. (applicable to all cases)
53 Concerted efforts were made to support the father's
engagement in services. (applicable to all cases)
54 An ongoing assessment of the out-of-home care
providers or pre-adoptive parent's service needs was
conducted in order to ensure appropriate care for the
child. (applicable to out-of-home care cases)
55 Concerted efforts were made to actively involve all
case participants in the case planning process:
55.1 Mother
55.2 Father
55.3 Child (if developmentally appropriate)
55.4 Out of Home Providers
56 The frequency of the services worker's visits with all
case participants was sufficient to address issues
pertaining to the safety, permanency goal, and well-being
of the child. (applicable to all cases)
56.1 Mother
56.2 Father
56.3 Child
56.4 Caregiver (out-of-home)
57 The quality of the services worker's visits with case
participants was sufficient to address issues pertaining to
the child's safety, permanency and well-being.
57.1 Mother
57.2 Father
57.3 Child
57.4 Caregiver (out-of-home)
58 Concerted efforts were made to assess the child’s
educational needs during out-of-home placement.
59 If educational needs were identified, necessary
educational services were engaged. (applicable to out-ofhome care cases and in-home cases if relevant)
60 Services effectively reduced or resolved the issues that
interfered with the child's education. (applicable to out-ofhome care cases and in-home cases if relevant)
61 Concerted efforts were made to assess the child’s
physical health care needs. (Applies to all out-of-home
care cases. Applies to in-home cases when relevant to
why the child and family are involved with the dependency
22
4
40.0%
6
60.0%
70
10
71
88.8%
9
11.3%
0
80
3
60.0%
2
40.0%
75
5
Yes
% of Yes
No
% of No
NA
Total
58
89.2%
7
10.8%
15
65
55
88.7%
7
11.3%
18
62
35
77.8%
10
22.2%
35
45
34
77.3%
10
22.7%
36
44
56
91.8%
5
8.2%
19
61
64
52
30
22
50
82.1%
80.0%
65.2%
91.7%
73.5%
14
13
16
2
18
17.9%
20.0%
34.8%
8.3%
26.5%
2
15
34
56
12
78
65
46
24
68
59
21
11
64
56
73.8%
33.3%
28.9%
80.0%
82.4%
21
42
27
16
12
26.3%
66.7%
71.1%
20.0%
17.6%
0
17
42
0
12
80
63
38
80
68
74
41
27
74
63
92.5%
68.3%
67.5%
93.7%
92.6%
6
19
13
5
5
7.5%
31.7%
32.5%
6.3%
7.4%
0
20
40
1
12
80
60
40
79
68
30
73.2%
11
26.8%
39
41
16
84.2%
3
15.8%
61
19
12
80.0%
3
20.0%
65
15
45
65.2%
24
34.8%
11
69
system)
61.1 If the child was removed during the period under
review, or if not removed but brought into the into the
dependency system due to health related issues, he/she
received an EPSDT screening within 72 hours.
61.2 After the removal episode or health issues that
resulted in interventions by the dependency system, and
the EPSDT screening was not done within 72 hours, a
medical screening was completed within a week.
61.3 Documentation reflects that the services agency
complied with the periodicity schedule pertinent to the
child's age and needs.
62 Concerted efforts were made to provide appropriate
services to address the child’s identified physical health
needs. (applicable to out-of-home care cases and in-home
cases if relevant to the reason the agency is involved)
62.1 The diagnoses from physical health care screenings
are documented in the case file.
62.2 Documentation reflects that the services agency
followed-up on treatment plans that the doctor ordered.
63 Concerted efforts were made to assess the child's
dental health care needs.
63.1 Documentation reflects that the child's dental health
care needs were assessed
63.2 Documentation reflects that the services agency
complied with the periodicity schedule pertinent to the
child's age and needs.
64 Appropriate services were provided to address the
child's identified dental health needs.
65 An assessment(s) of the child's mental/behavioral
health needs was conducted.
66 Appropriate services were provided to address the
child's mental/behavioral health needs.
66.1 Documentation reflects that the services agency
matched the needed services specific to the child's
mental/behavioral concerns.
66.2 Documentation reflects that the services agency
followed-up on all treatment plans that the doctor ordered.
67. Express and Informed consent or court authorization
was obtained for the use of each psychotropic medication
deemed necessary by a physician to address the child’s
mental/behavioral health needs.
67.1 The case management organization involved the child
and the parents/legal guardian in the decision making
process by facilitating contacts with physicians for
treatment planning.
67.2 Prior to seeking a medical evaluation to determine the
need to initiate or continue a psychotropic medication, the
case manager provided the Prescribing Practitioner all
pertinent medical information known to the agency at the
time.
67.3 The case manager documented communication with
the child's parent or guardian to ensure parental
awareness of the need to provide express and informed
consent for the prescription of each psychotropic
23
15
71.4%
6
28.6%
59
21
1
16.7%
5
83.3%
74
6
Yes
% of Yes
No
% of No
NA
Total
42
61.8%
26
38.2%
12
68
25
62.5%
15
37.5%
40
40
23
63.9%
13
36.1%
44
36
18
62.1%
11
37.9%
51
29
20
46.5%
23
53.5%
37
43
19
47.5%
21
52.5%
40
40
15
36.6%
26
63.4%
39
41
13
56.5%
10
43.5%
57
23
47
82.5%
10
17.5%
23
57
28
80.0%
7
20.0%
45
35
28
82.4%
6
17.6%
46
34
22
81.5%
5
18.5%
53
27
7
100.0%
0
0.0%
73
7
3
75.0%
1
25.0%
76
4
7
100.0%
0
0.0%
73
7
2
66.7%
1
33.3%
77
3
medication.
67.4 When express and informed consent could not be
obtained from the child's parents, the case management
organization submitted a request for court authorization to
Children's Legal Services.
67.5 When there was a need for a court order, one was
obtained.
68 All data fields in the Florida Safe Families Network
related to psychotropic medications appropriately and
accurately documented the child's prescribed medications
68.1 Name of medication and dosages prescribed
68.2 If the medication is for psychotropic purposes
4
100.0%
0
0.0%
76
4
5
100.0%
0
0.0%
75
5
6
6
7
85.7%
85.7%
100.0%
1
1
0
14.3%
14.3%
0.0%
73
73
73
7
7
7
Yes
% of Yes
No
% of No
NA
Total
7
100.0%
0
0.0%
73
7
7
7
6
100.0%
100.0%
85.7%
0
0
1
0.0%
0.0%
14.3%
73
73
73
7
7
7
60
84.5%
11
15.5%
9
71
72
91.1%
7
8.9%
1
79
1
25.0%
3
75.0%
76
4
1
25.0%
3
75.0%
76
4
1
25.0%
3
75.0%
76
4
1
25.0%
3
75.0%
76
4
Yes
% Yes
No
% No
NA
Total
Safety Outcome 1
99
86.8%
15
13.2%
126
114
Safety Outcome 2
Overall Safety Total
489
588
64.9%
67.7%
265
280
35.1%
32.3%
686
812
754
868
Permanency Outcome 1
332
77.4%
97
22.6%
1251
429
Permanency Outcome 2
Overall Permanency Total
530
862
73.4%
74.9%
192
289
26.6%
25.1%
1038
2289
722
1151
Well-Being Outcome 1
1355
78.3%
375
21.7%
1069
1730
Well-Being Outcome 2
58
77.3%
17
22.7%
165
75
68.3 Prescription begin and end dates
68.4 Dates of expressed and informed parental consent
or court order
68.5 Name of prescribing practitioner
68.6 Reason the medication was prescribed
69 Judicial Reviews were held in a timely manner and
Judicial Review Social Study Report's (JRSSR's)
provided a thorough investigation and social study
concerning all pertinent details relating to the child.
70 Based on all of the information reviewed, it is likely the
child will live in a safe and nurturing environment with
his/her needs being met on a permanent basis during the
next 12 months.
71 For children with the goal of "Another Planned
Permanent Living Arrangement", the agency made
concerted efforts to ensure the child is adequately
prepared to transition into independent living and is living
in a "permanent" arrangement until he/she reaches the
age of majority. (applicable to Another Planned
Permanent Living Arrangement [APPLA] cases)
71.1 The agency has made or is making concerted
efforts to adequately prepare the child to transition from
foster care into independent living upon being
emancipated or reaching the age of majority.
71.2 The living arrangement is deemed "permanent"
based on a commitment on the part of the foster parent,
relative or non-relative caregiver.
71.3 The child is in long-term facility and will remain in
that facility until transition into an adult care facility.
Summary Totals:
24
25
Well-Being Outcome 3
Overall Well-Being Total
435
1848
67.1%
75.3%
213
605
32.9%
24.7%
1592
2826
648
2453
Federal Child and Family Services Review
415
72.3%
159
27.7%
306
574