Benton County
Minnesota Child and Family Service Review
2014 Program Improvement Plan
I. General Information
County/Tribal Agency:
Benton County Human Services
Address: PO Box 740, Foley, MN
Telephone Number: 320-968-5097
Primary Person Responsible for PIP:
Bruce DeGrote
E-mail Address: Bruce DeGrote
Telephone Number: 320-968-5097
DHS Quality Assurance Contact:
Steve Johnson
To be completed by DHS:
Date of Agency/DHS PIP Meeting: 2/14/14
Due Dates for PIP Updates:
Update 1: January 15, 2015
Update 2: April 15, 2015
Update 3: July 15, 2015
Update 4: October 15, 2015
PIP Completion Date: October 2015
E-mail Address: [email protected]
Telephone Number: 651-230-2532 (cell)
Date PIP Approved: pending
Date PIP Progress Reviews Received/Occurred:
II. MnCFSR PIP Recommendations (as identified in the Exit Conference)
PIP RECOMMENDATIONS
SAFETY:
Improve timely contact with children in response to maltreatment reports receiving a Family Assessment response (MnCFSR Item
1, Timeliness Data Report)
PERMANENCY:
Address factors related to re-entry following discharge from foster care (Federal Indicator C1.4)
Analyze and address barriers to placement stability(MnCFSR Item 6 and Federal Indicator 4.2, 4.3)
Address barriers to achieving permanency, particularly for children/youth meeting ASFA time in care requirements and those in
care for extended periods of time (Federal Indicators C2.3, C2.4, C3.1, C3.3)
WELL-BEING:
Improve engagement of all parents in case planning, visitation and if appropriate provide needed services.
SYSTEMIC:
Develop and implement a sustainable case review system that provides reliable data and includes a process for sharing results
(Quality Assurance System)
SAFETY
Goal #1: Improve timely contact with children in response to Family Assessment Reports.
Barriers identified in the review: No issues identified in the case review.
Agency identified barriers: Workload and coverage issues
Baseline:
Timeliness of Contact in Maltreatment Assessments & Investigations (Source: CW Data Dashbo
Baseline
PIP Updates
Q2 ‘13
Q3 ‘13
SCE
met
NSCE-Inv
met
NSCE-FA
72.7%
24/33
75%
6/8
Q4, ‘13
Q1,
‘14
68.4%
13/19
53.3%
8/15
Q2,
‘14
Q3,
‘14
Performance Goal/Method of Measurement:
90% of children will have face-to-face contact within statutory timelines, using the MN CW Data Dashboard as the method of measurem
1
Action Steps
(include persons responsible)
Supervisor will pull SSIS “Timeliness to First Contact” and
“Analysis and Charting Minnesota Report 10 on a monthly basis,
to review Family Assessment Response performance.
Supervisor will review and share group and individual data with
child protection staff during the CP meeting and during monthly
supervision. Social Workers will identify reasons for delay;
develop new strategies to address delays.
Agency will focus on training new staff and clarifying
expectations with current staff to improve timely contact.
Engage Social Workers in a discussion regarding correct
documentation of efforts (not tracked by Data Dashboard) to
make timely contacts.
Clarify and implement agency Policy and expectations regarding
contacting children in the School setting, to help improve
timeliness.
Date
Completed
Updates
1:
2:
3:
4:
PERMANENCY
Goal #2: Address factors related to re-entry following discharge from foster care.
Barriers identified in the review: No barriers identified during the case review. All cases were rated as Strength.
Agency identified barriers: premature case closing without adequate supports/services for relative transfer of custody and Children’s Me
issues
Baseline (Performance at the time of the review):
2013 Case Review Data (if applicable to PIP development)
Annual/Quarterly Performance Data (if applicable to P
County Performance on Federal Data Indicators:
Federal
Nat’l
2013
2014
Indicators
Standard (Baseline)
37.1%
C1.4 Re-entry
9.9% ↓
(13/35)
Performance Goal/Method of Measurement:
Performance Goal/Method of Measurement:
NA
C1.4: 18%
Completion of action steps
Action Steps
Date
Updates
(include persons responsible)
Completed
Examine 2013 Re-Entry data, determine patterns and develop
1:
strategies to address (Supervisor)
2:
Reviews in unit meetings, with CJI, continue internal
3:
discussions. (Bruce and Sandi)
4:
Engage in a discussion with case worker regarding
1:
consideration of what level of support/service occurs following
2:
achievement of permanency goal. (Bruce and Sandi)
3:
4:
Discuss re-entry at CJI meeting, share results of analysis
1:
indicated in first action step. and strategize potential solutions
2:
with a systems perspective.(Bruce)
3:
4:
Continue with RFI for new treatment program with other counties
1:
in Region. Focus on family therapeutic services to follow
2:
reunification. (Sandi)
3:
4:
Development of cross education of workers. DD and CMH
1:
workers sharing information about permanency, relative
2:
searches, etc. (Sandi)
3:
4:
Review DHS Publication “Examining Child Re-entry into Out-of
1:
Home Care” with staff, community and CJI team. After analyzing
2:
the re-entry data, develop hypothesis as why children re-enter
3:
foster care, from the child’s and families perspective and
4:
develop new strategies to address any identified unmet needs.
(Bruce and Sandi)
2
PERMANENCY
Goal #3: Analyze and address barriers to placement stability(MnCFSR Item 6 and Federal Indicator C4.2 C4.3)
Barriers identified in the review: No barriers identified during the case review.
Agency identified barriers: use of consequence placements
Baseline (Performance at the time of the review):
Annual/Quarterly Performance Data (if applicable to P
County Performance on Federal Data Indicators:
Federal
Nat’l
2013
2014
Indicators
Standard
(Baseline)
(Upd
94.2%
C4.1
86.0% ↑
48/51
goal met
47.6%
C4.2
65.4% ↑
10/21
16.7%
C4.3
41.8% ↑
1/6
Performance Goal/Method of Measurement:
Performance Goal/Method of Measurement:
NA
C4.1: 86.0%
C4.2: 65.4%
C4.3: 41.8%
Completion of action steps
Action Steps
Date
Updates
(include persons responsible)
Completed
Extract data from SSIS Charting and Analysis regarding stability
1:
in placement in 2013, analyze and identify barriers causing
2:
instability (Bruce and Sandi)
3:
4:
Bring analysis to CJI and/or Community Consult team for
1:
potential solutions as a system. Discuss the use of consequence
2:
placements and consider what alternative community programs
3:
might be available to address the child’s behavioral issues.
4:
(Bruce)
Engage case workers in a discussion regarding the benefits of
strengthening relative placements by matching of caregivers to
child needs and building in supportive services to caregivers.
(Bruce and Sandi)
1:
2:
3:
4:
PERMANENCY
Goal #4: •
Address barriers to achieving permanency, particularly for children/youth meeting ASFA time in care requirements and
extended periods of time Federal Indicators C2.3, C2.4, C3.1, C3.3)
Barriers identified in the review: No barriers identified in the case review, all cases were rated as Strength.
Agency identified barriers:
Baseline (Performance at the time of the review):
Annual/Quarterly Performance Data (if applicable to P
County Performance on Federal Data Indicators:
Federal
Nat’l
2013
201
Indicators
Standard
(Baseline)
(Up
0%
C2.3
22.7% ↑
0/2
C2.4
10.9% ↑
0%
0/4
25%
1/4
50%
C3.3
37.5% ↓
1/2
Performance Goal/Method of Measurement:
C3.1,
Performance Goal/Method of Measurement:
3
29.1% ↓
NA
Action Steps
(include persons responsible)
Complete data analysis for each of these data measures
regarding barriers to achieving permanency and report results in
a future PIP Update.
Re-exploration of relatives for children in care for longer
periods of time utilizing newer strategies (Lexus/Nexus) (Bruce
and Sandi) Develop procedures /expectations for reconsidering
relatives.
Complete FGDM youth in transition conferences for all older
youth in foster care. (Bruce and Sandi)
Explore usefulness of permanency round tables by consulting
with Wright, Sherburne, Stearns County Supervisors who are
familiar with and participated in Regional Permanency
Roundtables.(Sandi)
Observe quarterly Permanency Roundtable process in
Sherburne, Stearns and Wright Counties.
Invite DHS Representative to discuss PRT’s with Agency
Leadership.
Determine whether Agency is committed to involvement in
PRT’s. (Values Training, Skills Training, DHS facilitated PRT
case reviews.)
C2.3: 22.7%
C2.4: 10.9%
C3.1: 29.1%?
C3.3: 37.5%?
Completion of action steps
Date
Completed
Updates
1:
2:
3:
4:
1:
2:
3:
4:
1:
2:
3:
4:
1:
2:
3:
4:
WELL-BEING
Goal #5: Improve engagement of all parents in case planning, visitation and if appropriate provide needed services.
Barriers identified in the review: visits with parents didn’t occur at a frequency that met needs to accomplish case plan goals; father /chi
parents (visitation); limited engagement of parents in developing case plans.
Agency identified barriers:
Baseline (Performance at the time of the review):
2014 Case Review Data (if applicable to PIP development)
MnCFSR Items 13,17, 18 and 20: Assessing parent’s needs 78%
Performance Goal/Method of Measurement:
Performance Goal/Method of Measurement:
Supervisor review of cases with 90% of the cases being reviewed will receive
strength ratings and recommended goal language. Completion of action steps
90% of the cases will have had discussions with parents regarding nonresident parents involved in the children’s life, will gather contact information
and demonstrate efforts to contact, engage nonresident parents in case
planning, services and visits with their child
Action Steps
Date
Updates
(include persons responsible)
Completed
Engage caseworkers in a discussion regarding how the needs of
1:
non-resident parents are being assessed and addressed during
2:
visits with parents. Establish policies/expectations for staff for
3:
identifying, locating and engaging non-resident and non4:
custodial parents in child welfare cases.(Sandi & Bruce)
Engage case workers in a discussion; establish
1:
policies/expectations regarding frequency of visits between the
2:
caseworker and parents, including the need to meet with non3:
custodial parents. (Sandi & Bruce)
4:
The agency will conduct internal quality assurance reviews on 6
1:
cases each quarter including child protection, in-home
2:
placement, family assessment and investigation on a quarterly
3:
basis using the DHS QA tool kit. (Bruce)
4:
4
Engage case workers in a discussion; establish
policies/expectation so that children have frequent and quality
visits with their parents that meet s the children’s need for
contact and supports their permanency goal. Share DHS Best
Practice Guide for Visitation with case workers.
1:
2:
3:
4:
SYSTEMIC FACTOR
Goal #6: Develop, enhance, and/or maintain an internal process for the ongoing evaluation of child welfare practices and systems, lead
improvements.
Current process/practice(s):
Barriers:
Action Steps
Date
Updates
(include persons responsible)
Completed
Establish and maintain a process that yields valid data:
1:
2:
3:
4:
1:
2:
3:
4:
Develop/implement a process for analyzing and learning from the data:
1:
2:
3:
4:
1:
2:
3:
4:
Use the data to effectively implement practice and system change:
Pull reports monthly, analyze data:
1:
Timeliness report (Bruce)
2:
3:
Pull reports quarterly, analyze data
4:
Federal Indicators in PIP
CW Dashboard Performance Data (Bruce and Sandi)
Results of internal QA reviews will be shared with staff, child
1:
protection team and children’s mental health team. Strategies
2:
will have benchmarks to measure effectiveness, which will be
3:
reviewed and analyzed at pre-determined intervals. If
4:
implemented strategies are not resulting in necessary
improvements, Program Improvement Plan goals reconvene
groups and develop new and additional strategies and
implement new strategies. (Bruce and Sandi)
Other: Each re-entry case will be reviewed at the respective team meeting. Discussion will occur regarding what, if anything could have
entry. (Use Foster Care Re-entry Review Instrument as a guide for the discussion). (Bruce and Sandi)
FEDERAL DATA INDICATORS
C1.1
C1.2
C1.3
C1.4
C2.1
C2.2
Of all children discharged from foster care to reunification in the year shown, and who had been in foster care for eight days or
were reunified in less than 12 months from the time of the latest removal from home?
Median length of stay in foster care to reunification (months)
Of all children entering foster care for the first time in the six-month period just prior to the year shown, and who remained in fo
or longer, what percentage were reunified in less than 12 months?
Of all children discharged from care to reunification in the 12-month period prior to the year shown, what percentage re-entered
12 months from the date of discharge?
Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in the year shown, what percent were discharged in
from the date of latest removal from home?
Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in the year shown, what was the median length of s
months) from the date of latest removed from home to the date of adoption?
5
C2.3
C2.4
C2.5
C3.1
C3.2
C3.3
C4.1
C4.2
C4.3
Of all children in foster care on the first day of the year shown who were in foster care for 17 continuous months or longer (and
the year shown, were not discharged from foster care with a discharge reason of live with relative, reunify or guardianship), wh
discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption by the last day of the year shown?
Of all children in foster care on the first day of the year shown who were in foster care for 17 continuous months or longer, and
adoption prior to that day, what percent become legally free for adoption during the first 6 months of the year shown?
Of all children who became legally free for adoption in the 12-month period prior to the year shown, what percent were discharg
finalized adoption in less than 12 months of becoming legally free?
Of all children in foster care for 24 months or longer on the first day of the year shown, what percent were discharged to a perm
their 18th birthday and by the end of the year (including adoption, guardianship, reunification or transfer of custody to a relative
Of all children who were discharged from foster care in the year shown, and who were legally free for adoption at the time of di
was discharged to a permanent home prior to their 18th birthday (including adoption, guardianship, reunification or transfer of c
Of all children who, during the year shown, either (1) were discharged from foster care prior to age 18 with a discharge reason
reached their 18th birthday while in foster care, what percent were in foster care for three years or longer?
Of all children served in foster care during the year shown who were in foster care for at least eight days but less than 12 mont
two or fewer placement settings?
Of all children served in foster care during the year shown who were in foster care for at least 12 months but less than 24 mont
two or fewer placement settings?
Of all children served in foster care during the year shown who were in foster care for at least 24 months, what percent had two
settings?
6