new jersey round two child and family services reviews pip

New Jersey CFSR PIP

1

New Jersey

2009 Child and Family Services Review Program Improvement Plan

I. PIP General Information ACF Region: II State: New Jersey

Lead ACF Regional Office Contact Person: Evelyn Torres-Ortega

Telephone Number: 212-264-2890, ext. 146

E-mail Address: [email protected]

State Agency Name: New Jersey Department of Children and Families

Address: 222 South Warren St. P.O. Box 729, 3rd Floor Trenton NJ 08625-0729

Telephone Number: 609-984-4500

Lead State Agency Contact Person for the Child and Family Services Review: Donna Younkin



Lead State Agency PIP Contact Person (if different): Cheryl S. MacDougall



Lead State Agency Data Contact Person: Aziz Haidi


E-mail Address: [email protected] State PIP Team Members * (name, title, organization) 1. Christine Mozes, Director, DYFS 2. Cindy Herdman-Ivans, Director, DPCP 3. Lisa von Pier, Deputy Director, DYFS 4. David Sims, Deputy Director, DYFS 5. Joanne Dietrich, Chief of Juvenile and Children in Court, Family Practice Division, Administrative Office of the Courts 6. Robert Sabreen, Chief Administrator, DCF 7. Erin O’Leary, Director, Legal Affairs, DCF 8. Marsha Hannah, Area Director, DYFS 9. Kathi Way, Area Director, DYFS

New Jersey CFSR PIP

2

10. Vernita Blocker, Area Director, DYFS 11. Charles Jones, Area Director, DYFS 12. Kathi Callaghan, Area Director, DYFS 13. Peter Mancusi, Area Director, DYFS 14. Ed Thompson, Area Director, DYFS 15. Shelley Lea, Area Director, DYFS 16. Jane Fields, Area Director, DYFS 17. Valerie Kelly, Area Director, DYFS 18. Elizabeth McGovern, Area Director, DYFS 19. Jean Marimon, Area Director, DYFS 20. Vernita Blocker, Area Director, DYFS 21. Jackie Zavaglia, Special Assistant to the Director, DYFS 22. Joanne Dietrich, Chief of Juvenile and Children in Court, Family Practice Division, Administrative Office of the Courts 23. Karen Baldoni, Deputy Administrator, Business Operations, DCF 24. Kathy Niedt, Assistant Director for Case Practice, DYFS 25. Lisa Hartman, Supervisor, Case Practice Unit, DYFS 26. Ann Gunning, Assistant Director, Office of Adolescent Practice and Permanency, DYFS 27. Claudia Tahan, Executive Assistant, Office of Legal Affairs, DCF 28. Ellen Kelly, Assistant Director, Adoption Services, DCF 29. Lauren Carlton, Assistant Attorney General in Charge, DLPS 30. Sonia Martinez, Court Improvement Program Director, Family Practice Division, Administrative Office of the Courts 31. Jo Astrid Glading, Assistant Public Advocate, Office of the Child Advocate 32. Allison Blake, Ph.D. Director of Institute for Families, Rutgers University 33. Joseph Suozzo, First Assistant Child Advocate, Office of the Child Advocate 34. Anthony N. DeFabio, Psy.D, Chief Executive Officer, Robin’s Nest 35. Debra Lancaster, Director, Child Health Unit, DCF 36. Jessica Pena Cooke, Deputy Director, Strategic Planning, DCF

New Jersey CFSR PIP

3

Introduction

Lead Child Welfare Agency The New Jersey Department of Children and Families serves as the State’s cabinet-level department with responsibility for child welfare, child behavioral health, child abuse prevention, and community support programs for children and their families.

The primary organizational units of DCF serving children and families are: • The Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS), which is the lead child protection

agency. DYFS has 47 local field offices across 12 designated “Areas”, each comprised of one or more counties. A State Central Registry (SCR) operates as the single entry point for reports of child abuse and neglect and referrals for child welfare services.

• The Division of Child Behavioral Health Services (DCBHS), which is the primary agency for mental and behavioral health services to children and youth.

• The Division of Prevention and Community Partnerships, which is focused on prevention networks to support children and families throughout the State.

Mission, Values, Commitments The mission of DCF, and the aim of the child welfare system as a whole, is to ensure and promote the safety, permanency, and well-being of children, and to support families. Guidance to implement this mission is expressed in the values and principles articulated in New Jersey’s Case Practice Model. They bear repeating as the foundation for PIP change strategies. Core Values

• Safety: Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect. • Permanency: Children do best when they have strong families, preferably their own, and

when that is not possible, a stable relative, foster or adoptive family. • Well-Being: We will offer relevant services to children and families to meet their identified

needs and promote children’s development, education, physical and mental health. • Family Capacity: Most families have the capacity to change with the support of

individualized service responses. • Partnership: Government cannot do the job alone; real partnerships with people and

agencies involved in a child’s life are essential to ensure child safety, permanency and well-being, and build strong families.

Key Principles

• The child’s safety and health are paramount in decision-making • Service provision respects the culture of children and families • There shall be no discrimination in service provision based on race, ethnicity, sexual

orientation, physical or emotional handicap, religion, or special language needs • Stabilization is achieved where possible and appropriate • Relevant services respond to the unique needs of the child and family • Decisions will be made with the Family Team

New Jersey CFSR PIP

4

• Timely reunification is achieved where possible • Placements should be in least restrictive settings that promote continuity for the child • Decisions consider a long term view of the child’s needs Reform Efforts At the time of its first Child and Family Services Review (CFSR Round 1) in 2004, New Jersey began implementation of an ambitious Child Welfare Reform Plan developed in response to class action litigation (Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine), the progress of which was to be monitored by a panel of child welfare experts. In July 2006, the State of New Jersey and Children’s Rights, Inc. reached agreement on a Modified Settlement Agreement in the class-action litigation. As approved in the United States District Court, the Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP) was appointed to independently monitor the State’s compliance with the goals and principles of the MSA. System partners continue to forge ahead collaboratively on transformation.

Reform and the PIP In the midst of the challenging work of Child Welfare reform, the results of New Jersey’s second CFSR show that we are making progress. Although each CFSR represents a snapshot in time, the picture of the child welfare system that emerges from recent CFSR findings is noticeably better than that of the 2004 review:

• Performance was sustained or rated better in 34 of the 45 individual review criteria • Higher ratings of achievement were noted in six of seven outcomes • Three additional systemic factors were rated as in substantial conformity The directive in these results is to “stay the course” of reform and make targeted use of current strategies to generate improvement in the areas of concern noted in the CFSR Final Report. The action plans articulated in this PIP align with MSA commitments, drawing on the reform efforts and initiatives that have occurred or are in progress. Continued deployment of the Case Practice Model through the process of “immersion” remains the centerpiece of our efforts. Immersion is an intensive process that includes:

• Training for all staff members in those sites • On-site coaching provided by consultant staff who have worked with DCF technical

assistance partners to develop internal capacity to coach • Concurrent development of the local provider partners • Development of the infrastructure including the capacity to schedule and facilitate family

team meetings Coaching and training at the Immersion Sites is time intensive. DCF leadership has worked with the Child Welfare Practice and Policy Group to adapt the full Utah curriculum, Developing Strength Based, Individualized Child and Family Practice, for New Jersey.

New Jersey CFSR PIP

5

Coaching and training are interspersed to allow staff to learn, practice what they learn, reflect on their practice, and incorporate improvements into their practice. There are regular meetings with leadership to assess progress, identify challenges, problem solve, and engage in mutual learning.

Developing New Jersey’s PIP Upon reviewing the September 28, 2009 CFSR Final Report, Items rated as “Area Needing Improvement” and thus required for inclusion in the PIP fell into six areas. Responsible Lead(s) were identified for each area. The Leads were charged with: • identifying stakeholders with information bearing on the Items under focus, • reviewing relevant data as well as ongoing initiatives or current actions that address the cited

areas, and • developing an action plan that would address areas needing improvement that were noted in

the CFSR Final Report The resulting action plans were reviewed in a work session on October 26th and 27th, 2009, with ACF Regional Office and Central Office partners that included the Leads and key stakeholders. A conference call with the Performance Measurement Advisory Group (PMAG) occurred on October 28, 2009. Based on the consultation received in these sessions, initial plans were further refined to form this PIP document. As the following pages illustrate, New Jersey is approaching its PIP with six key strategies: Continuing implementation of the Case Practice Model Case practice is the lynchpin for improving and sustaining positive outcomes of safety, permanency, and well-being. Further deployment of CPM will increase the ability of casework staff to consistently implement practices that, because they are uniquely responsive to children and families, drive better outcome for children and families.

This strategy will address the CFSR findings regarding the need to improve assessment and intervention in all interventions from safety and risk through the well being areas of education, health, and mental health needs. Improving assessment practice will support more effective work with children and families from first contact through transition away from DCF involvement. Also within this strategy framework, we will fully integrate the CPM with the concurrent planning strategies, streamlining requirements and reinforcing a single model for achieving permanency with our families and system partners.

Strengthening the use of initial Family Team Meetings (FTMs) Family Team Meetings are an essential element of the Case Practice Model, and become especially significant for children entering placement. This strategy extends beyond the implementation of FTMs as a practice foundation, to the examination of performance in terms of

New Jersey CFSR PIP

6

how well FTMs are conducted and how well they support our work with children and families. Through this focus on FTM process quality, we will address the CFSR findings regarding the need to improve engagement with families, to increase the use of relatives as resources for the family team, and to strengthen planning processes with families.

A specific protocol to consistently evaluate FTM quality will provide local feedback from the reviewer to the supervisor and worker. By addressing the findings with improvement action and supportive supervision, we will strengthen our system on three levels: enhancing the individual practice of the worker; 2) improving engagement of the family in the planning process; and 3) developing individualized plans that will better support positive outcomes.

Strengthening visitation practice with families The thrust of this strategy is to address the CFSR findings of need to increase connections of children in placement with their parents, siblings, extended families, and communities. The quality of those interactions, as well, should support timely and successful reunification, or alternate permanency for children. In this strategy area, we will secure technical assistance to learn about Planned, Purposeful, and Progressive Visit Model, and then apply that information to our approaches to improve visitation and family connections. Because local factors, e.g., geography, population, transportation, services, etc. can significantly affect visitation and connections, our plan is to “incubate” approaches that are locally-focused, beginning in Cape May and Cumberland counties. We will share general practices and lessons learned through statewide Practice TIPs newsletters as we evaluate the incubation effort in Cape May and Cumberland, and will expand the locally-focused approach to additional counties.

Strengthening Court/Agency partnership efforts to support permanency This strategy area will address the CFSR findings regarding the need to improve timely goal selection, timely TPR filing and finalization, and timely permanency for children and families through increased collaboration between the Agency and the Courts. Adding the identification of absent parents as an agenda point for the CPRB 45 Day Review provides another mechanism to focus improvement in this area. Through the CIP cross-training summit, system stakeholders can collaborate on a variety of areas identified in the CFSR as requiring attention: granting extensions, identification of proper permanency alternatives, TPR filing in accordance with ASFA, and the Case Practice Model. In this strategy area, we will use existing avenues to promote and sustain collaboration. For example, DCF will bring relevant data to the CIC Advisory Board meetings as an opportunity to highlights strengths as well as areas that the system partners can address collaboratively. Also, DCF will offer materials that illuminate the agency perspective on TPR for consideration for inclusion in the Comprehensive Judicial Orientation Program (CJOP).

Finally, the issue of delays in permanency due to a lengthy appeals process is an issue that has been taken up by a CIC Conference of Presiding Judges and Appellate Division workgroup, which will issue a report and recommendations to the Administrative Director of the Courts.

New Jersey CFSR PIP

7

Enhancing Service accessibility and availability The focus of this strategy is to strengthen accessibility to services that respond to an individual’s assessed needs. As part of its revamped contract monitoring and review process, DCF will ensure that feedback on services/needs is developed from children, families, and all levels of staff to better identify unmet and emerging needs. Providers’ adherence to program standards and quality will be closely monitored, with performance measures integrated into contracts as well as with utilization reviews. Importantly, within the strategy is also a focus on heightening worker awareness of the types of services available and how those services may be accessed to support children and families. Within this strategy, New Jersey is in the process of implementing Domestic Violence Liaisons program within the DYFS Area offices. The program is a partnership of DCF and NJ Coalition for Battered Women to strengthen coordination/communication between the child protection and domestic violence service systems. The purpose is to: increase safety and stability and improve outcomes for children and their non offending parents when child abuse and co-occurs; to strengthen the capacity of DCF/DYFS to respond effectively to families. Domestic Violence Liaisons(DVLs) are domestic violence professionals, co-located at the DYFS Area/Local offices, who: assist DYFS casework staff in the assessment and service provision of DYFS protective service cases where domestic violence may be occurring; assist domestic violence providers in the identification of possible protective service cases that should be referred to DYFS; and help coordinate services for clients. The DV Liaisons will provide on-site case consultation, safety planning, support, information and referral, and advocacy for the non offending parents and their children. In addition to the initial training received by the DVLs, there are ongoing meetings of the liaisons to discuss implementation and other issues. DYFS staff are in the process of being trained on the Domestic Violence protocol (adopted October 2009). By the end of June 2010, 1100 staff will have been trained. The DVL position is a key component of the training. Monitoring is a joint effort between the Division of Prevention and Community Partnership Office of Domestic Violence Services and the DCF Contract staff. Implementing a quality model New Jersey’s quality model is as follows: • Outcomes and practice expectations are articulated throughout DCF via the MSA

requirements (including 50+ metrics), and the CFSR process, including outcomes and PIP measures.

• Data is produced regularly and available to staff to enable performance review at all levels of

the agency. SafeMeasures allows data to be on the desktop of each agency staff person with a one-day lag for over 70 metrics.

• Data is periodically reviewed at Executive staff, Area Director, and Local Office Manager

meetings to identify trends and areas needing improvement.

New Jersey CFSR PIP

8

• Performance review occurs as the Safe Measures, MSA, and CFSR data is applied at all levels: case, worker, unit, local office, county, area, statewide. The DYFS Director as well as Senior Managers define statewide and local areas of emphasis, respectively.

• Based on the findings of the reviews, follow-up action is taken to correct identified issues.

Subsequent data is monitored to confirm progress. • The Qualitative Review process introduced in 2010, as with the CFSR, specifically generates

a report and requires a formal corrective action plan. • In developing these plans, the staff consider potential factors contributing to the

identified concern, and the related implications for improvement, e.g. change in practice, training, resources, supervisory guidance, tools/tips/guides, etc.

• Progress in achieving improvement is monitored through the final corrective action plan. This strategy reflects the following activities which comprise the DCF Quality system: • Qualitative Reviews - The purpose of the Qualitative Review (QR) process is to evaluate the

quality of case practice and system effectiveness in supporting the children and families we serve. The QR examines the status of the child and family in several important areas of life, e.g. safety, stability, health, and family resourcefulness. Also examined is how the family has been supported by the system in key performance areas, e.g. engagement, family teamwork, functional assessment, service effectiveness. In addition each QR includes a separate review of Child Protective Services investigations.. An improvement plan will be generated to address findings of each review. New Jersey has piloted the QR process and is scheduled to conduct a QR involving at least 80 cases across eight sites in 2010.

• Modified Settlement Agreement – The performance measurement focus of the MSA includes

the semi-annual production and analysis of more than 50 measures of system performance. These measures cover: screening and investigative practice; implementation of the Case Practice Model; placement of children in out-of-home care; repeat maltreatment and re-entry into care; permanency outcomes; health care; mental health care; services to families, and services to older youth. DCF’s progress in improving is closely monitored by a federal court judge and the appointed monitor.

• DCF is participating in a three year project with the NCIC to develop the skills of DYFS

management and frontline supervisors in the use of managing by data. This “Manage by Data” project has three essential components: the review of best practices of child welfare agencies across the country in managing with data; the development of a project plan to train, coach, and mentor supervisory and management staff in understanding and using data to drive performance improvement; and the implementation of that plan, with an expectation of completion by June 2012.

• Data Analysis: There is a rich array of data available to staff at all levels to use in

monitoring work, assessing performance, and gauging progress. Through the utilization of data by the DYFS Director with Area Directors and Managers, data is used effectively to

New Jersey CFSR PIP

9

review performance, identify strengths and areas needing improvement, and monitor progress.

• This data review practice rolled up to the DCF Executive Management meetings, at DYFS Area Director meetings, and at statewide Local Office Manager meetings, provides a broad horizon to understand performance and program needs across the state, and permits for the prioritization of areas of focus for improvement.

• Court and Agency Data review: The assessment of data with system stakeholders as brought

by Area Directors to CIC Advisory Boards meetings. This element of our PIP is intended to unify stakeholders around performance review, and to spur improvement action based on the story of the data.

• Contract Monitoring: Strengthening the contract monitoring system to include performance-

based measurement, utilization review, and enhanced stakeholder feedback, is designed to increase the quality and accessibility of services for children and families.

Other current initiatives in New Jersey that will assist in addressing the CFSR findings include: NCSACW-In-Depth Technical Assistance (IDTA) In January 2009, New Jersey was selected to participate in the National Center on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare (NCSACW) program of In-Depth Technical Assistance. This initiative is led by the New Jersey’s Division of Addiction Services; Division of Youth and Family Services, and the Administrative Office of the Courts. The IDTA will support the State’s continuing efforts to meet the child welfare outcomes for safety, permanency and well-being, as well as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s benchmarks relating to recovery and wellness. Currently, three cross-system subcommittees are in place: data systems and sharing; best practices in addressing substance abuse and child welfare; and staff training and development. The aim of IDTA work is to heighten joint accountability and shared outcomes through: • Improving cross system training and workforce development capacity to more effectively

address the co-occurrence of substance abuse and child maltreatment; • Improving systems and practice for families with substance use disorders who are involved

in the child welfare and family judicial systems by assisting local and State agencies; • Developing a comprehensive program of information gathering and dissemination; • Helping to develop applications that promotes effective practice, organizational, and system

changes at the local, state, and national levels; • Strengthening existing initiatives serving substance abusing families involved with child

welfare system; • Developing a pilot project for the integration of the DYFS Child Welfare Substance Abuse

Consortia and Family Drug Court (FDC) Initiatives in Essex County.

May 2010 NJ CFSR PIP Matrix A

IV. PIP Matrix

State: New JerseyDate Submitted: 4/26/2010

PIP: CFSR Round 2Quarterly Report:

Quarter:

Part A: Strategy Measurement Plan and Quarterly Status Report

Primary Strategy: Applicable CFSR Outcomes

or Systemic Factors:

Safety 2

Well-Being 2 and 3

Goal: Applicable CFSR Items: 3, 4, 21, 23

Action Steps and BenchmarksPerson

ResponsibleEvidence of Completion

Quarter

Due Quarter Completed Quarterly Update

1.1 Deploy Case Practice Model to additional offices

through "immersion" process

1.1.1 Additional offices have completed "immersion" and are implementing the CPM

Deputy Director for Case Practice

Report on CPM implementation status shows immersion in additional 14

LO's

6 LOs - Q4

8 LOs - Q81.2 Integrate Concurrent Planning and Case Practice

Strategies

1.2.1 Establish work group reflecting all levels of staff, management, and leadership to plan and develop guidance to reinforce CPM.

Deputy Director for Case Practice Workgroup established Q1

Continue Implementation of the Case Practice Model

Improve case practice to enhance family capacity and support family success

A - 1


1.2.2 Develop a field guide to reflect the Case Practice Model, that reflects the integration of strategies, promotes consistent application of assessment methods, reflects best practices in key areas such as visits and connections, and reinforces the routine involvement of children and parents in the case planning process

Deputy Director for Case Practice Field Guide draft Q7

1.2.3 Review with stakeholders prior to finalization. Deputy Director for Case Practice

Documentation of ReviewFinal Field Guide copy Q7

1.2.4 Distribute field guide according to plan to disseminate and educate

Deputy Director for Case Practice

Distribution plan with documentation of completion. Q8

1.3 Strengthen Safety and Risk assessment throughout

the life of the case by integration within Case Practice

elements, e.g. engaging, teaming, planning through

participation in the Casey Family Programs "Signs of

Safety" (SOS) collaborative Project

1.3.1 Internal/external workgroup established Workgroup established Q1

1.3.2 Review instruments and process within context of CPM Modified instruments available Q4

1.3.3 Transfer findings of SOS into the work in Action Step 1.2 to inform efforts to reinforce assessment

Recommendations from SOS internal workgroup provided

to 1.2 workgroupQ4

Deputy Director for Operations

A - 2




Quarter


1.4.1 Orient Local Office Staff to FSCIAA requirement, process, and practice expectations DYFS Director Communication to staff Q3

1.4.2 Train educational liaisons and introduce their specific role as an education liaison to LO Staff

Training description and attendance report Q3

1.4.3 Educational liaisons are functional in Local OfficesLiaison listExamples of quarterly meeting minutes

Q6

1.5 DCF will train field staff and supervisors to use NJ

Mental Health Screening Tool (NJMHST)

1.5.1 Develop curriculum Training curriculum Q5

1.5.2 Conduct "train the trainers" sessions Director, Child Health Services Training attendance report Q6

1.5.3 Begin Roll out of training in Local Offices Initial training attendance Q7

1.5.4 Establish process to evaluate training and implementation, and refine as needed.

Training evaluation processEvaluation report Q8

1.5.5 Expand to at least 75% of Local Offices Additional training attendance report Q8

DYFS Director

A - 3




Permanency 2

Well-being 1

Case Review




Quarter


2.1 Track and Monitor FTMs

2.1.1 Devise a protocol and process for reviewing FTM quality, using "FTM Minutes and Notes" to evaluate practice. Protocol Q4

2.1.2 Identify two CPM immersion offices and test the review process. Review findings Q4

2.1.3 Take practice improvement action based on FTM protocol findings and informed by best practice (e.g., field guide 1.2 work, Visitation and Family Connection Practice 3.2).

Sample of improvement action Q5

2.1.4 Refine/improve protocol as needed based on 2.1.2 test findings Final Protocol Q5

2.1.5 Expand the review process to at least an additional 10 Local Offices as immersion is completed. Review findings 4 LOs- Q5

Review findings 6 LOs - Q8

Strengthen the Use of Initial Family Team Meetings

Engage families and system partners in family-centered decision-making

DYFS Deputy Director for Case

Practice

A - 4



or Systemic Factors:Permanency 1 and 2




Quarter


3.1 Obtain technical assistance from the NRC to identify

best practices in maintaining connections between the

biological parents, child in placement, and his/her siblings.

Include positive visitation practices.

3.1.1 Receive orientation/consultation in the model of Planned, Purposeful, and Progressive Visit Model to identify ways to use elements of the model to inform select PIP strategies to strengthen the Case Practice Model

DYFS Assistant Director for Case

Practice

Report on Technical assistance - Agenda from

orientation with and report of key findings/outcomes, and

relevant action plan identified

Q3

3.2 Implement relevant action plan elements developed in

3.1.1 to visitation and family connection practice

improvement. Focus on relative placements, incubating

change in Cape May and Cumberland counties.

3.2.1 Gather data, including on the frequency of visits and key visit participants, e.g. mothers, fathers, children sibling groups, and children of incarcerated parents, to assure improvement efforts are responsive to local conditions.

Area Directors for Cape May and

Cumberland Counties

Findings on visitation frequency and participant

identification Q3

Enhance the relationship and connection between children in placement and their parents and siblings to support permanency

Strengthen Visitation Practice and Connections with Families

A - 5




Quarter


3.2.2 Train staff, paraprofessionals, provider staff, relatives, and resource parents involved in visitation services (e.g. transporting, preparing, supervising) on the importance of visitation and elements of visitation (e.g. prepare, conduct, supervise, debrief, and record)


Practice

Training description(s) and attendance report(s) Q5

3.2.2.1 Offer training on the impact of incarceration on visitation and parenting via Stockton College for staff as relevant per 3. 2.1 data collection.

Assistant Area Directors

Curriculum and attendance report Q4

3.2.3 Develop and implement a user-friendly reporting form for use by relatives and relative care providers to document visitation and pilot use


Practice

Documentation format and pilot findings Q5

3.2.4 Evaluate incubation project and refine as neededDYFS Assistant Director for Case

Practice Evaluation report Q5

3.2.4.1 expand to additional counties, via practice TIP Newsletters


Practice 1st Practice TIP Newsletter Q5

2nd Practice TIP Newsletter Q7

A - 6




Permanency 1

Case Review




Quarter


4.1 Litigate TPR complaint filing

4.1.1 Litigate to win for DYFS the exclusive right to determine whether and when to file a TPR complaint

Assistant Attorney General in Charge,

DYFS

Copy of Brief filed with NJ Supreme Court Q2

4.2 Reinforce Key issues with Deputy Attorneys General

(DAGs)

4.2.1 Semi-annually a SafeMeasures report on TPR filings will be distributed to all DAGs so they can act on anything coming up or overdue

Assistant Attorney General in Charge,

DYFSSafeMeasures report example Q2

4.2.3 Train Child Placement Review Boards to make an appropriate inquiry, at the 45 Day Review Hearing, into what steps have been taken to locate absent parents

Vicinage Staff, Family Practice Division

Staff

Agenda and report of training. Q4

4.3 Conduct 2-day cross-training Summit

4.3.1 Conduct a 2-day Summit of cross-training for child welfare system stakeholders in a variety of topical areas including :-granting extensions-permanency issues and alternatives-TPR in accordance with ASFA-Case Practice Model

Administrative Office of the Courts, Family

Practice Division

Summit Agenda/Session Description

Report on Attendance

Q6

Strengthen Court/Agency Partnership Efforts to Support Permanency

Improve timeliness of permanency for children and families

A - 7




Quarter


4.3.2 Consult with Bill Stanton to determine needed NRC technical assistance to provide guidance on curriculum content or session structure to target the topics noted above


Practice Division Report on technical assistance Q4

4.4 Continue actions to incorporate adoption cases in the

Family Automated Case Tracking System (FACTS)

4.4.1 Visit counties to gather requirements and create business rules for the system

Documentation of rules / requirements Q8

4.4.2 Initiate development of a "Children in Court" search engine for use in conducting background checks on A117adoptive parents

Key Screens available Q8

4.5 Review outcome and court-related measurement data

at Children in Court Advisory meetings to identify

strengths and opportunities for improvement action the

CIC Advisory Board may initiate

4.5.1 At least twice per year, DCF will provide Area Directors with measurement data and headlines, regarding areas of positive progress and areas needing improvement, to discuss at local Children in Court (CIC) Advisory Board meetings.

Area Directors Examples of Data and Headlines Q4

4.5.2 Area Directors will present the data at the CIC Advisory Board meeting, and make recommendations to engage stakeholders in developing action steps the CIC Advisory Board could take to improve in identified areas.

Area DirectorsExamples of Notes of

attendance with data shared and follow-up decisions noted

Q6


Practice Division

A - 8




Quarter


4.6 Share DCF training materials with Judiciary

4.6.1 DCF will provide materials concerning TPR to the Judiciary for review and consideration of use in training. The Judiciary will determine if it is appropriate for inclusion in its Comprehensive Judicial Orientation Program (CJOP).

Director, Legal Affairs, DCF

DCF's materials for inclusion being provided to the Court

and the Court's response as to its appropriateness for

inclusion in CJOP training

Q8

4.7 Review procedures for appeals

4.7.1 The Children in Court Committee of the Conference of Family Presiding Judges and the Appellate Division have a work group to review procedures to expedite appeals of TPR cases. This review will examine the issues of delays in appeals from the time the TPR Judgment is entered until the appeal is finalized. The work group shall issue a report and recommendations shall be given to the Administrative Director of the Courts.


Practice Division

The report and recommendations of the work

group are given to the Administrative Director of the

Courts

Q8

A - 9




Safety 2

Service Array

Permanency 1

Well-Being 1

Goal: Applicable CFSR Items: 3, 10, 17, 36, 37



Quarter


5.1 Strengthen contract monitoring process for DCF-

contracted Provider Agencies

5.1.1 Establish a process to incorporate feedback regarding service needs from local DCF staff and children and families into negotiations for new contracts and renewals. Also use the process to obtain guidance on emerging and unmet service needs.

DCF Chief Administrator Process Protocol Q3

5.1.2 Implement protocol for regular discussion between DCF contract staff and Divisional program leads (DYFS, CSS, Planner, RDS; PCP - program leads) regarding existing contracts and needs for new services

DCF Chief Administrator

Reports on first meetings after protocol is implemented

Q4

5.1.3 To promote child welfare services, DCF will provide key metrics on child needs in each county to the Human Services Advisory Council

Deputy Director for Strategic Planning

Sample reports on metrics provided-7 counties

Q4

7 additional counties Q8

Enhance Service Availability and Accessibility

Services are individualized and support the case plan

A - 10




Quarter


5.1.4 Review utilization rates against providers' contracted levels of service to identify potential barriers to access (e.g., hours of operation, language limitations, distance)


Samples of contract monitoring reports and

findings Q5

5.1.5 Review providers' adherence to program standards and delivery of quality service by contract monitoring process


Samples of standard monitoring reports. Q4

5.2 Heighten caseworker awareness of services

5.2.1 Develop communication strategies to heighten caseworker awareness of available services and focus on better utilization of resource personnel

DCF Chief Administrator Strategy protocols Q3

5.2.2 Conduct resource fairs for DYFS field staff, featuring community-based and DCF contracted providers


Notice/invitation to participate in all Areas Q5

A - 11




Quarter


5.3 Expand availability of transitional housing beds for

areas of high need

5.3.1 Invite bids in response to RFP RFP Q1

5.3.2 Issue RFP awards DYFS Assistant Director, Selection Letters Q2

5 3.3 Complete contracts Adolescent Practice and Permanency Annex A or Contract Q4

5 3.4 Achieve operational beds Level of Service Reports Q6

5.4 Place up to 15 Domestic Violence Liaisons in Area

Offices to support casework staff:

5.4.1 Hire and train DV LiaisonsDPCP

Training Attendance Report Q1

5.4.2 Trained liaisons are available in all Area Offices by the end of 2010

DirectorUpdated List of Liaisons per

Area Q4

A - 12




Safety 1

Quality Assurance

Well Being 1




Quarter


6.2 Implement Qualitative Review Process:

6.2.1 Finalize instrument Instrument Q1

6.2.2 Develop schedule Schedule Q1

6.2.3 Identify and prepare reviewers Training attendance report Q1

6.2.4 Pilot QSR Report on pilot Q1

6.2.5 Adjust QSR as needed and implement according to statewide schedule Report on QSRs as scheduled Q2

6.2.6 Establish and implement a protocol for each review to result in a final report and a plan for any corrective action

Corrective action plan example Q2

Chief, Office on Quality

Quantitative and Qualitative processes are used to support decision-making and practice improvement at all organizational levels

Implement a Quality Model

A - 13




Quarter


6.3 Participate in NCIC 3 year project to develop skills of

DYFS Management and frontline supervisiors in the use

of managing by data

6.3.1 Develop information on best practices in managing by data in child welfare agencies nationwide Director ITR Report on best practices Q1

6.3.2 Develop an acceptable project plan to guide the training/coaching/mentoring of DYFS staff in managing by data

Director ITR Project plan Q2

6.3.3 mplement the plan developed in 6.3.2 Director ITR Update of progress in plan implementation Q6

6.4 Build Data Reporting Unit staff competency in the use

of data as a qualitative tool

6.4.1 Data Reporting Unit staffer will complete Chapin Hall Advanced Analytics Course to foster his ability to teach staff in using longitudinal data to demonstrate improvement.

Administrative Analyst 1

Documentation of attendance at Chapin Hall Advanced

Analytics CourseQ1

6.4.1.1 Trained Staff will use knowledge to teach/lead Managers, Local Office managers, and Area Quality Coordinators to use longitudinal data to assess agency performance

Administrative Analyst 1

Documentation of use of longitudinal data with DYFS

staff, e.g. NCIC Advisory Group

Q2

6.5 Utilize data for management with Executive

Leadership, including Area Directors

6.5.1 Review management data on a monthly basis with Area Directors

Examples of monthly data measures Q3

6.5.2.1 Address issues identified in data review and monitor for improvement.

Examples of follow-up actions taken in response to

data discussionUpdate example of data

measures

Q3

DYFS Director

A - 14

May 2010 New Jersey CFSR PIP Strategy Summary TA Plan

PIP Strategy Summary and Technical Assistance Plan

Primary Strategy Key Concerns TA Resources Needed

Improving consistency in conducting initial and ongoing safety and/or risk assessments, and effectively monitoring risk concerns (71% Strength rating)

Technical Assistance will be gained through participation in the Casey Family Programs Signs of Safety Collaborative Project, focused on strengthening the use of safety and risk assessment through the life of the case. Provider: Casey Family ProgramsTimeframe: Duration of PIP

Assuring that children are enrolled in school, educational records are maintained, and special education needs assessed and addressed (83% Strength rating)

Appropriately assessing and addressing the mental health needs of children. (69% Strength rating)

Strengthen the Use of Initial Family Team Meetings

Supporting the maintenance of connections the child has to extended family, friends, community/neighborhood, religious, and school (77.5% Strength rating)

Consistently searching for maternal and paternal relatives as placement resources (76% Strength rating)

Assuring mothers, fathers, and children are routinely included in the case planning process (66% Strength rating for mothers and 37% for fathers)

Continue Implementation of the Case Practice Model

S - 1



Strengthen Visitation Practice with Families.

Avoiding multiple moves of children in placement (77.5% Strength rating)

Placing and maintaining sibling groups together (84% Strength rating)

Assuring sufficient frequency and quality of visitation between children in care and their parents and siblings (45% Strength rating)

Assuring sufficient efforts to support the relationship of the child in care with his parents (36% Strength rating)

Strengthen Court/Agency Partnership Efforts to Support Permanency

Timely and appropriate permanency goal selection (52.5% Strength rating)

Supporting timely reunification or other permanency (58% Strength rating)

Supporting timely adoptions (28% Strength rating).

Need to focus on timely TPR filings and movement of appeals by the Judiciary.

Technical Assistance in identifying practices that support positive relationships between parents and children in care.Provider: NRC for Permanency and Family ConnectionsAnticipated timetable: Q3

Technical Assistance to develop additional methods to support the recruitment of Resource Families for children for whom permanent homes have not been obtained through current methods.Provider: NRC for Recruitment and Retention of Foster/Adoptive Parents @ AdoptUsKidsTimetable: Q1 through Q4

Technical Assistance may be requested regarding strategies to reduce time to permanencyProvider: NRC for Legal and Judicial IssuesTimetable: Q1 through Q4

S - 2



Enhance Service Availability and Accessibility

Providing resources to assist youth transitioning to adulthood.

Adequacy in assessing the needs of children, parents, and foster parents (57% Strength rating)

Supporting access to needed services on a statewide basis

Ability to individualize services to meet unique needs of children and families

Implement a Quality Model Assuring investigation of maltreatment reports in accordance with time frames (86% Strength rating)

Assuring caseworker visits are of sufficient frequency and focused on issues pertinent to case planning, service delivery, and goal attainment (74% Strength rating for worker and child; 31% Strength rating for worker and parents)

Developing a comprehensive quality assurance system (Quantitative and Qualitative)

Technical Assistance will be received through the NCIC project on "Managing by Data" which targets Executive Management and supervisory staff. New Jersey will be receiving TA on our qualitative process through our MSA Monitor and Casey Family Programs.Timetable: duration of the PIP period

S - 3

May 2010 New Jersey CFSR PIP Matrix B

State:

Date Submitted

PIP:

Quarterly Report:

Part B: National Standards Measurement Plan and Quarterly Status Report

National Standard

Performance as Measured in Final Report/Source Data Period

Performance as Measured at Baseline/Source Data Period

Negotiated Improvement Goal

National Standard




99.68%

Not Applicable. New Jersey met this standard in its CFSR review.


Note

Note


99.7% FFY07B08A, per 2-6-09 New Jersey Data Profile


Safety Outcome 1: Absence of Maltreatment of Children in Foster Care

94.6%

95.9% FFY07B08A, per 2-6-09 New Jersey Data Profile

Safety Outcome 1: Absence of Recurrence of Maltreatment

New JerseyApril 26, 2010

Round 2

B - 1


National Standard




National Standard




117.7 FFY07B08A, per 2-6-09 New Jersey Data Profile

Note

Note

Permanency Outcome 1: Timeliness of Adoptions

106.4 Permanency Composite 2

Not Applicable. New Jersey met this standard prior to PIP implementation.


112.6 FFY07B08A, per ACF January 2010 Chart of New Jersey Performance on the Round Two

CFSR National Standard Items

Not Applicable. New Jersey met this standard prior to PIP implementation.



Permanency Outcome 1: Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification

B - 2


National Standard




National Standard







Note

Note




Permanency Outcome 1: Placement Stability



Permanency Outcome 1: Achieving Permanency for Children in Foster Care for Long Periods of Time

B - 3

May 2010 New Jersey CFSR PIP PIP Matrix C

State:

Date Submitted

PIP:

Quarterly Report:

Quarter:

Part C: Item-Specific and Quantitative Measurement Plan and Quarterly Status Report

Outcome/Systemic Factor: Safety 1 Item: 1 Timeliness of Initiating Investigations of Child Maltreatment

Performance as Measured in Final

Report

Performance as Measured at

Baseline/Source Data Period

Negotiated Improvement Goal 74.7%

Method of Measuring Improvement

1A

New Jersey5/5/2010

CFSR Round 2

86% Strength Rating Performance to be measured: timeliness in responding to reports of child abuse/neglect.

1A. Immediate response = 13,226 or 16,909 = 78.2% on time. 1B. Response within 24 hours = 27,345 of 37,696 = 72.5% on time.

To be determined by applying formula of weighted baseline plus sampling error at 95% confidence, per Technical Bulletin #3

1A. Actual Statewide Data on Response Timeliness Performance

Source of Data: SafeMeasures: drawn from Response Priority Timeliness Screen, which details the timeliness for intakes received during the selected month and assigns the response time to one of several categories: within response time, outside response time, no contact, invalid response date, and missing response priority.

Numerator: The number of CPS intakes in the select month assigned immediate response and in the category of "within response time."Denominator: All CPS intakes in the selected month assigned for immediate response by a Local Office or IAIU unit.

Excluded from the numerator and denominator are those intakes coded with an "Invalid Response Date", which indcates a data entry issue in which the contact is shown to occur prior to the intake received date.• For a response to qualify as timely, the elapsed time between when SCR accepted the intake and the initial face-to-face contact date is within the response priority deadline assigned to the intake. The contact reported in NJ SPIRIT must: Have a category of "Investigation" Have a type of activity of "Initial Face-to-Face Contact" or "Client Contact" Have a method of "In person" Have a result of "Successful," "Announced - Contact Occurred," "Unannounced - Contact Occurred," "No Safety concerns," "Safety Protection Plan needed," "Removal Required," or "Good Faith Effort-Not All Children Seen"Data: For each reporting quarter, 12 months of data will be drawn, summed, and divided to produce a single result of the percentage of CPS reports assigned an immediate response that were completed within required timeframes. Data will be drawn at the end of the Quarter for the 12 month-rolling period that preceded the Quarter. In other words, if the 12 month period to be reported on is January through December 2009, the data will be pulled in March 2010 and reported on in the January-March 2010 Quarter report.

C - 4



1B

Results: Met - 78.6%

Notes:

1A. Immediate response = 14,711 of 17,934 = 82.0% on time. 1B. Response within 24 hours = 29,308 of 38,055 = 77.0% on time.

CY09 (January 2009 through December 2009) All CPS responses = 44,019 of 55,989 = 78.6% on time

1B. Actual Statewide Data on Response Timeliness Performance

Source of Data: SafeMeasures: drawn from Response Priority Timeliness Screen, which details the timeliness for intakes received during the selected month and assigns the response time to one of several categories: within response time, outside response time, no contact, invalid response date, and missing response priority.

Numerator: The number of CPS intakes in the select month assigned a 24-hour response and in the category of "within response time"Denominator: All CPS intakes in the selected month assigned for response by a Local Office or IAIU unit within 24 hours.

Excluded from the numerator and denominator are intakes coded "Invalid Response Date", which indicates a data entry issue in which the contact is shown to occur prior to the intake received date. • For a response to qualify as timely, the elapsed time between when SCR accepted the intake and the initial face-to-face contact date is within the response priority deadline assigned to the intake. The contact reported in NJ SPIRIT must: Have a category of "Investigation" Have a type of activity of "Initial Face-to-Face Contact" or "Client Contact" Have a method of "In person" Have a result of "Successful," "Announced - Contact Occurred," "Unannounced - Contact Occurred," "No Safety concerns," "Safety Protection Plan needed," "Removal Required," or "Good Faith Effort-Not All Children Seen"

Data: For each reporting quarter, 12 months of data will be drawn, summed, and divided to produce a single result of the percentage of CPS reports assigned a 24-hour response that were completed within required timeframes. Data will be drawn at the end of the Quarter for the 12 month-rolling period that preceded the Quarter. In other words, if the 12 month period to be reported on is January through December 2009, the data will be pulled in March 2010 and reported on in the January-March 2010 Quarter report.

C - 5


Outcome/Systemic Factor: Safety 2 Item: 3 Services to Protect Children and Prevent Removal


Report



3. Baseline Data Detail Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 12-month Total

# Cases Rated Strength

Total Cases Applicable

% Cases Rated Strength



3

Renegotiated Improvement Goal

Status

QuarterQ1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 12-month

Total

Quarter End Date 6/30/10 9/30/10 12/31/10 3/31/11 6/30/11 9/30/11 12/31/11 3/31/12 6/30/12 9/30/12 12/31/12 3/31/13

Result - 3

Notes:

To be determined by applying formula of baseline proportion plus adjusted baseline sampling error at 80% confidence, per Technical Bulletin #3

Baseline to be developed prospectively.

72% Strength Rating Applicable Cases = 36Performance to be measured: effectiveness in providing services, when appropriate, to prevent removal of the child from the home.

Qualitative Review - Practice Performance Indicator # 6, Plan Implementation

A Strength rating is assigned each case receiving a status of "acceptable." An Area Needing Improvement rating is assigned each case receiving a status of "unacceptable."

Numerator: Number of cases receiving a Strength Rating. Denominator: Total number of applicable cases.

Data: For each reporting quarter after the baseline is established, twelve months of results will be summed and divided to provide a single result on the percentage of cases receiving a strength rating. Data will be rolled forward by three months each quarter.

C - 6


Outcome/Systemic Factor: Safety 2 Item: 4 Risk Assessment and Safety Management


Report









4


Status

QuarterQ1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12

Quarter End Date 6/30/10 9/30/10 12/31/10 3/31/11 6/30/11 9/30/11 12/31/11 3/31/12 6/30/12 9/30/12 12/31/12 3/31/13

Result -4

Notes:

Qualitative Review - Child and Family Status Indicator #1 - Safety of the Child




71% Strength Rating Applicable Cases = 65Performance to be measured: initial and ongoing safety management and risk assessment to reduce harm to the child.



C - 7


Outcome/Systemic Factor: Item: 7 Permanency goal for the child


Report









7

Qualitative Review - Child and Family Status Indicator #5, Progress toward Permanency. When evaluating this indicator, answers to the specific following questions will be documented for each applicable case:

For all children in placement at least 61 days but less than 15 months:1. Does the Permanency Goal appear appropriate? Yes__ No___ 2. Was the goal established timely? (within 60 days of placement) Yes___ No ___Strength if the child has been in placement for less than 15 months and both 1 and 2 are answered "yes"

For all children in placement at least 15 months:1. Does the Permanency Goal appear appropriate? Yes__ No___ 2. Was the goal established timely? (within 60 days of placement) Yes___ No ___3. Has the child been in placement 15 of the last 22 months? Yes___ No___4. Has TPR been filed or an Exception documented? Yes ____ No_____ The results of these questions will be categorized as a Strength if: (1Y, 2Y, 3N, 4Y or 4N) or (1Y, 2Y, 3Y, 4Y)



52.5% Strength Rating Applicable Cases = 40 Performance to be measured: timely selection of an appropriate permanency goal.



Permanency 1

C - 8



Status

Quarter Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12

Quarter End Date 6/30/10 9/30/10 12/31/10 3/31/11 6/30/11 9/30/11 12/31/11 3/31/12 6/30/12 9/30/12 12/31/12 3/31/13

Result - 7

Notes:

C - 9


Outcome/Systemic Factor: Item: 10 Other Planned Permanent Living Arrangement


Report



10 Baseline Detail Data: Month Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 12-month Total

# children ages 14 - 17 in placement at

least six months with ILA 852 992

Total # children ages 14-17 in

placement at least six months1342 1333

% children 14-17 with ILA 63.5% 74.4%



10


Status


Quarter End Date 6/30/10 9/30/10 12/31/10 3/31/11 6/30/11 9/30/11 12/31/11 3/31/12 6/30/12 9/30/12 12/31/12 3/31/13

Result - 10

Notes:

Permanency 1

85% Strength Rating Applicable Cases = 13 Performance to be measured: efforts to ensure long term placement and/or prepare the child for independent living


To be determined by applying formula of weighted baseline plus sampling error at 95% confidence, per Technical Bulletin #3

10. Actual Statewide Data on Timeliness of Independent Living AssessmentSource of Data: SafeMeasures: Drawn from Independent Living Assessment screen, which details the completion status of an Independent Living Assessment for children 14 to 17 years old who have been in placement at least six months.

Numerator: The number of children ages 14 to 17 who have been in placement at least six months and have a completed Independent Living Assessment. Denominator: The total number of children ages 14 to 17 who have been in placement at least six months. Data: Results are shown for the current month only. Going forward, the data will be drawn the last working day of the month, until a full 12 months of data are available to establish the baseline. For each reporting quarter after the baseline is established, twelve months of results will be summed and divided to provide a single result on the percentage of cases receiving a strength rating. Data will be rolled forward by three months each quarter.

C - 10


Outcome/Systemic Factor: Item: 17 Needs/Services of Child, Parents, Foster Parents


Report




#Cases Rated Strength





17


Status

QuarterQ1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12

Quarter End Date 6/30/10 9/30/10 12/31/10 3/31/11 6/30/11 9/30/11 12/31/11 3/31/12 6/30/12 9/30/12 12/31/12 3/31/13

Result- 17

Notes:

Qualitative Review - Practice Performance Indicator #4, Functional Assessment and Understanding




Well Being 1

57% Strength Rating Applicable Cases = 65Performance to be measured: effectiveness in assessing the needs of children, parents, and caregivers and in providing services to address those needs.



C - 11


Outcome/Systemic Factor: Item: 18 Child/Family Involvement in Case Planning


Report









18


Status


Quarter End Date6/30/10 9/30/10 12/31/10 3/31/11 6/30/11 9/30/11 12/31/11 3/31/12 6/30/12 9/30/12 12/31/12 3/31/13

Result -18

Notes:


Qualitative Review - Practice Performance Indicator #5, Case Planning Process.

Reviewers will select a rating that reflects the involvement of all required family members, i.e. the child (if age, emotionally, or developmentally appropriate), mother, and father. Parental Involvement is understood to mean that reasonable efforts have been made to identify, locate, and engage parents in the process. If reasonable efforts are not evident, the parent is considered not to have been involved in the process. Involvement or reasonable efforts to include parents are required to receive an "acceptable" rating, except in cases in which there has been a termination of parental rights, the granting of kinship legal guardianship is imminent, or there is some other legal factor indicating parental participation is not applicable or advisable.



Data: For each reporting quarter after the baseline is established, twelve months of results will be summed and divided to provide a single result on the percentage of cases receiving a strength rating. Data will be rolled forward by three months each

Well Being 1

48% Strength Rating Applicable Cases = 65Performance to be measured: effectiveness in involving the child and family in the case planning process.


C - 12


Outcome/Systemic Factor: Item: 19 Caseworker Visits With Child


Report









19


Status


Quarter End Date 6/30/10 9/30/10 12/31/10 3/31/11 6/30/11 9/30/11 12/31/11 3/31/12 6/30/12 9/30/12 12/31/12 3/31/13

Result- 19

Notes:

Qualitative Review - Practice Performance Indicator #2, Engagement of the Child and Family. Reviewers will rate this indicator for the child specifically.




Well Being 1


74% Strength Rating Applicable Cases = 65Performance to be measured: the quality of caseworker contact with children.


C - 13


Outcome/Systemic Factor: Item: 20 Caseworker Visits with Parents


Report









20


Status


Quarter End Date 6/30/10 9/30/10 12/31/10 3/31/11 6/30/11 9/30/11 12/31/11 3/31/12 6/30/12 9/30/12 12/31/12 3/31/13

Result-20

Notes:


31% Strength Rating Applicable Cases = 51Performance to be measured: the quality of caseworker contact with parents where reunification is the goal.

To be determined by applying formula of baseline proportion plus adjusted baseline sampling error at 80% confidence, per Technical Bulletin #3Qualitative Review - Practice Performance Indicator #2, Engagement of the Child and Family. Reviewers will provide a single rating to reflect engagement of all applicable parents(s) to the case.


Numerator: Number of cases receiving a Strength Rating. Denominator: Total number of applicable cases. Excluded are cases in which the child is legally free.


Well Being 1

C - 14

new jersey round two child and family services reviews pip

Documents