1. Governor’s Commission on the Protection of Children Citizen Review Assessment of Reports and Initial Investigations of Child Abuse and Neglect May 13, 2005

2. Background  Governor’s Commission requested the Citizen Review Panel to identify areas for improvement in the Child Welfare System  Initial membership of the planning meeting included representatives from: Prosecution Foster Care Review Nebraska Children and Families Foundation Child Advocacy Centers Voices for Children NHHS-Child Welfare Services Medical Providers Center for Children Families and the Law

3. Background  Conclusion was made to begin to look at the Child Protective Service’s Intake process and priority assignment of new cases being reported  Data fields were identified  Child Advocacy Center Coordinators were recommended to assist in the data collection

4. Citizen Review Assessment  Omaha was the focus of this review. Twenty child abuse referrals to the hotline were randomly selected and were received in the timeframe of 2/1/05 to 3/1/05. Case review of each intake report was conducted by Colleen Roth, Case Coordinator, assisted by Jackie Fink, (former CPS worker-referral specialist for Project Harmony), along with Camas Dias, and Sherry Buhrmann Intake/hotline supervisors using NFOCUS and Case Records—this review took approximately 15 hours of staff time.

5. General Findings  20 Cases (100%) were reported to the child abuse hotline in Omaha.  20 cases (100%) of the primary data was collected using NFOCUS  12 different Intake workers received the 20 intakes.  While there was good cross section of cases, this was a very small sample size and was do so due to work load

6. General Findings

7. 

8. Designated Priority of Intake

9. Reviewers Opinion regarding the handling of the screening process:

10. Was the priority rating correct?

11. Did the worker take additional action to address immediate safety concerns?

12. Were Collateral Calls made to gather additional information to ensure safety?

13. Do you believe that the immediate safety needs were addressed?

14. Conclusions  74% of the intake rankings for Accepting or Screening Out were “agreed with” by the reviewers  44% of the Priority Rankings were “Agreed with”  20% of the Priority Rankings were Disagreed with and Should have been Lower”  Of those cases with the Priority One ranking— 44% were “believed that immediate safety needs were addressed” and 44% were “safety needs could not be determined”  86% of the cases the collateral contacts were not made

15. Conclusions  Reviewers found the Intake Supervisors very knowledgeable in their review of the referrals and were open to the possibility of disagreement on decisions..  Intake supervisors gained some insight in terms of training needs for hotline staff (looking up past hx, call police for criminal hx, collateral contacts with schools).  Two cases they determined that immediate contact with Law Enforcement should have occurred.

16. Conclusions  The review team found that when the case required “follow-up” several of the Initial Assessment workers findings were not in NFOCUS. (30-60 days after the findings)—not sure if no assessment was made or data was not entered.  Protocol was questioned when the caller indicated that they would call Law Enforcement—the hotline does not.

17. Recommendations for Discussion  Need to review protocol regarding collateral contacts—when should they be made?  Review protocol regarding who is responsible for contacting Law Enforcement and under what circumstances and follow up on the status of the police involvement  Recognizing this was a very small sample size— continued monitoring (possibly a Quality Improvement/Assurance role) conducted by a team or Intake Screening tool- trained professional