Governor’s Commission on the

Protection of Children

Citizen Review Assessment of Reports and Initial

Investigations of Child Abuse and Neglect May 13, 2005

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

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

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.

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

General Findings

Intakes reviewed by Day of Week

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

General Findings

Time frame calls were received

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Morning EarlyAfternoon

Late Afternoon Evening Overnight

Designated Priority of Intake

Breakdown by Priority Reponse

28%

48%

0%

24%

0%

Priority One

Priority Two

Priority 3

Not Accepted

Open

Reviewers Opinion regarding the handling of the screening process:

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Agree withdecision toscreen out

Agree withdecision to

accept for IA

Disagree withscreen out-should haveaccepted

Disagree withscreen out

should not haveaccepted

Was the priority rating correct?

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

Agree withdesignated

priority

Disagree withdesignated

priority-should be

higher

Disagree withdesignated

priority-should be

lower

Need moreinformation

No priorityassigned

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

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Yes No Can not determine

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

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No

Do you believe that the immediate safety needs were addressed?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Yes No Can Not Determine

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

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.

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.

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