an overview georgia program improvement plan - Department of ...

7 TH Quarter Report: In response to the above federal request for information, the State now has a reporting function that has been
built into the CPRS Report. Data is collected for the following characteristics: “at least one parent and at least one child participated”;
“at least one parent participated”; “at least one child participated”; and “no parental or child participation”. The 5 th Quarter Report did
provide the first statistics (See documentation of Child and Family Involvement in Case Planning, dated February 18, 2004). The
report has been run again and now appears on a website designed for counties to pull up statistics related to CPRS data fields. The
new website and postings, however, contain duplications due to several factors. Specifically, during the migration of plans from the
original CPRS to CPRSv2, duplicate cases were created. The counties were not aware that they needed to close the original plan, so
the duplicate plans remain. The division is now providing training to supervisors on how to identify plans that need to be closed and
how to close them. Additionally, supervisors and workers are receiving training on how to create a new plan and review existing
plans. The developer of the system will review the system for “junk plans” and delete as appropriate. These strategies will assist the
division in “cleaning up” the data. For reporting purposes, see documentation of printouts that the new CPRS Report will provide
counties.
7 th Quarter DOCUMENTATION: See CPRS reports, Child and Family Involvement in Case Planning, designed to generate to
capture family involvement in case planning.
8 th Quarter Report: Achieved. Per ACF 7 th quarter request to provide status on the CPRS data cleanup: On October 22, State DFCS
received the list of cases in CPRS that do not match an open case in IDS. After reviewing the list, the project administrator was able
to determine several causes for the unmatched cases, which include: 1. Child's name is entered one way in CPRS and a different way
in IDS. 2. Case number is either missing from CPRS or is a different format from IDS. 2. Cases where there is more than one draft
plan for each child, because the worker had a problem and started over without completing the first plan. 3. Cases where there is
more than one draft plan for each child, because the worker was not aware that they should use the original plan to edit for a case
review. 4. Cases where all children have exited care and there are no aftercare services being provided. 5. Cases where the worker
created a plan group for the father and a plan group for the mother. The case plan is the child's plan, and there should be one plan. 6.
Cases where the last updater is "100". This indicates a plan that was migrated from Version 1. When the worker reviewed the
migrated case, a new version of the plan group was created. Situations as in 2 and 6 are considered "Junk" plans.
A clean-up effort by the developer earlier this fall cleared approximately 75% of "junk" plans out of the database. The remaining
"junk" plans and other duplicates and unmatched plans must be reviewed by the counties that created the plans. State DFCS wants to
be very sure no legitimate plans are closed during this cleanup effort. A skilled IDS and CPRS user must thoroughly search and
compare both databases before making the decision to close a plan. Therefore, the clean up must be conducted by county and state
employees.
A memo was sent to the Managers of Field Operations on October 29, 2004 with a list of case plans that must be reviewed by each of
their county offices. The counties were instructed to correct the child name and case number, close duplicate plans, and close plans
Safe Futures – A Plan for Program Improvement
Georgia Department of Human Resources
November, 2004 Quarter 8 – Work Plan J Page 21