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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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, 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 search and comparison must be conducted by county and state employees. A memo was sent to the Managers of Field Operations on October 29 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were instructed to correct the child name and case number, close duplicate plans, and close plans where the cases are no longer active. Counties were instructed to note the date and action taken on the list and return it to the State Project Administrator. The deadline for this cleanup is November 16, 2004. The memo is made a part of 8 th quarter reporting. The latest IDS "Placement Count" report of September 2004 indicates a total of 15,854 children in various placements types. The CPRS reports 14,816 permanency types. This is a significant improvement from the previous reporting quarter. Approximately 640 of these children are in placement types that do not require a case plan in CPRS i.e. ICPC children coming from other states, children on runaway status for longer than 6 months, and children committed and custody transferred to Youth Detention Centers. Inherent in case plan development via CPRS is the identification of the permanency goal, which is a required field in CPRS. 8 th Quarter DOCUMENTATION: (1) October 28, 2004 Memo regarding Case Plans in CPRS that do not Match an Active Case in IDS (2) April 15, 2004 Memo regarding IDS/CPRS Data-Sharing (3) CPRS Reports 10/28/2004, see #2 Permanency Goal for Child, which gives the percentage of cases by permanency type BARRIERS TO ACHIEVEMENT: 1 st Quarter Report: The training of all 159 counties (1,200 caseworkers) and juvenile court judges and staff (approximately 100 judges) has taken longer than planned but will be complete January 2003. 2 nd Quarter Federal Response: Is the training completed? 3 rd Quarter Georgia Reply: Yes. Safe Futures – A Plan for Program Improvement Georgia Department of Human Resources November, 2004 Quarter 8 - Work Plan D Page 7
D6 ACTION STEPS: START DATE Mar. 2002 ACCOMPLISHMENTS: COMPLETION DATE November of every year: Two cross cultural trainings will be completed by Nov. 2004 Conduct annual training for judges, case managers, SAAGs, GALs, parent attorneys, CASAs, and Citizen Panel volunteers on the Permanency Hearing requirements. RESPONSIBLE MEASURABLE PERSON(S) BENCHMARKS Michelle Barclay, Geraldine Jackson White Permanency hearings will take place in juvenile court for every child in state care no later than 12 months after a child has entered foster care and periodically no later than 12 months thereafter if the child remains in care. Evaluation: Georgia's Court Improvement Project (CIP) will evaluate a sample of court case files annually to see if permanency hearings are occurring for every child. 1 st and 2 nd Quarterly Report: Partially Achieved. The 3 rd Annual Child Placement Conference Cross-Training Conference took place November 2002. Judges, case managers, Saags, GALs, parent attorneys, CASAs, and Citizen Panel volunteers attended. Workshops were taught on the requirement that permanency hearings occur on every case. The 4 th Annual Child Placement Conference is being planned for Atlanta at this time for November 12-14, 2003. During the summer of 2002, the Court Improvement Project (CIP) reviewed random court case file reviews of 9 counties across Georgia. The judges and staff of those courts were either interviewed or surveyed regarding caseload and resource allocation. In addition, 70 court-hearing observations were performed. This work was collected in a database and shared with the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Permanency Planning Department. From the initial report and the sample of data it does not appear that permanency hearings are occurring in every case. Further interviews reveal that while permanency issues are being addressed in court hearings, but are not being properly documented. A report has been written from this data and has been distributed to DHR and is posted on the CIP website: http://www.state.ga.ga.us/courts/supreme/cppp/ A second CIP study is being planned for the summer of 2003 and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court judges has again agreed to do the data analysis. 3 rd Quarter Report: Achieved. The first GA CIP study was done in preparation of the CP Conference. Many courts were found NOT to be doing permanency hearings timely or the courts were NOT doing proper documentation of permanency hearings (i.e. addressing Safe Futures – A Plan for Program Improvement Georgia Department of Human Resources November, 2004 Quarter 8 - Work Plan D Page 8
Page 1 and 2:
AN OVERVIEW GEORGIA PROGRAM IMPROVE
Page 3 and 4:
Georgia: Georgia’s Program Improv
Page 5 and 6:
The AFCARS data for this indicator
Page 7 and 8:
Developed standards of measurement
Page 9 and 10:
These action steps were included as
Page 11 and 12:
Used the results obtained from the
Page 13 and 14:
Established more flexible hours and
Page 15 and 16:
policy require that the case manage
Page 17 and 18:
Training initiative for DFCS and DP
Page 19 and 20:
4. In addition to the information b
Page 21 and 22: Stakeholder Input in the Analysis o
Page 23 and 24: The stakeholder interviews held dur
Page 25 and 26: Work Plan Detail A -- Item 2, Repea
Page 27 and 28: What needs to be accomplished: Writ
Page 29 and 30: Neglect was determined to be the mo
Page 31 and 32: 1 st Quarter Federal Response: (PLE
Page 33 and 34: Safe Futures - A Plan for Program I
Page 35 and 36: ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Data from these co
Page 37 and 38: • 79% of respondents agreed commu
Page 39 and 40: Federal HIPAA requirements limit wh
Page 41 and 42: 6 th Quarter Report: Funding for th
Page 43 and 44: Work Plan Detail C -- Item 6, Stabi
Page 45 and 46: START COMPLETION RESPONSIBLE MEASUR
Page 47 and 48: 3 rd Quarter Report Georgia's Reply
Page 49 and 50: COSTAR children were selected from
Page 51 and 52: Quarter 4 # of Differences 31 134 1
Page 53 and 54: DATE DATE PERSON(S) BENCHMARKS July
Page 55 and 56: C16 ACTION STEPS: Analyze a sample
Page 57 and 58: October 2004 Purpose and Design The
Page 59 and 60: The researcher first analyzed chara
Page 61 and 62: Characteristic Percent Percent Perc
Page 63 and 64: • Mr. and Mrs. Marshall (pseudony
Page 65 and 66: 3 rd Quarter Report Georgia's Reply
Page 67 and 68: ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 1 st and 2 nd Quar
Page 69 and 70: 8 th Quarter DOCUMENTATION: (1) Soc
Page 71: 5 th Quarter DOCUMENTATION: PIP Res
Page 75 and 76: Georgia Juvenile Court Judges) is a
Page 77 and 78: addition, 70 court-hearing observat
Page 79 and 80: (2) Key Performance Indicators and
Page 81 and 82: DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED 3 RD Quarter
Page 83 and 84: adoptive families, there was an inc
Page 85 and 86: 8 th Quarter Report: Achieved 5 th
Page 87 and 88: 6 th Quarter Federal Response: E4:
Page 89 and 90: 5 th Quarter DCOUMENTATION: Reporti
Page 91 and 92: statewide. Both panel and court rev
Page 93 and 94: child, because the worker was not a
Page 95 and 96: Question 1. Are you seeing the adop
Page 97 and 98: 6 th Quarter Federal Response: 6 th
Page 99 and 100: for the barrier identified. These r
Page 101 and 102: eports. The AFCARS reporting and ma
Page 103 and 104: 8 th Quarter Report: Prior to the b
Page 105 and 106: BARRIERS TO ACHIEVEMENT: E27 ACTION
Page 107 and 108: Work Plan Detail F -- Item 10, Perm
Page 109 and 110: Safe Futures - A Plan for Program I
Page 111 and 112: DOCUMENTATION: Please see attachmen
Page 113 and 114: together. Relative Care Subsidy (RC
Page 115 and 116: START DATE COMPLETION DATE RESPONSI
Page 117 and 118: continue to assess our data sources
Page 119 and 120: Length of time as a foster parent #
Page 121 and 122: Table 4 Disruptions and use of resp
Page 123 and 124:
2. More respite care providers 3. E
Page 125 and 126:
Work Plan Detail H -- Item 13, Visi
Page 127 and 128:
Please refer to the following attac
Page 129 and 130:
(See attached copy of Memorandum fr
Page 131 and 132:
July 2002 ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Dec. 200
Page 133 and 134:
A pilot is being conducted in Dekal
Page 135 and 136:
5 th Quarter Report: At least 100 c
Page 137 and 138:
2004. ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 1 st Quarter
Page 139 and 140:
8 th Quarter Report: Partially Achi
Page 141 and 142:
state office on the number of asses
Page 143 and 144:
the Division. The review should be
Page 145 and 146:
The report referred to in the Bench
Page 147 and 148:
of that evaluation has been dissemi
Page 149 and 150:
ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 1 st and 2nd Quart
Page 151 and 152:
understanding of this content on a
Page 153 and 154:
Course Module Content of question A
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
4 th Quarter Report: A survey asses
Page 165 and 166:
April 2002 Aug. 2002 5th Quarter: P
Page 167 and 168:
equested an extension to July 2004
Page 169 and 170:
where the cases are no longer activ
Page 171 and 172:
7 th Quarter Report: In response to
Page 173 and 174:
7 th Quarter DOCUMENTATION: (Same a
Page 175 and 176:
Safe Future - A Plan for Program Im
Page 177 and 178:
Safe Futures - A Plan for Program I
Page 179 and 180:
Work Plan Detail N -- Item 22, Phys
Page 181 and 182:
Held within 30 - 60 days of a child
Page 183 and 184:
ACCOMPLISHMENTS: enhancements of th
Page 185 and 186:
6 th Quarter Report: The introducti
Page 187 and 188:
Placement/Best Placement Providers
Page 189 and 190:
this benchmark with county supervis
Page 191 and 192:
BARRIERS TO ACHIEVEMENT: N7 ACTION
Page 193 and 194:
eports were discontinued. The Georg
Page 195 and 196:
to initiate the reviews. 5th Quarte
Page 197 and 198:
March 2004 QCR 16 county offices (t
Page 199 and 200:
A cumulative Qualitative Case Revie
Page 201 and 202:
5 th Quarter Report: Since, the QCR
Page 203 and 204:
6 th Quarter Report: A review of th
Page 205 and 206:
There has been a steady increase in
Page 207 and 208:
1 st Quarter Report: The Case Plan
Page 209 and 210:
To date CPRS reports that 10,274 ca
Page 211 and 212:
2 nd Quarter Report: Accomplishing
Page 213 and 214:
5 th Quarter Report: HIPPA issues h
Page 215 and 216:
Goal: Case managers have the capaci
Page 217 and 218:
8 th Quarter Report: Achieved. The
Page 219 and 220:
esources as well as increased capac
Page 221 and 222:
Review instruments address document
Page 223 and 224:
A comprehensive effort to clean up
Page 225 and 226:
Work Plan Detail Q -- Items 35-37,
Page 227 and 228:
Funding and Resource Allocation to
Page 229 and 230:
1 st Quarter Response: In May of 20
Page 231 and 232:
conduct of the Comprehensive Child
Page 233 and 234:
Seventy-five new workers were train
Page 235 and 236:
Work Plan Detail R -- Item 42, The
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?