ACF Home | Services | Working with ACF | Policy/Planning | About ACF | ACF News | HHS Home |
---|
Questions? | Privacy | Site Index | Contact Us | Download Reader | Print � |
---|
Updated March 2007
Each evening, the local site teams will debrief the cases reviewed that day. The debriefing process is designed to promote consistency in reviewer ratings, thereby decreasing the subjectivity of the review process. Reviewers can assist the Local Site Leaders in facilitating these debriefings by doing the following:
Coming prepared to present information on the cases under their review that day; completing the Nightly Debriefing Report included in the Child and Family Services Reviews Data Management System will facilitate this preparation (see attached copy)
Providing a brief overview of the case (how the child came into care), how each outcome was rated, and why; see the attached sample completed Nightly Debriefing Report for an example of information that should be provided
Completing the Case Rating Summary Sheet section of the Onsite Review Instrument for each case and noting the page numbers of key notes to which they will need to refer to support their ratings
Presenting information as concisely as possible, sharing only information that is relevant to the case under review, and ensuring that the information is consistent with the completed Onsite Review Instrument
Remembering that the purpose of the debriefings is not to educate other team members about all the details of a case or to critique the State's policies or practices, but rather to focus on the reviewers' findings regarding the actions taken by the State during the period under review
Participating fully in the debriefing discussions while supporting the Local Site Leaders in ensuring that every team member has an equal opportunity to share their opinions
Understanding the value of the debriefing process and being willing to put their judgments under the scrutiny of the other team members
Remaining open to the feedback of the group, especially the Local Site Leaders, and being aware of the potential need for review team members to reconsider case ratings following the debriefing process
Alerting the Local Site Leaders to concerns regarding schedules, logistical arrangements, or other issues that might create challenges in completing the review
Reviewers should come to debriefings prepared to present the information shown below regarding the cases that they have finished reviewing. The presentation should take no more than 10-15 minutes. After the presentation, the reviewer will answer questions from the Local Site Leaders and other team members.
For Internal Federal Government Use Only
I. Background Information |
|
Case Name: |
|
Type of Case: |
|
Review Team: |
|
Description of Child:
|
|
Reason for Agency Involvement: |
|
Family Structure: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Permanency Goal(s): |
II. Case History |
Case is Open/Closed - Date of Most Recent Case Opening: |
History of Maltreatment: |
Issues and needs of other family members (parents and children involved in case):
|
Services provided (past and present; identify providers):
|
III. Case Interviews |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
IV. Case Ratings |
Safety Outcome 1: Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect.
|
Safety Outcome 2: Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate.
|
Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations.
|
Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children. . |
Well-Being Outcome 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children's needs.
|
Well-Being Outcome 2: Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs.
|
Well-Being Outcome 3: Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs.
|
For Internal Federal Government Use Only
I. Background Information |
|
Case Name: Karen Martin |
|
Type of Case: Foster Care |
|
Review Team: Ann Parker and Lee Jones |
|
Description of Child: Karen is a 10-year-old girl who is in foster care under the care of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, who live in Someplace, approximately 75 miles from Karen’s birth mother, MaryAnn Martin. |
|
Reason for Agency Involvement: The court cited Ms. Martin’s substance abuse and neglect of her children as the reason for Karen’s removal from her home and placement in foster care. Kathie Ramber, the social worker assigned to this case, has discussed the possibility of adoption with the foster parents, but the foster parents have stated that they are not interested in adopting Karen. In addition, Ms. Ramber believes that Ms. Martin would not be interested in relinquishing parental rights. Ms. Martin has stated that she would consider allowing the Smiths to adopt Karen; however, Ms. Ramber has not discussed this option with Ms. Martin. The Smiths said in their interview that they would allow Karen to remain in their home long-term, but that adoption was not an option. Karen has attended the same school for the past few years and she is performing well academically, despite concerns that she may need special education services. |
|
Family Structure: |
|
|
|
Karen Martin |
Child |
MaryAnn Martin |
Mother |
Katie Martin |
Sister |
Kristy Martin |
Sister |
Permanency Goal(s):
|
II. Case History |
Case is Open/Closed - Date of Most Recent Case Opening: Opened May 3, 2002. Remains Open. |
History of Maltreatment: There were three reports of maltreatment related to Karen and her sisters between May 3, 2002, and September 9, 2005. In all three reports, the mother was the perpetrator and the maltreatment consisted of neglect due to substance abuse. |
Issues and needs of other family members (parents and children involved in case): |
Services provided (past and present; identify providers): |
III. Case Interviews |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
III. Case Ratings |
Safety Outcome 1: Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect. |
Safety Outcome 2: Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate. |
Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations. |
Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children. |
Well-Being Outcome 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children's needs. |
Well-Being Outcome 2: Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs. |
Well-Being Outcome 3: Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs. |