DHS Breakthrough Status - Updated - Oregon



STATUS REPORT

Differential Response

Date: October 31, 2014

Breakthrough Owner: Lois Day

Breakthrough Lead: Stacy Lake

Lead Team members: Jerry Waybrant, Ryan Vogt, Stacey Ayers, Kristen Khamnohack, Dana Torrey, Chuck Nyby, Joni Brands, Alex Jackson, Holly Dominick, Julie LaChapelle, Sheila Wegener, Chuck Dunn, John Radich, and Jeremy Player.

Overall project status:

Oct ‘13

Nov ‘13

Dec ‘13

Jan ‘14

Feb ‘14

Mar ‘13

April ‘14

May ‘14

June ‘14

July ‘14

Aug ‘14

Sept ‘14

G

G

G

G

Y

Y

G

G

G

G

G

G

Dashboard status:

SCHEDULE

G

Initial implementing counties (Klamath, Lake, and Lane) started DR in May 2014. Linn, Benton, Lincoln and Washington counties have been identified as the next sites. April 2015 is the tentative start date for serving families in those counties. Preparation/readiness work is underway.

SCOPE

G

Scope has been identified. No major changes requested.

RESOURCES

G

Oregon Safety Model coaching and mentoring is an on-going need and more resources have been brought to the team with 4 OPA3 rotations to support OSM sustainability. As a statewide implementation schedule is being drafted a plan to include current resources and a second plan to include expanded resources are under development.

CHANGES

G

No major change requests being made.

Executive update:

Overall status of the breakthrough remains green. Training was completed in initial implementing counties (Klamath, Lake, and Lane) in April and May 2014. Evaluations were used to make revisions to the training modules before the next sites are trained. Business process maps and protocols were developed. We just passed our 5 month mark in initial implementation and are continuing to work through technical and adaptive changes. The initial implementation counties are helping us learn and adjust where needed. Casey Family Programs is helping us set up a call with Minnesota and Ohio to receive technical assistance around initial implementation. Dr. Lyons has provided technical assistance related to the Family Strengths and Needs Assessment tool and process. The next round of counties is Linn, Benton, Lincoln and Washington. A statewide implementation plan has been drafted and input is being sought from the DR Steering Committee, District and Program Managers before finalizing. | |

Strategy UPDATES

|WORKST|Oregon Safety Model |On Schedule |Five rounds of OSM Refresh training was provided to supervisors and program managers across the state. The final |

|REAMS |Refresh | |round was completed in September 2014. |

| |Strategy Owner/Lead: | |Rule and procedure was updated in May to integrate the OSM refresh and some clean up is occurring by the end of the |

| |Stacey Ayers | |year in the form of making temporary rules permanent. |

| | | |This strategy is green. Four OPA3 one year rotations have been added to the safety team to focus on OSM |

| | | |sustainability as a significant need to continue the support was requested by supervisors and program managers. This|

| | | |includes ongoing coaching and support for continuous learning to help supervisors coach their staff to practice the |

| | | |OSM with fidelity. |

| |Service Array – |Slipping |Thirty four counties have contracts in place. This includes: Tillamook, Columbia, Clatsop, Washington, Marion, Polk,|

| |Strengthening, |Schedule |Yamhill, Multnomah, Clackamas, Linn, Benton, Lincoln, Lane, Douglas, Deschutes, Crook, Jefferson, Coos, Curry, |

| |Preserving and | |Josephine, Jackson, Klamath, Lake, Hood River, Wasco, Sherman, Gilliam, Wheeler, Umatilla, Malheur, Wallowa, Baker, |

| |Reunifying Families | |Union and Morrow. Grant and Harney has now started the contract process.  Some contracts are renewing and staff |

| |(SPRF) Strategy | |continue to update as local needs and gaps are assessed. Schedule slippage has happened as counties take the time |

| |Owner/Lead: Stacy Lake | |needed to meaningfully engage their community to arrive at their needs and gaps to develop their proposals. |

| | | | |

| | | |Strategies in place to develop metrics supporting local and enterprise level goals. This includes: increased |

| | | |percentage of reunification, reduction in length of stay, reduction in the number of children entering care, |

| | | |reduction in percentage of repeat maltreatment within 6 months, reduction in percentage of foster care reentry |

| | | |within 12 months, % of children maintained in family home/keep family intact, and decrease in disproportionality. |

| | | |Service specific metrics also in development to move SPRF contracts toward performance based contracting. We are in |

| | | |discussions with On Track to be the first SPRF contract with a performance based contract. |

| |Initial Implementation/|On Schedule |Initial implementing districts (D5 and D11) began serving families in a DR system at the end of May. Over 1,500 |

| |Readiness | |families have been assigned to have a CPS assessment since the start. In the month of September 66% were served in |

| |Assessment/Preparation | |the Alternative Track and 34% in the Traditional Track. |

| |for next Districts | | |

| |Strategy Owners: Stacy | |Next counties have been chosen and the readiness work is underway. This includes local SPRF contracts in place, |

| |Lake, Jeremy Player, | |business process improvements and protocols to adapt to the new DR related processes, training development and |

| |John Radich, Marco | |preparedness activities, staff and community communication, staff hiring, completion of overdue assessments, OSM |

| |Benavides and Rolanda | |consultation, staff selection, performance measurements, and community engagement. |

| |Garcia | | |

| | | |Leads assist strategy owners, Chuck Nyby, Joni Brands, Alex Jackson, and Kristen Khamnohack |

| |Statewide Readiness |On Schedule |Initial implementation is progressing well, however time is still needed to develop lessons learned, as it’s |

| |Owner: Lois Day, Lead | |critical that fidelity of practice (OSM and DR) is achieved before finalizing lessons learned. Implementing |

| |Stacy Lake | |districts continue their technical (i.e., the Family Strengths and Needs tool and process) and adaptive learning |

| | | |(cultural shift to engaging families differently). |

| | | | |

| | | |A statewide implementation plan has been drafted with a plan to finalize in November. Input is being sought from the|

| | | |DR Steering Committee, as well as the District and Program Managers. Overall strategies and work efforts are under |

| | | |development. For example, District and Program Managers have set time aside on their meeting agendas for months to |

| | | |hear from D5 and D11 and now D4 and D16. The OSM and SPRF work underway is critical to statewide readiness and |

| | | |districts have developed plans to address their overdue CPS assessments to prepare for DR. Casey Family Programs is|

| | | |helping us to develop a structure and plan for peer to peer exchange between districts as they implement. |

| |Business Process |On Schedule |After initial DR Training, selected employees of the implementing districts completed work on business process |

| |Development Strategy | |development and improvements. This included processes related to; closing cases, tracking cases, payment processing,|

| |Owner: Stacy Lake, | |new case assignment, post case closure, authorizing extensions, switching between tracks, use of the screening tool,|

| |Jeremy Player, and John| |and strengths and needs assessment. Business process maps were developed to guide a statewide approach that the |

| |Radich | |local areas have used to develop processes to meet their needs. District 4 and 16 will begin local business protocol|

| | | |development closer to when they begin practicing DR. |

| | | | |

| | | |Lead: Chuck Dunn, district program managers, and Differential Response consultants |

| |Procedure/Rule updates |On Schedule |DR and OSM changes and additions to rule and procedure went into effect May 2014. Temporary rules were put into |

| |Strategy Owner: Stacy | |place for minor changes and clean up that are effective until December. The process has begun to make the temporary |

| |Lake | |rules permanent. A hearing occurred on October 23, 2014. The permanent rules will be in effect before the end of the|

| | | |year. |

| | | | |

| | | |Lead: Deb Carnagi, Cathy Ostrand-Poisen |

| |Training Strategy |On Schedule |Completed curriculum development and training for Differential Response consultants and initial implementing |

| |Owner: Stacy Lake, | |counties. Revisions are in process based on evaluations and some early lessons learned in the initial implementing |

| |Lead: Kristen | |counties. |

| |Khamnohack | | |

| | | |In all, over 600 employees received training along with select community partners. Portland State University helped|

| | | |develop the curriculum; Differential Response consultants conducted the training. |

| | | |Training covers several modules; Differential Response Overview, Advanced Engagement and Trauma Informed Practice, |

| | | |Collaboration in Differential Response, Strengths and Needs Tool, Key Components of the Oregon Safety Model (OSM), |

| | | |Screening and Assessment. An interactive video Community presentation has also been developed and staff in the DR |

| | | |counties have been trained to facilitate the training in their community. |

| |Information Technology |Slipping |The following changes were made to OR-Kids prior to Differential Response start: |

| |Strategy Owner: Stacy |Schedule |Req. 1 - Screening Track Assignment Selection 19880, |

| |Lake, Lead: Angela | |Req. 6 - Assessment response to Offer Services 19883, |

| |Skyberg | |Req. 11 - All Assessments due within 45 days 19885, |

| | | |Req. 12 - First Assessment Extension of 15 days 19886, and |

| | | |Req. 3 - Assessments With No Disposition Attached 19881. |

| | | |Req. 4 - Assessment Ability to Change Track 19882 |

| | | |A “DR Mini” build was scheduled for January 2015, however there has been a delay and the new schedule date is not |

| | | |yet known. That build is to include: |

| | | | |

| | | |CR Differential Response- Req. 4 Assessment Track Change for Alternative Report and Non-D/R County Report (20224) |

| | | |CR OSM Refresh- Req. 4 Protective Action Updates (19703) |

| | | |CR Differential Response- Req. 13 Differential Response Tools in File Cabinet (19893) |

| | | |CR Differential Response Req. 14: Alternative Track Assessments Need Additional Disposition Values (20178) |

| | | |CR Differential Response (307A and B) New fields required to indicate Response Track (20305) |

| | | |CR Differential Response add automated message received by staff on new screenings (20231) |

| | | |CR Differential Response Moderate to High Needs GB on Assessment Results tab- 3rd question required.(20232) |

| | | |CR (To be written) that allows CAS to be linked to Other-Admin case without requiring case type change. |

| |DR Evaluation Strategy |Schedule |DR Evaluation was awarded to the University of Illinois. Contract negotiations are nearing completion. The contract |

| |Owner/Lead: Stacy Lake |Slipping |was reviewed and edited by DOJ and Illinois has reviewed and had more questions which DOJ is currently reviewing. |

| | | |Setting up Evaluation Committee schedule. |

| | | | |

| | | |DR Evaluation Subcommittee completed their work, led by Natasha Chapman. The evaluation is comprised of three |

| | | |components: Process and Outcomes Evaluation and a Cost Analysis. |

| | | | |

| | | |Schedule slippage has happened as it took longer than expected to develop the RFP and to go through the negotiation |

| | | |process. |

| |Communication Strategy |On Schedule |Regular messages continue to staff and partners. Brochures, updates and information have been developed and |

| |Owner: Lois Day, Lead | |disseminated in the Differential Response implementing counties. Media events occurred in initial implementing |

| |Gene Evans, Andrea | |counties in May and June. Local communication strategies have been developed and requests from community for |

| |Cantu-Shomous and Stacy| |training/presentations is increasing in initial implementing counties as well as non-implementing counties. |

| |Lake | | |

| | | |It’s expected that the next implementing counties will have some unique communication needs as we near DR start. |

| |Family Engagement |Completed |Completed a Family Engagement Tool. It’s best described as a tool or “how to” guide.  Child Safety assessment is the|

| |Strategy, Owner Stacy | |core function of Child Welfare and is best done through effective family engagement and community collaboration. |

| |Lake, Lead Dana Torrey | |  |

| | | |Family engagement under DR recognizes that families know what they need and therefore need to be a part of the |

| | | |decision making process. The Tool gives workers step by step instructions on how to build respectful relationships |

| | | |with families that lead to more family participation in keeping children safe at home and in their communities. The |

| | | |core principles foundational to our family engagement tool: everyone deserves respect, everyone needs to be heard |

| | | |and understood, everyone has strengths, judgments can wait, power is shared, and partnership is a process |

| | | |  |

| | | |There are ten skill sets defined in the tool with concrete examples on how to actively engage families. These ten |

| | | |skill sets are: engaging, assessing, partnering, planning, evaluating, implementing, advocating, communicating, |

| | | |demonstrating cultural and diversity competence, and collaborating. |

| | | |  |

| | | |DR Training offers an introduction to family engagement skills sets, the core family engagement principles and offer|

| | | |expertise in ideal implementation of engagement. |

| |Screening and |Completed |Completed a Track Assignment Tool. The purpose of the tool is to clearly differentiate between families needing a |

| |Eligibility Tool and | |traditional response (generally those with more severe reports of abuse or neglect, as guided by the tool) and |

| |Testing, Owner Stacy | |families who could benefit from an alternative response, those with less severe reports of abuse or neglect. |

| |Lake, Lead Deena | |  |

| |Loughary | |The Tool was developed over a year, and we looked at several other DR states’ tools to help inform us. The Tool was |

| | | |tested by 13 out of the 16 districts. Information gathered during the testing phase is being included in the |

| | | |screening curriculum for training screening staff. |

| | | | |

| | | |Small number of clarifying changes have been made to the track assignment tool since initial implementation based on|

| | | |use and input from D5 and D11. |

| |Workforce Readiness |Completed |Completed a Workforce Readiness Toolkit. This included a current workforce survey completed by 52% of the state’s |

| |Toolkit Owner Stacy | |Child Welfare staff. The survey results were used during DR implementation planning to validate strengths and |

| |Lake, Lead Chuck Nyby | |highlight where support is needed. District results were provided to branch leadership to support local planning. |

| | | |The survey results, research from other DR states, and collaboration with the Family Engagement Subcommittee helped |

| | | |Workforce Readiness evaluate the current timeline for CPS assessment completion when DR begins. This work influenced|

| | | |the decision to change the time line for assessment completion in both the Traditional and Alternative Tracks in DR |

| | | |implementing counties. |

| | | |Guiding Principles in DR were produced to support individual District Readiness assessment and planning. The Guiding|

| | | |Principles focus on operational structure, staff selection, leadership commitment, community collaborations, racial |

| | | |and cultural inclusion and communication strategies.  |

| | | |The Child Protective Services worker Position Description was revised for use in DR implementing counties. The |

| | | |position description outlines the desired attributes for a CPS worker, updates description of duties, working |

| | | |conditions and position related decision making for both the Traditional Track and Alternative Track CPS |

| | | |workers. The desired attributes for a CPS worker mirror the skill sets developed by the Family Engagement |

| | | |Subcommittee. Cultural competency was emphasized throughout the updated position description. |

| | | |Example interview questions were created for use during internal staff selection and general hiring in DR |

| | | |districts. These questions should serve as examples and can be further refined or developed by hiring managers as |

| | | |they see fit. |

| | | |A Group Supervision Tool was completed. This tool was shared and used with supervisors during the April and July |

| | | |Supervisor Quarterlies and has become part of the coaching and OSM sustainability work in the districts.  |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download