1 / 10

Common Goals - CFSR

This presentation discusses Washington County, Minnesota's response to the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) conducted in 2004 and the subsequent federal review in 2007. With a population of 228,000, primarily white and relatively affluent, the county faced opportunities for significant improvement despite initial perceptions of performance. Key findings include strengths in staff communication and social work practices, alongside areas needing enhancement, such as documentation and consistency. This experience highlights the importance of thorough assessment and collaborative efforts in fostering better outcomes for families.

lorant
Télécharger la présentation

Common Goals - CFSR

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Common Goals - CFSR Child and Family Service Review The Washington County, Minnesota Experience Citizen Review Panel ConferenceMay 21-23, 2008 Daniel J. PapinDirector, Washington County Community Services

  2. Where we are Located

  3. Who We Are • Population: 228,000 • Mostly white • Relatively wealthy • 65,000 children • Low high school drop out rate

  4. Our Response to theCFSR State Review in 2004 • Surprised at what the process revealed – while doing well, plenty of opportunity for improvement • Board Reaction: “You mean we’re not the best in the State?” • Process was impressive – thorough, focused, professional

  5. Our Response to theCFSR State Review in 2004 • Took the outcome seriously and have taken deliberate steps to improve: • Performance Improvement Plan • Staffing Levels Increased (over time)

  6. Federal CFSRSeptember 2007 • One of three counties selected • Extensive planning and pre-review coordination • CRP chair – Dani Horan participated in the state assessment process • Intense week – Reviewers worked from 8:00 a.m. to 10-11:00 p.m. on site

  7. Federal CFSRSeptember 2007 • 17 cases audited • CR Panel (current & past members) interviewed • Clients/Stakeholders/Partners Engaged

  8. Local Findings - Strengths • Staff and social work practice • Communication and relationships with community • CRP • Q A process • Concurrent planning

  9. Local Findings-Opportunities • Timelines • Documentation • Consistency - practice

  10. Key Findings • County actually can work with the State! • Feds have high standards, but don’t back it financially • Some concern about objectivity of reviewers • Surprised at the passion/emotion of the experience

More Related