County Information Systems s1

SIV_GB_Action1R_Exhibit3_Region6_SelfAssessment

Program Evaluation and Analysis Section Child and Family Services Review Region 6 Self Assessment

In preparation for your Social Services review, please complete a selfassessment that describes your Region’s ability to provide quality services to your community. This self-assessment is outcome focused and intended to assist you in the overall evaluation process. In responding to each question, please provide information over the past 12 months (Mar 2009 to May 2010). It is not necessary to submit written documents or policies unless otherwise requested.

REGIONAL INFORMATION SYSTEM

Core Question:

How effective is the Region’s information system?

The Data Integrity Specialist (DIS) role was an integral part the region’s ability to pull and analyze data. The DIS pulled data, requested updates, provided feedback and training to counties based on their individual needs. The DS also provided support and training on the Shines system. The Data Integrity Specialist for Region VI is knowledgeable of policy, Georgia Shines and has become familiar with Georgia Lenses. In this capacity, the Data Integrity Specialist was capable of pulling identified information for the Regional Director and provided the support needed to use the system's data to ensure that data was accurate. During this reporting period, County Directors continued to use the DFCS Field Operations Case Review Guide (CFSR Tool) to calculate statistics regarding outcome measures for cases reviewed monthly.

During this review period, County Directors, Supervisors, Case Managers, and Field Program Specialists continued to utilize the region’s data to assist in helping counties meet their individual goals. County Directors have become familiar with the Georgia Lenses system and have utilized these reports to drill down county specific data. This data was then used to ascertain the county's performance on regional and statewide goals.

Field Program Specialists (FPS) used Georgia Shines reports such as placement listings, over due pending, case review past due reports as well as safety resource listings to gauge counties’ achievement in regionally established goals regarding permanency, safety resources as well as statewide cadences.

County staff throughout the region used in-house tracking reports as well as legal, TPR, county staffings and other tracking reports to monitor the county's progress. Shines case watch tabs as well as task lists were used by case managers

1 SIV_GB_Action1R_Exhibit3_Region6_SelfAssessment to track data and remain timely. We acknowledge that case managers entering documentation into Shines within 72 hours continued to be an issue. To counteract this problem counties have developed individual cadences in which supervisors and administrators monitor compliance. Another need that has been identified is the use of Shines to enter case staffings and conferences. Some counties have recognized the importance of documenting staffings in Shines and supervisors are now entering the information as opposed to the case managers. This task continued to be a challenge for some counties and has been recognized as a need by the region. The region is currently in the process of developing a cadence designed to ensure staffing documentation compliance.

The Regional Director as well as County Directors are using Georgia Lenses and Shines reports as well as case record and FORG reviews to assess the county's progress as well as determine the needs for the families in the region. The Regional Office has developed a new procedure to monitor records reviewed within the region. This case information is captured and is submitted to the county offices monthly.

CASE REVIEW SYSTEM

Written Case Plan

Core Question:

How effective is the Region in ensuring that each family has a timely written case plan that is developed jointly with all applicable family members?

Counties used Family Team Meetings (FTM) in both placement and family preservation cases to develop case plans with families. Family members are engaged in the FTM process by the FTM coordinators. During the period under review (PUR), county staff used in house tracking systems to track case plans to ensure they were developed as well as implemented timely. Close monitoring continued to be the process throughout the region to determine the family's progress and assess the need for an updated family and/or case plan.

In Region 6 the Family Centered Practice Model has been utilized to support the case managers’ partnership with their families. As families are the experts regarding their own situation, gaining a parent’s support and direction on their family plan has been paramount. It has also been a practice in this region to understand that all families are unique and the services have to be tailored to needs of the family.

Regional Field Program Specialists (FPS) provided feedback and mentoring to case managers and supervisors regarding case plans, not only to include content based on case specific tasks, but also to ensure that they were implemented timely.

2 SIV_GB_Action1R_Exhibit3_Region6_SelfAssessment

Although there has been some improvement with the inclusion of children in the FTM progress the region has continued to stress the importance of documentation indicating that the children were involved in the FTM as well as the Family Preservation Services and/or Placement case.

The case manger for the assigned FPS or Placement case attended the FTM. This case manager added the documentation of the FTM to include the developed case plan, the family's involvement in the FTM, and appropriately documented in Shines. All eleven counties with active placement and applicable FPS cases also developed the case plans with the families as well as provided completed and signed case plans to the juvenile court or inclusion in the family's court ordered plan.

The region worked diligently to ensure that staff was trained on engaging fathers as well as methods to locate them. Field Program Specialists worked individually with case managers as well as supervisor to model good practice with engagement with fathers. County supervisors presented State Office Peas and Karots series to case managers; this curriculum involved an extensive review on locating fathers and ensuring that they are engaged once they were located. Bibb County initiated a Father newsletter that was sent to fathers monthly. Baldwin also had a program centered on fathers developed to assist case managers with the engagement of fathers.

The Region has experienced the following barriers with families involved in the FTM process:  Reluctance of the family to cooperate  Domestic Violence (DV) cases preventing the family from being able to work jointly on their issues  Inability to locate the parents  Short time frames In an effort to alleviate some of the barriers the county case managers have worked jointly with the FTM coordinator to locate the absent parents, engage reluctant parents and ensure multiple FTMs for situations that involved DV.

Periodic Reviews/Permanency Hearings

Core Question:

How effective is the Region in conducting periodic 6 month reviews and permanency hearings for all children in foster care Citizen Panel Reviews have held in the following counties:  Putnam  Baldwin  Houston  Bibb

 Monroe Counties in the regions who have participated in Citizen Panel Reviews (CPR) worked jointly with the juvenile court panel representative to ensure that new cases are identified for panels within 90 days of a child's placement into foster care, as well as track panel reviews every six months thereafter.

Judicial Reviews are held in the following counties:  Peach  Crawford  Jones  Wilkinson  Twiggs  Pulaski County supervisors and case managers have been responsible for developing methods to track cases in need of judicial reviews along with the assistance of the juvenile court as well as the SAAG in tracking this process.

Strengths  Accountability  SAAG is sometimes involved with the permanency tracking  Citizen Panel reviews maintain a yearly calendar and keep the family focused

Barrier  Citizen Panel reviewers often have unrealistic expectations

Termination of Parental Rights

Core Question:

How effective is the Region in filing for termination of parental rights when a child is in foster care for 15 of 22 months unless there is a compelling reason not to file, in accordance with the provisions of the Adoption and Safe Families Act?

We worked diligently to determine those situations that warrant filing for TPR at least by the 15th of 22nd month and tried to ensure that these petitions have been filed timely. In those instances where compelling reasons are necessary, we continued to do good work around documenting compelling reasons in case plans; however, we realized that in order to be consistent we must work diligently to ensure that the compelling reasons are documented also in all court orders. The courts have worked with the agency in determining if TPR was not in a child's best interest; however, we must be diligent when working with the SAAG to ensure that these reasons are documented in the court order. We also realized that County Directors and Supervisors must follow up with case managers to

4 SIV_GB_Action1R_Exhibit3_Region6_SelfAssessment ensure that compelling reasons are also documented in the Shines documentation.

Barriers identified within Region 6 involving the TPR process have continually revolved around the court system and the resistance to filing for TPR in certain instances. Judges were often reluctant to accept a petition for TPR and asked that the agency continue to work with the family towards reunification. Repeated continuances have impaired counties from filing for TPRs timely as well. County Directors met with Juvenile Judges to discuss the concerns and explained how these actions have impacted ASFA guidelines. It is noted that a training and/or refresher regarding ASFA would be a useful tool for the juvenile judges to help get beyond this barrier. We continually worked towards the barrier of achieving finalizations timely by closely monitoring the court process as well as the SAAG’s actions and taking necessary steps to move the case forward.

Often times SAAGS had to file for publications particularly those that involve other states and the enormous fees that must be resolved before publication. Admittedly the counties have indicated that they have not provided the SAAG with the correct information for the family in order to accurately publish on the absent parent(s). County Directors met with the SAAGS and case management staff to help alleviate these issues. Permanency roundtables have demonstrated to be a useful tool in Region 6 towards achieving permanency for our children. Since the implementation of permanency roundtables in April 2009, there have been three identified cases where permanency was achieved and or greatly improved. In two of these cases children were moved from group home environments to family foster home environments and in the other situation the children were returned home. There was one barrier identified during the PUR regarding permanency roundtables. This barrier was there are often suggestions made during the roundtable that is unachievable goals for the counties.

QUALITY ASSURANCE METHODS

Core Question:

Describe the Region’s quality assurance process (mini reviews, record reviews, targeted reviews, supervisor case conferencing, FORG etc.). Include a discussion on how the region ensures that appropriate services are provided to meet the children’s and family’s identified needs, including follow up with service providers.

Targeted reviews in the counties were held quarterly where a sample of investigations, FPS, placement and/or adoption cases were reviewed. The cases were reviewed with Quality Improvement (QIP) guides that were developed specifically to target those areas that needed improvement. This area included item 20 based areas to include father as well as family engagement.

FORG county director reviews as well as supervisor reviews were completed monthly based on the identified sample in Shines. County Directors followed up with their findings with their case managers based on county specific procedures designed to track case follow up. Supervisor reviews were also used to track the progress of cases as well as compliance.

County Directors developed and implemented individualized execution plans around the following QIP measures: pending incidents, response time, ECEM, legal representation and EPEM. By developing county based execution plans on these objectives counties have made great success in achieving their identified goals set for each objective.

From May through July 2009, the region completed the last quarter of safety resource cadences. This cadence involved closely monitoring of cases by the Field Program Specialists as well as the counties. In situations where counties needed consultation and feedback, field program specialists assisted counties with developing plans to move the cases forward while achieving permanency and maintaining safety. County Directors also worked diligently within their counties as well as the region on this weekly cadence in order to ensure that safety resources were used appropriately.

Reviews conducted by Field Program Specialists, County Directors and Supervisors were completed with a review of the services necessary for the family to reduce risk as well as those services provided to the family via service providers. Case documentation as well as provider notes were reviewed for compliance as well as a need based on the risk/safety issues identified in the home.

Ensuring that trends from the last review has been a paramount concern for the region. After the review in 2009, the county developed a Quality Improvement Plan to include trends discovered during the review as well as other areas where strengths were needed. County Directors and Field Program Specialists worked diligently to identify trainings and practices that would improve the regions performance. Once the QIP was developed, the counties provided written updates quarterly to the regional office. Field Program Specialists also completed QIP reviews quarterly. These reviews were developed to assess the county's performance based on identified trends from the previous review. The results of the reviews were provided to the County Directors upon completion of the review, followed by a review of the results by the Regional Director.

Providing specific trainings geared towards engaging fathers was provided in the region. This training along with the Peas and Karots training provided by the supervisors to their staff proved useful in identifying methods to ensure that fathers were included.

Targeted cadences such as Every Child Every Month (ECEM), Every Parent Every Month (EPEM), Pending Incidents and Response Time cadences have proved

6 SIV_GB_Action1R_Exhibit3_Region6_SelfAssessment useful in ensuring that the counties are maximizing their performance and ensuring that children are safe.

There were no actions taken in the region to ensure quality performance that were proven to be ineffective.

SERVICE ARRAY

Core Question:

How effective is the Region’s array of services in meeting the needs of the children and families it serves, including family preservation and foster care cases? (Please use the exploratory items below to answer this question)

Whether the family is involved with Family Preservation Services or Placement services ensuring that children are reunited with their families timely has been an ongoing objective of the region. In order to work effectively with families and eliminate safety issues, counties have utilized community based parenting classes, Homestead providers, Vocational Rehabilitation Services, mental health and substance abuse treatment facilities such as Oconee Regional, River Edge (Project Connect) and The Phoenix Center (Stars Program). Although there are factors that often prevent a timely reunification the services offered has assisted our families in getting the services necessary to meet their needs.

These providers in the community offered additional services to assist victims of domestic violence with housing and counseling. Facilities such as HODAC of Warner Robins, The Salvation Army of Macon, Circle of Love of Milledgeville and WINGS of Dublin are agencies widely used to assist clients with domestic violence issues. Intensive Family Intervention (IFI) services were also widely used by counties in the region. IFI providers provided an array of services to include: crisis intervention, intensive mental health treatment and intensive family treatment. Quality Directions, Dynamic Interventions and Piedmont Counseling are three providers used often throughout the region. Additional services used to support our families also included, community charitable organizations like Putnam Christian Outreach, Project Share, St Vincent De Paul, Tender Care Clinic and LIPTs.

Assessing safety of children has always been a priority, and children in out of home placements placed in foster, relative and safety resource homes were continually evaluated for safety. It has been a diligent effort to complete safety resource assessments within 3 days as well as relative home evaluation timely. We recognized that there is still a need for case managers to carefully monitor providers and terminate those services when the client’s needs are not being met. Case managers also need to review provider documentation as well as verify services with clients to ensure that the necessary services are being provided.

Financial services needed in order to maintain placements such as TANF, Subsidized Guardianship Subsidy, Non Relative Guardianship Subsidy and Relative Care Subsidy were provided when available to those persons providing out of home placements.

During the PUR there were 87 adoptions finalized in the region. Achieving timely adoptions has been a factor in children successfully gaining permanency. The region fully utilized resources available to promote timely adoptions. In order to complete child life histories timely, the counties initiated requests to Morningstar Treatment Services. Additional activities to successfully match children with families included regional specific recruitment for those children where locating a permanent resource has been difficult. These activities proved to be useful as county case managers had the opportunity to meet with other case managers, discuss their children available for adoption and make successful matches.

Adoption disruptions and dissolutions have been unfortunate; however, they do not occur without diligent efforts to prevent them. In the region, the agency has used IFI services (for both possible disruptions and dissolutions), Mentor services, post adoption services and special services to include respite and day care.

It is the Region’s stance that all youth benefit from the Independent Living Program (ILP. It has been the Regional Director’s objective to ensure that there are more workshops available for the region’s youths and increase youth participation. Throughout the review period, there have been numerous workshops designed to assist youth based on different topics. Events such as Prom-a-Palooza and Dress for Success were held in the region. Monthly workshops and special events, funding for college and living expenses, transition meetings at age 17 were used to prepare our youth for adulthood. Counseling and additional services provided by group homes also prepared youth for upcoming adulthood.

Barriers or gaps in the provision of services in the region included reduced funding for housing, mental health and substance abuse programs as well in home counseling services through Homestead and Wrap Around. In order to meet this gap, counties have ensured they secure free and adequate services for their families during this financial set back.

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Core Question:

How effectively has the Region implemented a process for ensuring the diligent recruitment of potential foster and adoptive families of children needing foster and adoptive homes? (Please use the exploratory items below to answer this question)

Bibb County: One RD supervisor, 3 social service case managers and one social services technician.

Houston County: 1 RD/Adoptions Supervisor and 3 social services case managers that are dedicated RD.

Region: 1 RD Coordinator/Supervisor and 5 social services case managers, representing 9 counties.

Duties of all Region VI RD staff:  Locate placements for all children entering care, including respite and disruptions  IMPACT – to include facilitating and writing home studies  Quarterly contacts with all foster/adoptive families  Completion of re-evaluations  Foster Home Assessments  Corrective Action Plans  Maintain 250 relative care subsidy cases (Bibb)  HGK Inquiry Line  Adding all inquiries into SHINES system  Orientation  Recruitment  Provide local and regional trainings for foster parents  Maintain adoption assistance cases (Region)  Supervise adoption cases where children are placed in their respective counties (Region)  Seek out qualified contractors and completion of contracts (Supervisors)

The recruitment activities listed below reached in all parts of our communities. Media outlets were used to distribute information to all areas. In all activities, a description of the characteristics of waiting children was provided to potential foster and adoptive parents. In addition, an annual recruitment event is held during Bibb County’s Pan-African Festival, which celebrates diverse African- American cultures. Recruitment materials, in both Spanish and English, are disseminated to businesses that cater to the Hispanic population.

Regional recruitment activities consist of, but not limited to, the following activities:  EORO events – including region-wide display of foster/adoptive T-shirts  Presentations in the church/faith communities  Banners placed through-out the region  Utilization of current foster and adoptive families (word of mouth)

 Inserts into local church bulletins  Annual region-wide community events  Billboards  Flyers/brochures placed in community locations, such as doctors’ offices, malls grocery stores, department stores, etc  Presentations at civic and community organizations  Presentations at county fairs, parades, health fairs, school PTOs, etc.  Newspaper articles and public service announcements  Radio and television public service announcements

Identify strengths and barriers to recruitment efforts.

Strengths:  Less demand for foster homes, due to reduced number of children in care. Has enabled counties to seek more qualified applicants.  Positive regional relationships with foster and adoptive parents and foster and adoptive parent associations have contributed to positive “word of mouth” recruitment  Statewide 1-877 number that is able to be disseminated to all inquirers  Regional recruitment events that are held annually.  Relationship with media outlets, including radio, television, newspapers, and magazines.  Relationship with church/faith community

Barriers:  Time restraints due to other assigned resource development duties, including, but not limited to, monthly re-evaluations, foster home assessments, placements of children, relative care subsidy cases, adoption assistance cases, and entering duplicate information into SHINES and HGK database  Lack of funding for RD initiatives  Variables impacting follow-through by families, including standards that are somewhat difficult for families to meet

Staff and Provider Training

Core Question:

How effective is the Region in providing and ensuring completion of adequate initial training for supervisory and case management staff in child welfare services? (Please use the exploratory items below to answer this question)

The new worker training has set a good groundwork in regards to exposing case managers and supervisors to new child welfare material. The training attempts to

10 SIV_GB_Action1R_Exhibit3_Region6_SelfAssessment provide a broad base of child welfare knowledge with the intent that case managers will learn practice via observation.

The regional office has been responsible for completing an orientation for new case managers during the certification process. County Management has been responsible for registering case mangers for initial keys training. County Directors registered new supervisors for training as well as tracked their follow up training.

County Supervisors and Directors have supported opportunities for learning with their agencies. It is known that good training is critical to good case work that is centered on the safety, risk, well-being, and permanency for families and children. This information has often been presented in staff meetings.

County Directors ensured that new ideas are supported to provide services in the best interest of families and children. Staff is asked to share any new information/concepts that they learn when at training.

Because training was so critical to the success of case managers and supervisors, County Directors provided continuous support for their staff for follow up and/or new trainings. A benefit identified from workers attending training has been that they have provided clear expectation and given clear examples of how to do the right work the right way.

Barriers to attending trainings included the lack of traveling resources, county resources as well as the problems stemming from cancelled trainings. It would be beneficial if the state provided more training regarding how to effectively utilize family centered practice. Another training need is how to present new information to staff effectively. Also, there should be trainings on how a good family plan should be developed in family preservation and placement. It is critical that documentation training be a part of the new workers’ training. There should also be refresher documentation training for veteran workers.

The region is dedicated to providing the necessary resources to maximize performance of case managers, administrators, supervisors, county directors and regional staff. The following trainings were held in Region 6 during the PUR:

 Utilizing Psychological Evaluations in Case Planning  Understanding the Role of County Director  Skills & Strategies for Working with Fathers (Case Managers)

 Legal Issue II  ECEM  Skills & Strategies for Working with Father (Admin)  Intake and Screening (Case Managers)  Intake and Screening (Admin/Supervisors)

 Family Centered Practice (Admin/Supervisors)  Documentation Training  Substance Abuse Training  LEP/SI Training  FORG Training (Supervisors, regional staff and administrative staff)

 Safety RT Orientation

 Family Violence  Family Centered Practice (Case Managers)

 Working Effectively with Staff – Best Practices for County Directors  Safety RT (Supervisor Summit)

AGENCY RESPONSIVENESS TO THE COMMUNITY

Core Question:

Describe how the Region receives and responds to input from external stakeholders for meeting child welfare goals and objectives. (Please use the exploratory items below to answer this question)

Our region considers and values the information shared by all stakeholders. Region VI followed up with the stakeholders, listened and engaged them in an effort to address any concerns that they had or used information shared when engaging and providing needed services to the family. The CD, supervisors and case managers consulted with stakeholders regarding the families that the agency served. This was accomplished through returning telephone calls promptly, staffing cases with SAAG, service providers, foster parents, school system administration and staff, discussing issues with mandated professional collaterals, and building rapport with clients. The agency made the required referrals to the tribal representatives for children when needed and followed up as needed to address questions or concerns.

Performing as a team with providers and external stakeholders has been a critical aspect to the formula for keeping children safe. Counties met with their court staff and SAAGs to address any concerns or issues. LIPT and RIAT meetings were held with local and regional staff. These meetings are used to address mental health needs for the community as well as DFCS children and also promote communication with community providers.

Some counties held monthly AFPAG. The regional office continually worked with counties and consumers to resolve complaints and to ensure that the consumers received all necessary services for their family. All counties served on community boards where they actively participate on these boards in order to address community issues.

Some counties ensured that any complaints received were discussed and addressed by designated persons. Counties are open to receiving input from stakeholders and used the feedback in order to monitor customer service. Counties maintained positive communication with stakeholders in an effort to maintain an effective relationship.

Barriers included DFCS having to abide by policy whereas stakeholders were not required to, and stakeholders not understanding DFCS policies. Some counties met with community agencies to brainstorm ways to alleviate barriers.

Counties used the input from stakeholders to evaluate issues with staff and policies. Stakeholder's input also allowed for agencies to provide the maximum services for the families.

Continued budget cuts in mental and public health agencies restricted DFCS from providing quality services to families throughout the region. State mandated furloughs also had an impact on the services made available to our region's families.

OTHER ISSUES

Discuss staff changes in the past year and the impact in meeting time frames and the delivery of quality services to families.

Although some counties experienced some case manager and supervisor vacancies, they proved that with the region's support, caseloads were maintained. We also managed caseloads across county lines. The region worked diligently and closely monitored cases to ensure that the family's services were not compromised during the shortage.

How has the region utilized the Field Program Specialists over the past 12 months to assist in meeting the CFSR requirements?

Field Program Specialists continued to provide an array of support and consultation for the county offices. Immediately after the 2009 review, field program specialists reviewed county review guides, identified trends and met with the county staff to discuss the trends. Field program specialist also evaluated the counties’ methods to address the trends and recommended training in those areas needed. The QIP review guide was also then developed as well as reviews established.

Field program specialists and CFSR Project Manager conducted supervisor meetings bi monthly and discussed policy, cadences and permanency. In January 2010, a PEAS workshop was provided to the county case managers and supervisors. This workshop reviewed the trends from the CFSR review, provided supervisors with methods to provide follow up and monitoring for good case

13 SIV_GB_Action1R_Exhibit3_Region6_SelfAssessment manager practice and provided case managers with examples of services that meet CFSR standards.

Other services provided to individually assigned counties provided by the field program specialists were:  Monthly record reviews with feedback to the county  Participation in permanency staffings to assist counties in achieving permanency  Staffings based on the Safety Resource Cadence  Mentoring and feedback for county supervisors and case managers  New worker certification and support based on CFSR standards  Case consultation and identified training needs based on Regional/County Director case reviews.  Field Program Specialists conducted targeted QIP reviews in class for all 11 counties in the region  Counties provided feedback to case managers regarding county reports, conference guides and reviews  Bi-monthly supervisor meetings and monthly director meetings provided training and feedback on county progress  The region county directors and supervisors used the QIP to review and identify results for CFSR standards within the region  Cadence of Accountability regarding Permanency. This cadence was achieved by the Field Program Specialists working with the counties on completing a spread sheet of all children in foster care in the region. On a monthly basis, Field Program Specialists would staff these identified cases with the county or review the case record and provide feedback to the Regional Director.  Permanency Meetings held bi monthly  Individual documentation case review following documentation training

Identify any promising practices the region is utilizing or has implemented to enhance the regions’ ability to provide quality services and effective case management. Discuss how the region has implemented the Family Centered Practice Model; include any training efforts, etc.

The permanency expeditor has been also been a resource provided by the region towards achieving permanency. The permanency expeditor served on the permanency roundtables as well as worked with specific counties in order to ensure that children in Child Placement Agencies, Child Caring Institutions and PRTF’s were receiving the necessary mental health services. The Permanency Expeditor also worked with counties on case specific situations where they needed assistance with a child’s medication management as well as gaining additional mental health resources necessary to meet the child’s needs.

The visitation center developed between Bibb and The Methodist Home has proven to be a successful venture. The agencies were able to provide parenting,

14 SIV_GB_Action1R_Exhibit3_Region6_SelfAssessment visitation, support and life skills training for parents while their children were in foster care.

Please note and/or include any additional information, reports or data that may be helpful in the overall review process.

Safety Roundtables were proven to be a great success in Region 6. With the assistance of State Office staff, as well as staff of the Casey Foundation, the region was able to train Case Managers, Supervisors, County Directors and Regional Staff on the roundtable process and critical information on how to effectively identify safety versus risk. The roundtables were held during a week’s time and over 60 cases were round tabled; we are also happy to report that we had 100% participation from the counties in the region. The roundtables not only resulted in situations were safety threats were eliminated, but also situations were families achieved safety and no longer needed the agency’s involvement. To ensure continuity with the process, the Field Program Specialists have continued to monitor active FPS cases with those identified counties in order to ensure their compliance with the steps on the safety action plan.