Sheriffs Child Protective Investigations

Transcription

1 Sheriffs Child Protective Investigations PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT Fiscal Year Conducted by the Broward, Citrus Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, Seminole County Sheriff s Offices

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 3 EVALUATION PLAN AND DESIGN... 4 QUALITY PERFORMANCE REVIEW... 5 OUTCOME MEASURES AND STANDARDS... 5 CONCLUSIONS... 6 QUALITY PERFORMANCE REVIEW... 6 OUTCOME MEASURES... 7 RECOMMENDATIONS... 7 INTRODUCTION-PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION... 8 SHERIFF S INVOLVEMENT IN CHILD PROTECTIVE INVESTIGATIONS IN FLORIDA... 8 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PLAN AND DESIGN PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONS DEVELOPMENT OF THE EVALUATION DESIGN AND PLAN SAMPLING METHODOLOGY AND SIZE QUALITY PERFORMANCE REVIEW PEER REVIEW TEAMS REVIEW INSTRUMENTS PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ASSESSING PERFORMANCE OUTCOME MEASURES ATTAINMENT MEASURES AND STANDARDS SOURCES OF DATA AND ANALYSIS METHODS QUALITY PERFORMANCE (CASE REVIEWS) MANATEE COUNTY PASCO COUNTY BROWARD COUNTY CITRUS COUNTY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PINELLAS COUNTY SEMINOLE COUNTY OUTCOME MEASURES ATTAINMENT ANNUAL OUTCOMES FOR COMMENCEMENTS OF REPORTS WITHIN 24 HOURS ANNUAL OUTCOMES FOR REPORT CLOSURES WITHIN 60 DAYS ANNUAL OUTCOMES FOR INITIAL SUPERVISORY REVIEWS WITHIN 72 HOURS ADDITIONAL OUTCOME PERFORMANCE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT COST EFFICIENCY RECOMMENDATIONS

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION In February 2010, the Office of Program Policy and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) released a research memorandum that concluded Sheriff s Offices have advantages for conducting child abuse investigations. This OPPAGA review of costs, processes and outcomes of child protective investigations conducted by the Sheriff s Offices as compared to those conducted by the Department of Children and Families did note in part that due to their law enforcement affiliation, child abuse investigators working for Sheriffs generally have greater access to training and specialists, as well as enhanced cooperation and community respect not always afforded to DCF investigators. For those communities in Florida with a Sheriff s Office handling the responses to an abuse hotline call, OPPAGA s conclusions regarding the community deference, respect and enhanced partnerships are not surprising. From the initial pilots with Sheriff s Offices dating back over 15 years to our present day system, wherein a quarter of Florida s communities are now covered by Sheriff-driven child protective investigations, the enhanced community-based approach has thrived and become intertwined in these Sheriff-led communities. These child protection response systems integrated with Sheriff s Offices were once touted as different and innovative, but over the years they have become so integrated and interdependent within their local communities that their differently structured, efficient service delivery has become the rule and the expectation. These Sheriff-run operations are held accountable not only by the State, but also by their community systems; as a result, their balanced, comprehensive and effective integrated responses continue to be commended. Following some successful pilots in Manatee in the mid 1990 s, support for expansion came through the Florida Legislature in 1998 under House Bill No. 3217, which allowed the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to initiate an expanded model program for child protective investigative services, which involved contracting with three county Sheriffs (Manatee, Pasco and Pinellas) for FY The bill also required the transfer of all the responsibilities for child protective investigations to these Sheriffs in FY In 1999, Broward County Sheriff became the fourth Sheriff to assume the responsibility for child protective investigations, and Seminole County Sheriff became the fifth Sheriff in In 2005, Hillsborough County Sheriff assumed the role, and that Office was followed by the seventh Sheriff, Citrus County Sheriff, in The annual oversight for the Sheriffs was initially defined under Florida Law , which required a committee of seven persons appointed by the Governor to address Sheriffs program performance. That committee met with the respective Sheriffs and developed criteria mutually agreed upon for an annual review. The committee held the responsibility for submitting an annual report regarding quality performance, outcome- 3

4 measurement attainment and cost efficiency. In 2000, under Florida Law , the committee ended and an annual report on program performance by the Sheriff s Offices was mandated, based on an annual review using criteria mutually agreed upon by the Sheriffs and DCF. This report addresses quality performance, outcome-measure attainment, and cost efficiency and is completed by a team of Peer Reviewers from the Sheriff s Offices performing child protective investigations with support from the Department. This is the 11 th Annual Sheriff Peer Review Report. EVALUATION PLAN AND DESIGN The program performance evaluation questions for this evaluation are based upon language in ss (3)(d), F.S. In summary, these questions are: 1. How does the quality of performance involving the Sheriff's Offices conducting child protective investigations comply with the requirements of Chapter 39, F.S.? 2. Have the participating Sheriff's Offices achieved the performance standards and outcome measures specified in their grant agreements? 3. Are the participating Sheriff s Offices performing child protective investigations in a cost efficient manner? Representatives from the seven Sheriff s Offices with support from the Department comprised the program evaluation planning team. The Sheriff Representatives were as follows: Broward County Sheriff: Capt. Andrew Koerick, Program Administrator; Joseph Paduano, Child Protective Investigation (CPI) Supervisor Seminole County Sheriff: Capt. Greg Barnett, Captain; Jay Saucer, Quality Assurance Pinellas County Sheriff: Brandi Lazaris, Program Administrator; Katie Favara, Supervisor Citrus County Sheriff: Lt. Dave Wyllie, Lieutenant; Richard Patterson, CPI Supervisor Hillsborough County Sheriff: Major Robert Bullara, Division Commander; Jennifer Hock, Program Administrator Pasco County Sheriff: Steve Blumenthal, Program Director; Fawn Moore, Asst. Program Director Manatee County Sheriff: Joyce Edick, Operations Program Specialist 4

5 In 2010, the planning committee adopted several changes to the Peer Review Tool. Two questions were added to the tool, and one question, relating to the completion of a form, was eliminated from the tool. DCF accepted the revisions to the Peer Review Tool. On-site reviews were scheduled for each Sheriff s Office. Reviewers from each Sheriff s Office and from DCF were present for on-site case file reviews and conducted entry and exit presentations. QUALITY PERFORMANCE REVIEW The 2010 Sheriff s Peer Review process included 2 ½ day on-site visits for each Sheriff s location. The plan developed collaboratively included case file reviews and reviews of performance measures as core components of quality performance. The 2010 process fully addressed the quality of practice standards utilizing the revised standardized review tool. The number of files reviewed at each site was determined using a statistical 90% confidence level, with a +/-10% confidence interval. For all review sites, the sample size was 65 files. Excluded from the sample were duplicate reports, institutional reports, foster care referrals, special condition reports, out of town inquiries (OTI s), and no-jurisdiction reports. The sample pulled was comprised of fifty percent (50%) reports with a judicial action and 50% non-judicial in disposition. The overall score for each Sheriff s Office includes only the results of the internal case file review and the side-by-side review, and was calculated using the Sheriff s Peer Review Access database with each file receiving equal weight in scoring. OUTCOME MEASURES AND STANDARDS Subsection (3)(b), F.S., requires that the Sheriffs performing child protective investigations operate, at a minimum, in accordance with the performance standards and outcome measures established for protective investigations conducted by the Department of Children and Families. The General Appropriations Act sets forth appropriations for the Sheriff s Offices. These funds are allocated through multi-year Grant Agreements with the seven Sheriff s Offices performing child protective investigations. The Grant Agreements reference three performance measures, which are used to determine outcome attainment for the Sheriffs and the DCF districts/region: 1. One hundred percent (100%) of investigations commenced within 24 hours. 2. Ninety percent (90%) of investigations completed within 60 days. 3. One hundred percent (100%) of reports reviewed by supervisors in accordance with Department s timeframes. 5

6 These measures were amended in the Grant Agreements beginning July The 60- day closure measure was eliminated for Fiscal Year , but was replaced with a performance measure that tracks the timeliness of victims seen within 24 hours of a report being received by the Florida Abuse Hotline. The data for these performance measures and others are entered by users into the child-welfare information system, Florida Safe Families Network (FSFN). This system produces statewide management reports, which are used for determining statewide outcomes. CONCLUSIONS QUALITY PERFORMANCE REVIEW Sheriff s Office involvement in child protection investigations began in the mid 1990 s when calls for reform led to successful pilots that spurred legislative commitment to implement statutory changes. During this time, the Legislature also passed new statutes requiring the outsourcing of foster care and related services statewide. It was the Legislature s intent to encourage communities and other stakeholders in the well-being of children to participate in assuring that children were safe and well-nurtured in their local community. DCF moved aggressively and successfully outsourced the state s foster care and related services to community-based care lead agencies. Florida has used the community-based care philosophy, including contracting with Sheriff s Offices, to safely reduce the number of children in foster care and embrace familycentered practices when working with families. Recommendations from the Subcommittee for Children and Families to Governor-Elect Scott s Health and Human Services Transition Team, dated December 20, 2010, noted in part, that DCF under the leadership of former Secretaries Bob Butterworth and George Sheldon, and today, under Secretary David Wilkins was, widely recognized by many Floridians as the best run Department in the state. It further concluded, This leadership has been open to finding innovative solutions such as privatization, technology, and leveraging existing resources in local communities. DCF has truly leveraged well with the involvement of these Sheriff s Offices. Successful leveraging of community law-enforcement personnel and their existing resources for conducting child protective investigations continues to result in quality outcomes for protecting children and supporting families. The results of the 2010 review once again validate that effective, quality and efficient child protective investigation services are conducted by the Broward, Citrus, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, Hillsborough and Seminole County Sheriff s Offices. 6

7 OUTCOME MEASURES The performance outcomes reported in this review confirm Sheriff s Offices continue to achieve the performance outcome measures established by the Legislature. Broward, Citrus, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, Hillsborough and Seminole County Sheriff s Offices all achieved passing ratings in the record reviews in this year s Peer Review. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Department of Children and Families should continue their grants to the Sheriff s Offices in Manatee, Pasco, Seminole, Broward, Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Citrus counties to conduct child protective investigations. 2. The commendable, longstanding and successful roles that Sheriff s Offices have had in Florida for providing child protective investigative services should warrant DCF and the legislature to encourage more sheriff expansions along with corresponding funding for all of their successful operations. 3. The Department of Children and Families should continue to report on the participating Sheriff's Offices with regard to achieving the performance measures and targets. 4. The Department of Children and Families should continue involving representatives from the Sheriff s Offices in identifying appropriate practice standards and performance measures for child protective investigations. 5. The Department of Children and Families and the Sheriffs Offices should use the results of this year s quality performance review to identify and implement improvements for pre-service and in-service training of investigators and supervisors. 7

8 INTRODUCTION PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION The annual oversight for the Sheriff s Offices conducting child protective investigations was initially defined under Florida Law which required a committee of seven persons appointed by the Governor to address Sheriffs program performance. That committee met with the respective Sheriffs and developed criteria mutually agreed upon for an annual review. The committee held the responsibility for submitting an annual report regarding quality performance, outcome-measurement attainment and cost efficiency. In 2000, under Florida Law , the committee ended and an annual report on program performance by the Sheriff s Offices was mandated, based on an annual Peer Review by the respective Sheriffs using criteria mutually agreed upon by Sheriffs and DCF. The report addresses quality performance, outcome measure attainment, and cost efficiency and is completed by a team of Peer Reviewers from the Sheriff s Offices performing child protective investigations with support from the Department. SHERIFF S INVOLVEMENT IN CHILD PROTECTIVE INVESTIGATIONS According to FSFN data, some population shifts were seen within Florida over the past fiscal year. Broward had a slight population decrease while the other Sheriff-jurisdiction counties had population increases. Overall, 27.73% of the state s children reside within a county where the Sheriff has jurisdiction for child protective investigations. Child Population Total Population % Child population % State population Total 09-10: All Initial, Additional, Special Condition Reports Reports: % State total Broward 407,694 1,751, % 9.33% 14, % Citrus 21, , % 0.76% 1, % Hillsborough 298,584 1,203, % 6.41% 11, % Manatee 65, , % 1.70% 3, % Pasco 89, , % 2.35% 5, % Pinellas 171, , % 4.94% 9, % Seminole 98, , % 2.24% 4, % Sheriff totals 1,153,513 5,204, % 27.73% 50, % DCF totals 2,981,286 13,567, % 72.27% 137, % State total 4,134,799 18,772, ,632 Sources: Florida State Office of Economic & Demographic Research / [ Data on the next page reflect initial, additional, and special condition reports from Florida Safe Families Network (FSFN) reports. Report distribution across Sheriff s Offices and percent of reports received by month for initial, additional and special condition reports are presented on the following charts. 8

9 by Month Initial & Addls Special Condition % received Total Reports Initial & Addls Special Condition % received total Initial & Addls Special Condition % received total Jul % % % 134 Aug % % % 143 Sep % % % 127 Oct % 312 1, % % 122 Nov % % % 138 Dec % 318 1, % % 113 Jan % 302 1, % % 149 Feb % 318 1, % % 147 Mar % 496 1, % % 178 Apr % 396 1, % % 153 May % 450 1, % % 177 Jun % % % FY Total 3, % ,503 1, % , % 1762 Hillsborough Manatee by Month Initial & Addls Special Condition % received total Initial & Addls Special Conditions % received Total Reports Jul % % 286 Aug % % 275 Sep % % 314 Oct % % 315 Nov % % 277 Dec % % 280 Jan % % 308 Feb % % 337 Mar-10 1, % % 379 Apr % % 373 May-10 1, % % 427 Jun % % FY Total 10,471 1, % , % 3884 Pasco Pinellas by Month Initial & Addls Special Conditions % received Total Reports Initial & Addls Special Conditions % received Total Reports Jul % % 738 Aug % % 718 Sep % % 726 Oct % % 789 Nov % % 727 Dec % % 804 Jan % % 810 Feb % % 891 Mar % % 1072 Apr % % 980 May % % 980 Jun % % FY Total 5, % ,996 1, %

10 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PLAN AND DESIGN PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONS The program performance questions for this evaluation were based upon language in ss (3)(d), F.S. These questions are: 1. How does the quality of performance involving the Sheriff's Offices conducting child protective investigations comply with the requirements of Chapter 39, F.S.? 2. Have the participating Sheriff's Offices achieved the performance standards and outcome measures specified in their grant agreements? 3. Are the participating Sheriff s Offices performing child protective investigations in a cost efficient manner? DEVELOPMENT OF THE EVALUATION DESIGN AND PLAN For the FY Review, representatives from the Department and the Sheriff s Offices agreed to apply a revised QA review instrument. This automated instrument includes evaluation tools for the functional areas of initial response as well as emergency removal and program management. The resulting detailed case review report for each county totals an average of 130 pages with specifics on each case and summaries of each category for the overall office. Also agreed upon were sampling methodology and instrument scoring procedures. SAMPLING METHODOLOGY AND SIZE The Peer Review assesses investigative casework on the fiscal year basis. A change from calendar year to state fiscal year was made in last year s report. The investigative casework and performance outcomes are based on work from July 01, 2009, through June 30, The methodology for the quality performance component of the evaluation called for a review of closed investigation records. The definition of a closed report as used in this Peer Review is an investigation that has been completed, reviewed, signed by the investigator and supervisor, and closed in the FSFN system. As in prior reviews, reviewers considered the fact that many closed investigations were still potentially active in initial court dependency proceedings involving the investigator, with final judicial disposition outcomes not finalized. The sample size was based on the number of investigations completed during the 12- month period ending June 30, A random sample of closed child abuse reports was selected from the FSFN system from the list of reports received on or after July 1, 2009, and closed on or before June 30, The number of reports to be sampled was determined though the use of the DCF Sample Size Calculator utilizing a confidence level of 90 percent with an error rate of plus or minus 10 percent. Excluded from the sample were duplicate, institutional and special condition reports. Also excluded were reports where it was determined that there was no jurisdiction to investigate and out-of- 10

11 town requests (OTI s). The sample was stratified so that fifty percent (50%) of the sample consisted of reports which resulted in judicial action and fifty percent (50%) were non-judicial in disposition. QUALITY PERFORMANCE REVIEW PEER REVIEW TEAMS Subsection (3)(d), F.S., requires that the program performance evaluation be conducted by a team of Peer Reviewers composed of representatives from the Sheriff s Offices with support from the Department. The approach to the Peer Review was originally developed by the Department s Quality Assurance program. The case review instruments used by DCF Quality Assurance were modified for this evaluation and included a program management instrument. The Peer Review process is based upon procedures similar to those used by national accreditation organizations. The definition of peer, as used in this performance evaluation, means Sheriff and Department personnel who perform protective investigations and their respective quality assurance personnel, where applicable. The criteria established for Peer Reviewers included experience in child protective investigations; certification or, minimally, completion of child protective investigative training; supervisory level staff or above, or a staff member of the Department s Quality Assurance program. In FY 2010, the Peer Review teams included participants from each Sheriff s Office and two representatives from the Department of Children and Families local Circuit Offices. The Peer Review team did not collect or analyze cost data for the cost efficiency component of this evaluation. Cost data were provided by the Department of Children and Families, based upon expenditure reports provided by each Sheriff s Office for Fiscal Year REVIEW INSTRUMENTS ABUSE REPORT RECORD REVIEW The Peer Review team conducted a review of the 65 selected files. The abuse report review instrument addresses the statutory requirements for the investigator s initial response to the report of alleged child maltreatment and the emergency removal and placement of children, if this occurred. The instrument contains a number of statements or questions that address indicators used to determine how well essential steps in the investigation have been achieved. Indicators cover such areas as thoroughness of background checks, timeliness of investigations, and thoroughness of child safety assessments. In all, 22 indicators comprise the initial response and emergency removal and placement review form. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 11

12 Representatives from the Peer Review Team agreed to go through the program management instrument with Citrus County Sheriff s Office since the Citrus program had been operational for only one year and never had a prior management review. The other six Sheriff s Offices were not reviewed this year in the management category, because the scores for the past several years have all been 100% in the management category for these Sheriff s Offices. ASSESSING PERFORMANCE This year, the rating on the file reviews used a four-step scale with four possible numerical scores. Ratings used were: not achieved, partially achieved, substantially achieved and achieved. Point values were assigned as follows: 0 - Not Achieved 5 - Partially Achieved 7 - Substantially Achieved 9 - Achieved Overall performance was based upon the sum of the indicator scores, divided by the maximum possible score, which produced a percentage. Using the performance categories, the derived percentages translate into the following performance levels: Passing % Non-Passing 0-69 % OUTCOME MEASURES ATTAINMENT MEASURES AND STANDARDS Subsection (3)(b), F.S., requires that the Sheriffs operate in accordance with the performance standards and outcome measures established by the Legislature for protective investigations conducted by the Department. Since Fiscal Year , the General Appropriations Act has contained three measures which apply to child protective investigations. The performance measures and standards used to determine outcome attainment for the Sheriffs and the comparison counties are: 1. One hundred percent (100%) of investigations commenced within 24 hours. 2. Ninety percent (90%) of investigations completed in 60 days. 3. One hundred percent (100%) of reports reviewed by supervisors in accordance with Department s timeframes. SOURCES OF DATA AND ANALYSIS METHODS The data for all three measures come from the FSFN management report, Leaderboard for Investigations. The report lists performance for each DCF Region and Sheriff s Office that operates a child protective investigation program. 12

13 The report period represents state Fiscal Year The algorithms for calculating the outcome measures are those established by the Department in consultation with the Governor s Office of Policy and Budget as well as the substantive and appropriations committees of the Legislature having jurisdiction for the Department. The algorithms are as follows: The first performance measure (Investigations commenced within 24 hours): The numerator is the number of reports commenced within 24 hours of receipt of the report. The denominator is the total number of reports closed in the report period. The second performance measure (Investigations closed within 60 days): The numerator is the number of child protective investigations received during the period where the investigation completed date is within 60 days of the received date. The denominator is the total number of reports closed during the report period. The third performance measure (Child Safety Assessments or CSA) reviewed by supervisors in accordance with Department s timeframes): The numerator is the number of initial Child Safety Assessments reviewed by the supervisor within 72 hours from the time when the initial CSA was submitted for review. The denominator is the total number of reports closed in the report period. Quality Performance A summary of the performance findings is presented in the table below. The true percentages, if all reports rather than samples had been used, can be assumed with confidence to fall somewhere within plus or minus 10 percent at the 90 percent confidence level. Core components of questions within the quality assurance (QA) tool were listed under the following titled categories: Initial Response 1. Background Checks 2. Victim Contact 3. Contact with other Children 4. Interviews with Victims and Children 5. Observations of all Victims and Children 6. Interviews with Adult Subjects & Household Members 7. Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) 8. Relevant Collateral Contacts 9. Contact with Reporter 10. Communication Between the Investigator & Case Manager 11. Child Protection Team 12. Children s Legal Services Staffing 13. Safety Assessment Submission 14. Supervisor Review of Safety Assessment 15. Second Party Review of Safety Assessment 13

14 16. Completion of Supervisory Direction 17. Maltreatments 18. Investigative Summary 19. Safety Decision Removal 20. Reasonable Efforts 21. Psychotherapeutic Medication 22. Placement Priority 23. Home Study The results of the assessment on the above areas are entered into an electronic format that captures the responses of the reviewer and identifies the reviewer s assessment of each question. This allows for the site visited to receive immediate feedback at the end of the review period via a document averaging 150 pages, showing each reviewer s ratings for each question area shown above on cases assigned to the reviewer. The electronic program allows the reviewers to complete an on-site stratification of the data at the conclusion of the review. The electronic program is capable of drilling down in the data to identify specific areas of concern by pinpointing a question and then identifying the unit, supervisor or child protective investigator responsible. This allows the program administrator to take action in correcting any area of deficiency indentified within any unit, or by supervisor or investigator. Exit interviews were completed at each site with reviewers presenting trends and information on cases that they reviewed for management staff and supervisors at the site. All information discussed at the exit conferences was fully documented in the finalized report issued to the review site prior to the exit conference. 14

15 Manatee County Sheriff s Office Manatee site visit conducted: October 12-14, 2010 Reviewers: Joseph Paduano, Broward Sheriff s Office Jay Saucer, Seminole Sheriff s Office Richard Patterson, Citrus Sheriff s Office Cindy Harrell, Citrus Sheriff s Office Marion Tarallo, Hillsborough Sheriff s Office Kathleen Mathews, Hillsborough Sheriff s Office Dana Levy, Pasco Sheriff s Office Katie Favara, Pinellas Sheriff s Office Peggy Niermann, DCF Suncoast Region Quality Assurance Renee Gill, DCF Central Region Quality Assurance Kathy Newcomb, DCF Suncoast Region Quality Assurance Core components of questions within the QA tool were listed under the following titled categories. The overall average score at that site is listed to the right. Initial Response 1. Background Checks Average agency score Victim Contact Average agency score Contact with other Children Average agency score Interviews with Victims and Children Average agency score Observations of all Victims and Children Average agency score Interviews with Adult Subjects & Household Members Average agency score Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Average agency score Relevant Collateral Contacts Average agency score Contact with Reporter Average agency score Communication Between the Investigator & Case Manager Average agency score Child Protection Team Average agency score Children s Legal Services Staffing Average agency score Safety Assessment Submission Average agency score Supervisor Review of Safety Assessment Average agency score Second Party Review of Safety Assessment Average agency score Completion of Supervisory Direction Average agency score Maltreatments Average agency score Investigative Summary Average agency score Safety Decision Average agency score 8.64 Removal 20. Reasonable Efforts Average agency score Psychotherapeutic Medication Average agency score Placement Priority Average agency score Home Study Average agency score 8.57 Final Score:

16 Pasco County Sheriff s Office Pasco site visit conducted: August 17-19, 2010 Reviewers: Joseph Paduano, Broward Sheriff s Office Jay Saucer, Seminole Sheriff s Office Richard Patterson, Citrus Sheriff s Office Kathleen Mathews, Hillsborough Sheriff s Office Joyce Edick, Manatee Sheriff s Office Katie Favara, Pinellas Sheriff s Office Kimberly Williams, DCF Suncoast Region Quality Assurance Core components of questions within the QA tool were listed under the following titled categories. Additionally, the overall average score at that site is listed to the right. Initial Response 1. Background Checks Average agency score Victim Contact Average agency score Contact with other Children Average agency score Interviews with Victims and Children Average agency score Observations of all Victims and Children Average agency score Interviews with Adult Subjects & Household Members Average agency score Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)) Average agency score Relevant Collateral Contacts Average agency score Contact with Reporter Average agency score Communication Between the Investigator & Case Manager Average agency score Child Protection Team Average agency score Children s Legal Services Staffing Average agency score Safety Assessment Submission Average agency score Supervisor Review of Safety Assessment Average agency score Second Party Review of Safety Assessment Average agency score Completion of Supervisory Direction Average agency score Maltreatments Average agency score Investigative Summary Average agency score Safety Decision Average agency score 8.14 Removal 20. Reasonable Efforts Average agency score Psychotherapeutic Medication Average agency score Placement Priority Average agency score Home Study Average agency score 8.69 Final Score:

17 Broward County Sheriff s Office Broward site visit conducted: August 31- September 2, 2010 Reviewers: Joseph Paduano, Broward Sheriff s Office Jay Saucer, Seminole Sheriff s Office Richard Patterson, Citrus Sheriff s Office Kathleen Mathews, Hillsborough Sheriff s Office Katie Favara, Pinellas Sheriff s Office Mark Holsapfel, DCF Southeast Region Quality Assurance Sharon Mitchell, DCF Southeast Region Quality Assurance Core components of questions within the QA tool were listed under the following titled categories. Additionally, the overall average score at that site is listed to the right. Initial Response 1. Background Checks Average agency score Victim Contact Average agency score Contact with other Children Average agency score Interviews with Victims and Children Average agency score Observations of all Victims and Children Average agency score Interviews with Adult Subjects & Household Members Average agency score Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Average agency score Relevant Collateral Contacts Average agency score Contact with Reporter Average agency score Communication Between the Investigator & Case Manager Average agency score Child Protection Team Average agency score Children s Legal Services Staffing Average agency score Safety Assessment Submission Average agency score Supervisor Review of Safety Assessment Average agency score Second Party Review of Safety Assessment Average agency score Completion of Supervisory Direction Average agency score Maltreatments Average agency score Investigative Summary Average agency score Safety Decision Average agency score 8.69 Removal 20. Reasonable Efforts Average agency score Psychotherapeutic Medication Average agency score Placement Priority Average agency score Home Study Average agency score 8.87 Final Score:

18 Citrus County Sheriff s Office Citrus site visit conducted: October 27-29, 2010 Reviewers: Joseph Paduano, Broward Sheriff s Office Jay Saucer, Seminole Sheriff s Office Joyce Edick, Manatee Sheriff s Office Kathleen Mathews, Hillsborough Sheriff s Office Dana Levy, Pasco Sheriff s Office Katie Favara, Pinellas Sheriff s Office Yolanda Ellison, DCF Central Region Quality Assurance Lance Morgan, DCF Central Region Quality Assurance Core components of questions within the QA tool were listed under the following titled categories. Additionally, the overall average score at that site is listed to the right. Initial Response 1. Background Checks Average agency score Victim Contact Average agency score Contact with other Children Average agency score Interviews with Victims and Children Average agency score Observations of all Victims and Children Average agency score Interviews with Adult Subjects & Household Members Average agency score Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Average agency score Relevant Collateral Contacts Average agency score Contact with Reporter Average agency score Communication Between the Investigator & Case Manager Average agency score Child Protection Team Average agency score Children s Legal Services Staffing Average agency score Safety Assessment Submission Average agency score Supervisor Review of Safety Assessment Average agency score Second Party Review of Safety Assessment Average agency score Completion of Supervisory Direction Average agency score Maltreatments Average agency score Investigative Summary Average agency score Safety Decision Average agency score 9.00 Removal 20. Reasonable Efforts Average agency score Psychotherapeutic Medication Average agency score Placement Priority Average agency score Home Study Average agency score 8.66 Final Score:

19 Hillsborough County Sheriff s Office Hillsborough site visit conducted: November 16-18, 2010 Reviewers: Joseph Paduano, Broward Sheriff s Office Jay Saucer, Seminole Sheriff s Office Richard Patterson, Citrus Sheriff s Office Joyce Edick, Manatee Sheriff s Office Dana Levy, Pasco Sheriff s Office Cindy Harrell, Citrus Sheriff s Office Katie Favara, Pinellas Sheriff s Office Beth Pasek, DCF Suncoast Region Quality Assurance Lisa Rivera, DCF Suncoast Region Quality Assurance Core components of questions within the QA tool were listed under the following titled categories. Additionally, the overall average score at that site is listed to the right. Initial Response 1. Background Checks Average agency score Victim Contact Average agency score Contact with other Children Average agency score Interviews with Victims and Children Average agency score Observations of all Victims and Children Average agency score Interviews with Adult Subjects & Household Members Average agency score Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Average agency score Relevant Collateral Contacts Average agency score Contact with Reporter Average agency score Communication Between the Investigator & Case Manager Average agency score Child Protection Team Average agency score Children s Legal Services Staffing Average agency score Safety Assessment Submission Average agency score Supervisor Review of Safety Assessment Average agency score Second Party Review of Safety Assessment Average agency score Completion of Supervisory Direction Average agency score Maltreatments Average agency score Investigative Summary Average agency score Safety Decision Average agency score 8.34 Removal 20. Reasonable Efforts Average agency score Psychotherapeutic Medication Average agency score Placement Priority Average agency score Home Study Average agency score 8.50 Final Score:

20 Pinellas County Sheriff s Office Pinellas site visit conducted: September 14-16, 2010 Reviewers: Joseph Paduano, Broward Sheriff s Office Jay Saucer, Seminole Sheriff s Office Richard Patterson, Citrus Sheriff s Office Kathleen Mathews, Hillsborough Sheriff s Office Dana Levy, Pasco Sheriff s Office Joyce Edick, Manatee Sheriff s Office Shawn Creney, DCF Suncoast Region Quality Assurance Selga Sakss, DCF Suncoast Region Quality Assurance Core components of questions within the QA tool were listed under the following titled categories. Additionally, the overall average score at that site is listed to the right. Initial Response 1. Background Checks Average agency score Victim Contact Average agency score Contact with other Children Average agency score Interviews with Victims and Children Average agency score Observations of all Victims and Children Average agency score Interviews with Adult Subjects & Household Members Average agency score Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Average agency score Relevant Collateral Contacts Average agency score Contact with Reporter Average agency score Communication Between the Investigator & Case Manager Average agency score Child Protection Team Average agency score Children s Legal Services Staffing Average agency score Safety Assessment Submission Average agency score Supervisor Review of Safety Assessment Average agency score Second Party Review of Safety Assessment Average agency score Completion of Supervisory Direction Average agency score Maltreatments Average agency score Investigative Summary Average agency score Safety Decision Average agency score 9.00 Removal 20. Reasonable Efforts Average agency score Psychotherapeutic Medication Average agency score Placement Priority Average agency score Home Study Average agency score 8.17 Final Score:

21 Seminole County Sheriff s Office Seminole site visit conducted: September 28-30, 2010 Reviewers: Joseph Paduano, Broward Sheriff s Office Joyce Edick, Manatee Sheriff s Office Richard Patterson, Citrus Sheriff s Office Kathleen Mathews, Hillsborough Sheriff s Office Dana Levy, Pasco Sheriff s Office Katie Favara, Pinellas Sheriff s Office Teresa Vella, DCF Central Region Quality Assurance Renee Gill, DCF Central Region Quality Assurance Core components of questions within the QA tool were listed under the following titled categories. Additionally, the overall average score at that site is listed to the right. Initial Response 1. Background Checks Average agency score Victim Contact Average agency score Contact with other Children Average agency score Interviews with Victims and Children Average agency score Observations of all Victims and Children Average agency score Interviews with Adult Subjects & Household Members Average agency score Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Average agency score Relevant Collateral Contacts Average agency score Contact with Reporter Average agency score Communication Between the Investigator & Case Manager Average agency score Child Protection Team Average agency score Children s Legal Services Staffing Average agency score Safety Assessment Submission Average agency score Supervisor Review of Safety Assessment Average agency score Second Party Review of Safety Assessment Average agency score Completion of Supervisory Direction Average agency score Maltreatments Average agency score Investigative Summary Average agency score Safety Decision Average agency score 9.00 Removal 20. Reasonable Efforts Average agency score Psychotherapeutic Medication Average agency score Placement Priority Average agency score Home Study Average agency score 8.41 Final Score:

22 Outcome Measures Attainment The performance measures used to determine outcome performance attainment for the Sheriffs are based on those measures listed within the Sheriffs Grant Agreements. Data came from the Florida Safe Families Network (FSFN) management reports generated monthly and are based on closed report information. These three measures with their statutory or agency basis are noted below: I One hundred percent (100%) of investigations commenced within 24 hours This performance measure is captured in FSFN only on reports coded in-home and institutional. The special condition reports and reports closed as duplicate or no-jurisdiction are not applicable to this measure. The performance measure is in the Sheriffs Grant Agreements. Additionally, the performance measure is based foremost on Florida Statutes, and is also referenced in administrative code. Florida Statutes ss (5) in part states, If it appears that the immediate safety or well-being of a child is endangered, that the family may flee or the child will be unavailable for purposes of conducting a child protective investigation, or that the facts otherwise so warrant, the department shall commence an investigation immediately, regardless of the time of day or night. In all other child abuse, abandonment, or neglect cases, a child protective investigation shall be commenced within 24 hours after receipt of the report. II Ninety percent (90%) of investigations completed in 60 days This performance measure is captured only on those reports coded in-home and institutional. The special condition reports and reports closed as duplicate or no-jurisdiction are not applicable to this measure. This performance measure was in the Sheriffs Grant Agreements through the end of FY The performance measure is based on Florida Statutes ss (16) that states, The department shall complete its protective investigation within 60 days after receiving the initial report, unless: (a) There is also an active, concurrent criminal investigation that is continuing beyond the 60-day period and the closure of the protective investigation may compromise successful criminal prosecution of the child abuse or neglect case, in which case the closure date shall coincide with the closure date of the criminal investigation and any resulting legal action. (b) In child death cases, the final report of the medical examiner is necessary for the department to close its investigation and the report has not been received within the 60-day period, in which case the report closure date shall be extended to accommodate the report. (c) A child who is necessary to an 22

23 investigation has been declared missing by the department, a law enforcement agency, or a court, in which case the 60-day period shall be extended until the child has been located or until sufficient information exists to close the investigation despite the unknown location of the child. III One hundred percent (100%) of reports reviewed by supervisors within 72- hours. This performance measure is captured only on those reports coded in-home and institutional. The special condition reports and reports closed as duplicate or no-jurisdiction are not applicable to this measure. This performance measure is also a requirement in the Sheriffs Grant Agreements with DCF. The performance measure is based on Florida Administrative Code 65C (6)(b) - which states, Supervisors must review all child protective assessments and assure that safety plans are in place when needed, and that the plan appropriately addresses the identified safety threats. The review shall be completed within seventy-two hours from the time the automated assessment tool is submitted to the supervisor for review. Fiscal Year Outcomes for Commencements of Reports within 24 hours This performance outcome is significant as Florida Statutes require the Department to be capable of receiving and investigating reports of known or suspected child abuse, abandonment, or neglect, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In FY , child protective investigators handled 188,632 initial and additional reports as well as special condition referrals. All of these required an initial 24-hour or immediate response. FSFN reports exclude special conditions referrals from this tracking. This excludes: child-on-child sexual abuse referrals, foster care referrals, parent unavailable referrals, and parent in need of assistance referrals. Statewide, these special condition referrals comprised approximately 16% of all intakes accepted and handled in FY This is a significant increase from FY , when special conditions referrals totaled only 6% of the workload. The increase in special condition reports was due to a change in practice where prevention referrals previously not tracked in the computer system were, by policy, deemed to be taken as special conditions referrals during the fiscal year. If it appears that the immediate safety or well-being of a child is endangered, that the family may flee, or the child will be unavailable for purposes of conducting a child protective investigation, or that the facts otherwise so warrant, the department is required to commence an investigation immediately. In all other child abuse, abandonment, or neglect cases, a child protective investigation is to be commenced within 24 hours after report is received. 23

24 The abuse report commencement outcomes are based on the final closed record data from the monthly FSFN Leaderboard reports.. Fiscal Year 09-10: Percentage of Investigations Commenced within 24 Hours Sheriff / District Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 District District District District District District District District District District District District Suncoast District DCF Average Broward Sheriff Citrus Sheriff Hillsborough Sheriff Manatee Sheriff Pasco Sheriff Pinellas Sheriff Seminole Sheriff Sheriff Average DCF Average Sheriff Average State Average Fiscal Year For Fiscal Year , the Sheriff s Offices averaged 99.41% - an improvement over FY (99.37%) on commencements within 24 hours. The average for DCF districts was 99.48%, also an improvement over FY (99.23%). The statewide average for FY was 99.46%. 24