Issues noted in the final report:

One of the three cases reviewed was not assessed within the five days allowed for Family Assessments under state statute, following intake acceptance. It is important to note that the social worker involved with this case is no longer employed by KCSS.

Issues noted in the final report:

In the case rated as Area Needing Improvement, the agency provided services to target risks to some, but not all, of the children in the family. The primary issue initially identified in this case was the condition of the family home and the mother’s parenting skills. One child entered foster care due to unclear custody status and the presumed father being out of the home. There were two other children who remained in the home for whom services were not initiated until the third child was reunified with the family. At that time, in-home services were initiated to address parenting.

Issues noted in the final report:

In the one case noted as needing improvement, the child had been in four different placement settings during the period under review. The child moved from a residential treatment setting to a non-relative foster home. After 11 months, this long-term foster care placement was disrupted unexpectedly due to the child’s behavior. The child was placed in detention, and later in another residential treatment setting.

Issues noted in the final report:

In the case rated as Area Needing Improvement, a goal of reunification was in effect for 24 months, but the parent was non-compliant with court orders and case plans, and there was no indication that the goal would be achieved. During the period under review, the goal was changed to long-term foster care, and an exception to the Adoption and Safe Families Act requirements was noted by the court. While the current goal is appropriate and based on the needs and circumstances of the child, the previous goal was in place for a considerable period of time with strong indications that it was unlikely to be achieved.

Issues noted in the final report:

In both cases the agency made concerted efforts to facilitate visits between children and their fathers. In one of those cases, the agency made extensive efforts which included arranging and facilitating visitation while the father was in jail, and transporting the young child to see the father in a treatment facility four hours from the county. The frequency of visitation ranged from weekly to bi-weekly which was necessary to facilitate the goal of reunification. In the same case, visits did not occur between the child and mother, but the agency made multiple attempts to contact the mother who was last known to reside out of state. In the other case, the agency developed a plan for visitation between the child and their father. Visits moved from unsupervised to supervised, due to their negative impact on the child’s behavior and functioning.

In the case noted as needing improvement, additional agency efforts were warranted to locate the child’s mother to offer and facilitate visitation. The agency became aware of the mother’s location, and was considering initiating contact with her to determine the appropriateness of future visitation.

Issues noted in the final report:

In the case rated a Strength, the agency actively supported the child’s connections, through therapeutic, supportive and educational services. The child was placed in a home with foster parents that had known the child’s family for an extended period of time and the child was able to continue in the same school setting.

In the case noted as needing improvement, the agency learned early on that the child was an American Indian and promptly sent notification to the child’s tribe, Leech Lake. Leech Lake tribal social services was kept informed of the status of the child, participated in Family Group Decision Making and approved of the location of the child’s placement. The issue that resulted in the rating of Area Needing improvement was that, further into the case, the agency learned that there may have been other tribes that the child was affiliated with (the child’s father was reportedly Cherokee). There was no indication that the agency made attempts to contact a tribe or determine the child’s eligibility for membership in a Cherokee tribe.

Issues noted in the final report:

In the case noted as needing improvement, a thorough and timely search of paternal relatives was conducted and paternal relatives participated in the Family Group Decision Making sessions that were held. The case was rated as Area Needing Improvement because a search of maternal relatives was not conducted.

Issues noted in the final report:

In both cases reviewed, the agency made extensive efforts to promote and maintain the children’s relationship with their fathers. Frequent visitation was noted as key in preserving those relationships and, in addition, fathers participated in educational meetings and after-school activities of the children. in one case, the agency had made reasonable efforts to contact the child’s mother, and those efforts were unsuccessful.

In the case rated as Area Needing Improvement, there was a need to further evaluate the child’s relationship with his/her mother. Information gained from case related interviews indicated that the child desired a relationship with their mother.

Issues noted in the final report:

In both in-home cases reviewed, the needs of children, mothers, and fathers were fully assess, and identified needs were addressed through the provision of appropriate services. In both of the placement cases reviewed, the agency conducted a thorough assessment of the children’s and father’s needs.

Both of the cases rated as Area Needing Improvement were placement cases. In one of those cases, the needs of the non-custodial mother were not fully assessed, including an assessment of her ability to care for the child when the child was removed form the father’s home. in the other case, foster parents’ needs were not adequately assessed. In this case, case interviews indicated that there were limited discussions with the foster parents about the needs/plans for the child and the foster parents did not receive copies of case plans.

Issues noted in the final report:

Reviewers noted that, in some cases, the caseworker engaged appropriate family members in the development of the case plan through meetings. Family members were involved in the identification of family strengths and needs, as well as discussions of service options.

Cases were rated as Area Needing Improvement for two reasons- in two cases all appropriate family members were not engaged in the development of the case plans; and there were not current, written case plans in any of the cases reviewed.

Issues noted in the final report:

Face-to-face visits between the agency caseworker and children ranged from weekly to less than monthly in the cases reviewed. In all of the cases rated as Strength, the worker had at least monthly face-to-face visits with children, or had attempted to have at least monthly contact. Worker visits were supplemented by phone contacts and other service providers’ contact with families. Examples of the frequency of worker visits increasing or decreasing to meet the needs of children were noted. in all of the cases reviewed, visits were substantive and focused on pertinent issues. Information gathered during case related interviews indicated that the case worker had developed positive working relationships with e children and children were comfortable contacting the worker.

In the case noted as needing improvement, there had been a significant period of time between face-to-face visits, and the frequency of visits was not consistent with the needs of the child.

Issues noted in the final report:

In most cases, the agency caseworker had a sufficient level of contact with children’s parents. In two cases in which parents were resistant to worker contacts, the caseworker continued to make consistent and repeated attempts at contact. In the majority of cases, visits that did occur were substantive and parents reported during interviews that they had developed a positive working relationship with the caseworker.

In the case rated as Area Needing Improvement, additional efforts to contact a child’s non-custodial mother were warranted in order to assess her capacity to be involved.

Issues noted in the final report:

In two cases children received formal mental health assessments; one through residential treatment, and the other in an outpatient setting. Ongoing mental health needs were adequately addressed through the provision of both in and outpatient services. In another case, the agency had made a referral for mental health services and had offered the family assistance in accessing those services.

In all three cases rated as Area Needing Improvement, required children’s mental health screenings were not completed for all eligible children in the family. Completion of children’s mental screenings would aid in the early identification of potential mental health issues.